Task coordination in global virtual teams

TASK COORDINATION IN GLOBAL VIRTUAL TEAMS JULIANA SUTANTO (B.COMP. (HONS), NUS) A THESIS SUBMITTED FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE Acknowledgements This thesis has been made possible thanks to the assistance and support of a number of individuals, for which I would like to express my appreciation. I thank my supervisors Assist. Prof. Atreyi Kankanhalli and Prof. Bernard C.Y. Tan for their advice and guidance throughout the duration of this thesis. Atreyi has always been accessible for discussions and for providing advice and mentoring anytime I needed it. Bernard has been an invaluable source of inspiration and support throughout the study. The combination of their support and guidance has been instrumental for this thesis. I look forward to working with them in the future. Faculty members at the National University of Singapore and from external universities have contributed to the success of this study. From the annual IS workshops in which I have participated, I received many interesting and useful suggestions for carrying out this research from both the faculty members at the National University of Singapore as well as the visiting professors. Several doctoral students gave me valuable comments when a part of this thesis was discussed at the PACIS 2006 and ICIS 2007 doctoral consortiums. The anonymous editors and reviewers of journals and conferences offered directions to upgrade the quality of this research. I thank my friends and colleagues for their assistance during this study. In particular, I thank Mr. Phang Chee Wei and Mr. Tan Chuan Hoo for motivating me and for always being around to support me. They have been a source of support during my PhD. ii study. I would also like to thank my friends who helped me in contacting the companies for my research. Without them, I would not be able to complete this thesis. I am very thankful to my family for their encouragements during the many years that I spent working on this thesis. I thank my husband, Fadly for his constant support, valuable advice, and great patience when I would scold him to vent out my frustration. I thank my mother for her constant prayers for my academic career. I thank my whole family for their encouragement and forbearance during my study. Last, but not least, I thank God for his great mercy and blessings. Without His wonderful blessings, I would not be what I am today. Without His generous help, I would not be able to complete this thesis. Thank you God, thank you Jesus Christ, and thank you dearest Mother Mary for the strength and wisdom that You gave me to pull through all the obstacles to complete this thesis. iii Table of Contents ESSAY 1 Introduction 1.1 Research Motivation 1.2 Research Questions 1.3 Potential Contributions Conceptual Background 2.1 Task Interdependence 2.2 Classifying Task Coordination Mechanisms into Task Coordination Modes .8 2.3 Matching Task Interdependence and Task Coordination Portfolios in Collocated Teams .12 Research Methodology 14 3.1 Team Background 14 3.2 Data Collection 18 3.3 Data Analysis .19 Findings… .23 4.1 Findings in Team A .23 4.2 Findings in Team B 28 4.3 Findings in Team C 32 Discussions of the Findings .37 5.1 The Effect of Perceived Time Constraint on Group Task Coordination Modes .37 5.2 The Opposing Effects of Member Dispersion on Group Task Coordination Mode 40 5.3 Matching GVT Contingencies to GVT Task Coordination Portfolio 42 Contributions and Implications 51 6.1 Contributions to Research 51 6.2 Implications for Practitioners .54 Conclusion 56 ESSAY Introduction 57 1.1 Research Motivation 57 1.2 Research Questions 59 1.3 Potential Contributions 60 Conceptual Background 62 2.1 Task Coordination Modes and Communication Complexities 62 2.2 IT-mediated Task Coordination Modes .64 2.3 Ideal Profiles of GVT Task Coordination 68 iv Research Model 76 3.1 Defining Fit 76 3.2 Research Hypotheses .77 Research Methodology 80 4.1 Survey Instrument Development .83 4.1.1 Operationalization of the Main Variables 83 4.1.2 Operationalization of the Control Variables 89 4.1.3 Conceptual Validation 93 4.2 Pilot Study 96 4.3 Field Study Description .99 Data Analysis and Findings 101 5.1 Instrument Validation 101 5.2 Interrater Agreement 103 5.3 Hypotheses Testing 103 Discussions of the Findings .111 Contributions and Implications 114 7.1 Contributions to Research 115 7.2 Implications for Practitioners .118 Conclusion 123 Summary…… .124 Appendix A – Summaries of Previous Studies 146 Appendix B – Operationalization of the Variables .150 Appendix C – Modified Operationalizations of Team Efficiency and Effectiveness Variables 155 Appendix D – Power Analysis .156 Appendix E – Interrater Agreements of Common Variables 157 Appendix F – Cluster Center Values .160 v Abstract Global virtual teams (GVT) are known to afford benefits to organizations such as reduced costs and improved performance by utilizing expertise from around the globe. The potential benefits have provided an impetus for the adoption of GVT work structures in organizations. However, realization of the benefits is contingent on GVT’s ability to coordinate their tasks effectively. This dissertation documents a qualitative exploratory study (essay 1) and a quantitative explanatory study (essay 2) of GVT task coordination. This dissertation examines how to design effective GVT task coordination, proposes optimal GVT task coordination designs, and tests the impact of the proposed designs on GVT work performance. Essay – Designing Task Coordination Portfolios in GVT Unlike collocated teams working in a common context, GVT have added task coordination challenges that can range from more obvious differences in members’ time zones and working hours, to less controllable differences in members’ IT infrastructure. Thus there is a need to align GVT work structure and GVT task coordination design. Through an in-depth study of 13 tasks in three GVTs, this first essay seeks to address how to design effective GVT task coordination. We observe that by designing a set of task coordination mechanisms (i.e., task coordination portfolio) that fits the team’s contingencies in the form of task interdependence, members’ dispersion, and perceived time constraint, GVT’s task coordination is likely to be effective. vi Essay – Task Coordination in GVT: An Empirical Study in the Context of Software Development GVT are proliferating in today’s work environment, and are particularly popular in software development where over half of the Fortune 500 firms actively engage in global software development practices. While globally dispersed software development teams offer advantages of time zone and labor-cost differences to slash software development costs, poor task coordination has been shown to lead to substantial loss of software development speed as well as erase much of the cost savings. In this second essay, we first extend the concept of optimal task coordination portfolios introduced in the first essay to optimal IT-mediated task coordination portfolios. By theoretically matching GVT contingencies (i.e., task interdependence, members’ dispersion, and perceived time constraint) to IT-mediated task coordination portfolios, we propose six ideal profiles of GVT task coordination. These profiles are then statistically validated by surveying 112 globally dispersed software development teams. The results support the hypothesized positive relationship between the ideal profiles of GVT task coordination and task coordination effectiveness, which in turn leads to better GVT performance. vii List of Tables ESSAY Table 1. Examples of Task Coordination Mechanisms .10 Table 2. Team Characteristics 15 Table 3. Data Sources 18 Table 4. Cross-Case Findings 38 Table 5. Proposed GVT contingency—Task Coordination Portfolio Fit 42 ESSAY Table 1. Proposed Ideal Profiles of GVT Task Coordination 70 Table 2. Some of the Well-Known Software Development Lifecycle Models .82 Table 3. Unstructured Sorting Results .95 Table 4. Structured Sorting Results .96 Table 5. Results of Factor Analysis and Reliability Check .98 Table 6. Descriptive Statistics 100 Table 7. Results of Factor Analysis and Reliability Check .102 Table 8. Descriptive Statistics 104 Table 9. Normality Tests 106 Table 10. Correlation Matrix of the Independent and Control Variables 106 APPENDIX Table A.1. Summary of Explicit Coordination Studies in Collocated Teams .146 Table A.2. Summary of Implicit Coordination Studies in Collocated Teams .147 Table A.3. Summary of Explicit Coordination Studies in Distributed Teams 148 Table A.4. Summary of Implicit Coordination Studies in Distributed Teams 149 Table B.1. Operationalization of IT-mediated Task Coordination Portfolio .150 Table B.2. Operationalization of Task Interdependence .151 Table B.3. Operationalization of Member Dispersion .151 Table B.4. Operationalization of Time Constraint .151 Table B.5. Operationalization of Task Coordination Effectiveness 152 Table B.6. Operationalization of Team Efficiency 152 Table B.7. Operationalization of Team Effectiveness .152 Table B.8. Operationalization of Team Size 153 Table B.9. Operationalization of Task Novelty .153 Table B.10. Operationalization of Task Analyzability 153 Table B.11. Operationalization of Task Variability .154 Table B.12. Operationalization of IT Accessibility .154 Table C.1. Modified Operationalization of Team Efficiency 155 Table C.2. Modified Operationalization of Team Effectiveness .155 Table D.1. Power Analysis Result .156 Table E.1. Interrater Agreements for Common Variables .159 Table F.1. Cluster Center Values .160 viii List of Figures ESSAY Figure 1. Typology of Task Interdependence Figure 2. Task Interdependence-Task Coordination Portfolio Fit in Collocated Teams 13 ESSAY Figure 1. Communication Complexities of Different Task Coordination Modes .64 Figure 2. Research Model 76 Figure 3. Hypotheses Testing Results using Summated Scales .107 Figure 4. Hypotheses Testing Results using Factor Score Scales .108 Figure 5. Hypotheses Testing Results in Requirement Analysis and Design Phases 110 Figure 6. Hypotheses Testing Results in Coding and Testing Phases .110 ix Essay Designing Task Coordination Portfolios in Global Virtual Teams Introduction 1.1 Research Motivation Global virtual teams (GVT) refer to groups of people with a common purpose, who carry out interdependent tasks across countries and sometimes across organizational boundaries, using information and communication technology (ICT) to communicate much more than face-to-face meetings (Cramton 2001, Maznevski and Chudoba 2000). GVT offer a multitude of benefits to organizations (Dube and Pare 2004, Powell et al. 2004). Among them, GVT allow organizations to swiftly respond to customer needs and utilize expertise from around the globe to effectively perform organizational tasks. GVT deployment can lead to cost savings, higher productivity, and improved organizational performance (Ahuja et al. 2004). However, GVT entail certain challenges that are less evident in collocated teams. Particularly, task coordination has been observed as a key concern in GVT. Task coordination is the management of task interdependencies across geographically dispersed members. For example, Carmel (2006) noted that task coordination hurdles across time zones negated some of the cost savings possible via GVT. Studies comparing collocated and distributed teams, observed greater task coordination hurdles (Hinds and Mortensen 2002) and poorer coordination outcomes (Cummings Walsh, J.P., G.R. Ungson. 1991. Organizational Memory. Academy of Management Review 16(1) 57-91. Warkentin, M.E., L. Sayeed, R. Hightower. 1997. Virtual Teams vs Face-to-Face Teams: An Exploratory Study of a Web-Based Conference System. Decision Sciences 28(4) 975-996. Weisband, S. 2002. Maintaining awareness in distributed team collaboration: Implications for leadership and performance. P.J. Hinds, S. Kiesler, eds. Distributed Work. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 311–333. Yin R.K. 1994. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage, Newbury Park. 145 Appendix A – Summaries of Previous Studies Author(s) Methods Related Findings Adler (1995) Qualitatively study Printed Circuit Boards (PCB) projects ̇ Increasing task novelty requires use of more interactive task coordination mechanisms Andres and Zmud (2001/2002) Qualitatively study a laboratory experiment ̇ As tasks become more interdependent, the greater (lesser) the effect of informal, cooperative (formal, controlling) coordination strategy on productivity Curtis et al. (1988) Qualitatively study large software development projects ̇ Interaction is needed to forge a common understanding of requirements or design among project members Gresov (1989) Quantitatively study work units in employment-security offices ̇ The main coordination mechanisms for work units with low task uncertainty and low task interdependence are standardization and supervisory discretion ̇ The main coordination mechanisms for work units with high task uncertainty and high task interdependence are employee discretion, personnel specialization, workflow interdependence, vertical communication and horizontal communication Kraut and Streeter (1995) Quantitatively study software development projects ̇ Formal mechanisms are valuable when the projects are large ̇ There are more extensive interpersonal network in highly intergroup interdependence projects Nidumolu (1995) Quantitatively study software development projects ̇ Vertical coordination increases project performance indirectly by decreasing residual performance risk and its drivers ̇ Horizontal coordination directly increases project performance by improving the quality of the user-IS interactions and the flexibility of the developed software Thompson (1967) Conceptual ̇ With pooled interdependence, coordination by standardization is appropriate ̇ With sequential interdependence, coordination by plan is appropriate ̇ With reciprocal interdependence, coordination by mutual adjustment is called upon Van den Ven et al. (1976) Quantitatively study stable and established work units within a large employment security agency ̇ As task uncertainty increases from low to high, horizontal channels and team meetings increasingly replace rules and plans ̇ From pooled to team interdependence, there are significant increases in group coordination. Table A.1. Summary of Explicit Coordination Studies in Collocated Teams 146 Author(s) Methods Related Findings Boh et al. (2007b) Quantitatively study software modification requests ̇ The greater the level of group members’ shared experience from prior work with one another, the better their current teamwork Gittell (2002) Qualitatively study care provider groups ̇ Task coordination does not occur in a relational vacuum; rather it is carried out through a web of relationships Lewis (2004) Quantitatively study MBA consulting teams ̇ Teams with distributed knowledge can better able to develop a transactive memory system. This effect is even stronger when members have prior familiarity with one another. Reagans et al. (2005) Quantitatively study two archives ̇ An increase in cumulative experience working together promotes more effective coordination and teamwork Ren et al. (2006) Quantitatively study simulated laboratory experiment ̇ Transactive memory improves decision quality by informing task coordination and evaluation Waller et al. (2004) Quantitatively study nuclear power plant control room crews ̇ During routine situations, higher performing teams not engage in significantly less shared mental model development than lower-performing teams ̇ During non-routine situations, higher performing teams engage in more shared mental model development than lower-performing teams ̇ Face-to-face communication and less attention to time are important for shared mental model development Table A.2. Summary of Implicit Coordination Studies in Collocated Teams Author(s) Methods Context Related Findings Bordetsky and Mark (2000) Qualitatively study a team located on different floors of the same building and met face-toface occasionally Virtual teams ̇ Feedback can help collaborating partners develop a common ground for their works Cummings and Kiesler (2003) Quantitatively study geographically dispersed research project teams GVT Herbsleb and Grinter (1999) Qualitatively study geographically distributed projects in Lucent; focusing on software integration ̇ Coordination mechanisms that brought researchers together physically somewhat reduced the negative impact of dispersion ̇ Software design, integration plans and routines are not enough. Developers also heavily rely on informal, ad hoc communication as a critical means of coordination Hinds and McGrath Quantitatively study collocated and distributed ̇ Having relatively more cross-site communication is associated with more 147 (2006) teams (i.e., members are in Europe and U.S.) Kumar et al. (2005) Conceptual ̇ Strategies to reduce the intensity of collaboration/ coordination are: o Sequentialize teamwork to change the temporal work order; or o Use representations and mediating artifacts, such as simulation and CAD; or o Modularize work division and integration to loosen the coupling of work ̇ Strategies to enable intense collaboration/ coordination are: o Real time remote interaction o Boundary spanning (relies on people as representatives between sites) Massey et al. (2003) Qualitatively study student GVT ̇ Successful enactment of scheduling and synchronization leads to higher performance MontoyaWeiss et al. (2001) Quantitatively study dispersed teams located in the U.S. and Japan ̇ The presence of a temporal coordination mechanism (i.e., scheduled deadlines) significantly weakens the negative effect of avoidance and compromise conflict management behaviors on performance Prikladnicki et al. (2004) Qualitatively study global software development units ̇ Standardization is adopted when the distributed teams are not using the same software development process Sharma and Krishna (2003) Qualitatively study global software development processes in Wista, a U.S. based company that has a center in Bangalore, India ̇ With the facilitation of intense discussion throughout the software development cycle and with the help of shared repository that increased transparency of operations, Wista was able to release the software with a delay of just one week (as compared to previous version of the software that suffer a delay of one year) ̇ Coding is the only task that does not exhibit intense discussion. Requirements and designs plans, that are stored in shared repository, coordinated the coding task. Warkentin et al. (1997) Quantitatively compare student face-to-face teams and GVT ̇ GVT periodically need to schedule face-to-face meetings coordination problems Table A.3. Summary of Explicit Coordination Studies in Distributed Teams 148 Author(s) Methods Context GVT Related Findings ̇ Shared task knowledge does not provide incremental benefits for small technical teams Espinosa et al. (2002) Qualitatively study software teams in a large international telecommunication company Espinosa et al. (2007a) Qualitatively study a large software development team whose members are located in England and Germany ̇ Shared team knowledge and presence awareness (task knowledge) is more (less) important for coordination with geographically distributed members than with collocated members Espinosa et al. (2007b) Study archive of software modification request projects whose developers are in either one or two locations (i.e., U.S. and U.K.) ̇ Task and team familiarity have a positive effect on performance ̇ The effect of team familiarity on team performance is enhanced when task coordination complexity is higher ̇ The effects of task and team familiarity are more substitutive than complementary Faraj and Sproull (2000) Quantitatively study software development teams ̇ Expertise coordination shows a strong relationship with team performance Hinds and McGrath (2006) Quantitatively study collocated and distributed teams (i.e., members are in Europe and U.S.) ̇ There is no evidence that cross-site social ties or dense social ties facilitate better coordination in distributed teams Kanawattana chai and Yoo (2007) Quantitatively study distributed teams of MBA students ̇ Although taking a relatively long time to develop, transactive memory system is essential to performing tasks effectively in virtual teams Table A.4. Summary of Implicit Coordination Studies in Distributed Teams 149 Appendix B – Operationalization of the Variables Item Code Item Wording Source (0-not at all, 1-to a very little extent, 5-to a great extent) To what extent did team members coordinate the task in The Phase with: TCPF1 Predetermined standards/policies/plans/ Self developed based on Van de schedules stored in repository? Ven et al. (1976) TCPF2 Communication with project manager/leader Self developed based on Van de using asynchronous communication Ven et al. (1976) technology (e.g. email)? TCPF3 Communication with project manager/leader using synchronous communication technology (e.g. telephone)? TCPF4 Contacting another member who is likely to Self developed based on Van de have the desired info using asynchronous Ven et al. (1976) communication technology (e.g. email)? TCPF5 Contacting another member who is likely to have the desired info using synchronous communication technology (e.g. telephone)? Self developed based on Van de Ven et al. (1976) TCPF6 Team meetings Self developed based on Van de Ven et al. (1976) TCPF7 Team meetings with meeting agenda and meeting logistics (e.g. technical support) prepared beforehand Self developed based on Van de Ven et al. (1976) Self developed based on Van de Ven et al. (1976) Table B.1. Operationalization of IT-mediated Task Coordination Portfolio Item Code Item Wording Source (0-not at all, 1-to a very little extent, 5-to a great extent) Each successive pattern of interdependence will be weighted more heavily (pooled = 1, sequential = 2, reciprocal = 3, team = 4), resulting in a greater level of overall interdependence (Doty et al. 1993). To what extent did members in The Phase: TIND1 Have one-person jobs, i.e. each member Self developed based on independently accomplished their own Campion et al (1993), Mohr assigned jobs (1971), Van de Ven et al. (1976) TIND2 Have jobs related to one another in a Self developed based on sequential direction, i.e. one started after the Campion et al (1993), Mohr (1971), Van de Ven et al. other finished (1976) TIND3 Have jobs related to one another in a Self developed based on reciprocal manner, i.e. passed the work back Campion et al (1993), Mohr 150 and forth TIND4 (1971), Van de Ven et al. (1976) Have jobs that required ALL members to Self developed based on meet and discuss together to deal with the Campion et al (1993), Mohr task (1971), Van de Ven et al. (1976) Table B.2. Operationalization of Task Interdependence Item Code Item Wording Source We calculate members’ dispersion with O’Leary and Cummings’ (2007) formula. MDIS1 How many people were working on The Self developed Phase? MDIS Please indicate the locations of each team Self developed member in The Phase MDIS From what time to what time is your official Self developed working hours? MDIS4 Did you adjust your working hours during Self developed your work in The Phase? Table B.3. Operationalization of Member Dispersion Item Code Item Wording Source (1-very strongly disagree, 7-very strongly agree) TCON1 The time available to complete The Phase Self developed based on Kraut was insufficient and Streeter (1995) TCON We had too much work to in The Phase in Self developed based on Kraut too little time and Streeter (1995) TCON We did not have enough time to complete The Phase Self developed based on Kraut and Streeter (1995) Table B.4. Operationalization of Time Constraint Item Code Item Wording Source (1-very strongly disagree, 7-very strongly agree) TCEF1 There was no duplicate work in The Phase Self developed based on Kraut and Streeter (1995), Hoegl et al. (2004), Haywood (1998) TCEF2 No two people did the same piece of work Self developed based on Kraut unnecessarily and Streeter (1995), Hoegl et al. (2004), Haywood (1998) TCEF3 There was no redundant work in The Phase Self developed based on Kraut and Streeter (1995), Hoegl et al. 151 (2004), Haywood (1998) TCEF4 Throughout The Phase, we knew what others Self developed based on Kraut were supposed to and Streeter (1995), Hoegl et al. (2004), Haywood (1998) TCEF5 Throughout The Phase, we knew what others Self developed based on Kraut were working on and Streeter (1995), Hoegl et al. (2004), Haywood (1998) TCEF6 Throughout The Phase, we knew each other’s Self developed based on Kraut roles and responsibilities and Streeter (1995), Hoegl et al. (2004), Haywood (1998) Table B.5. Operationalization of Task Coordination Effectiveness Item Code Item Wording Source (1-extremely low, 7-extremely high) In relation to other similar size/complexity projects that you have been involved in, how did the team’s performance for The Phase rate on each of the following? EFFI1 The efficiency of the team operations Self developed based on Henderson and Lee (1992) EFFI2 The team’s adherence to schedules Self developed based on Henderson and Lee (1992) EFFI3 The team’s adherence to budget Self developed based on Henderson and Lee (1992) Table B.6. Operationalization of Team Efficiency Item Code Item Wording Source (1-extremely low, 7-extremely high) In relation to other similar size/complexity projects that you have been involved in, how did the team’s performance for The Phase rate on each of the following? EFFE1 The quality of work the team produces Self developed based on Henderson and Lee (1992) EFFE2 The quality of the team’s deliverables Self developed based on Henderson and Lee (1992) EFFE3 The team’s ability to meet the goals of The Self developed based on Phase Henderson and Lee (1992) Table B.7. Operationalization of Team Effectiveness 152 Item Code SIZE1 Item Wording Source How many people were working on The Self developed Phase? Table B.8. Operationalization of Team Size Item Code Item Wording Source (1-very strongly disagree, 7-very strongly agree) TNOV1 The technology used in The Phase is new to Self developed based on Adler the team (1995) and Nidumolu (1995) TNOV2 Team members have technology before TNOV3 The application that we developed is new to Self developed based on Adler the team (1995) and Nidumolu (1995) TNOV4 Team members have never developed similar Self developed based on Adler application before (1995) and Nidumolu (1995) never used the Self developed based on Adler (1995) and Nidumolu (1995) Table B.9. Operationalization of Task Novelty Item Code Item Wording Source (0-not at all, 1-to a very little extent, 5-to a great extent) To what extent was there already: TAYL1 A clearly known way to the work in The Self developed based on Adler Phase (1995) and Nidumolu (1995) TAYL2 A clearly defined body of knowledge that can Self developed based on Adler guide the work in The Phase (1995) and Nidumolu (1995) TAYL3 An understandable sequence of steps that can Self developed based on Adler be followed in The Phase (1995) and Nidumolu (1995) TAYL4 Established practices to the work in The Phase Self developed based on Adler (1995) and Nidumolu (1995) Table B.10. Operationalization of Task Analyzability Item Code Item Wording Source (1-very strongly disagree, 7-very strongly agree) The actual work in The Phase: TVAR1 Fluctuated from what was planned Self developed based on Adler (1995) and Nidumolu (1995) TVAR2 Turned out different than planned Self developed based on Adler (1995) and Nidumolu (1995) 153 TVAR3 Varied from what was planned Self developed based on Adler (1995) and Nidumolu (1995) Table B.11. Operationalization of Task Variability Item Code Item Wording Source (1-very strongly disagree, 7-very strongly agree) Overall the coordination technologies used in The Phase: ACES1 were very reliable Culnan (1985), Goodhue and Thompson (1995), Carlson and Davis (1998) ACES2 were up and available all the time Culnan (1985), Goodhue and Thompson (1995), Carlson and Davis (1998) ACES3 had high access speed Culnan (1985), Goodhue and Thompson (1995), Carlson and Davis (1998) Table B.12. Operationalization of IT Accessibility 154 Appendix C – Modified Operationalizations of Team Efficiency and Effectiveness Variables Item Code Item Wording (1-extremely unimportant, 7-extremely important) How important are the following for you? EFFI_IMPT1 The efficiency of the team operations EFFI_IMPT2 The team’s adherence to schedules EFFI_IMPT3 The team’s adherence to budget (1-extremely unsatisfied, 7-extremely satisfied) How satisfied were you with this team’s performance in The Phase on: EFFI_SATF1 The efficiency of the team operations EFFI_SATF2 The team’s adherence to schedules EFFI_SATF3 The team’s adherence to budget Table C.1. Modified Operationalization of Team Efficiency Item Code Item Wording (1-extremely unimportant, 7-extremely important) How important are the following for you? EFFE_IMPT1 The quality of work the team produces EFFE_IMPT2 The quality of the team’s deliverables EFFE_IMPT3 The team’s ability to meet the goals of The Phase (1-extremely unsatisfied, 7-extremely satisfied) How satisfied were you with this team’s performance in The Phase on: EFFE_SATF1 The quality of work the team produces EFFE_SATF2 The quality of the team’s deliverables EFFE_SATF3 The team’s ability to meet the goals of The Phase Table C.2. Modified Operationalization of Team Effectiveness 155 Appendix D – Power Analysis F tests - Multiple Regression: Omnibus (R² deviation from zero) Analysis: A priori: Compute required sample size Input: Output: Effect size f² err prob Power (1- err prob) Number of predictors Noncentrality parameter Critical F Numerator df Denominator df Total sample size Actual power = = = = = = = = = = 0.2 0.05 0.8 16.800000 2.064439 75 84 0.805221 Table D.1. Power Analysis Result 156 Appendix E – Interrater Agreements of Common Variables Team No. TIND TCPF TECH APLI TAYL ACES 0.90 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.87 0.97 0.97 0.98 1.00 0.98 0.90 0.81 0.80 0.99 1.00 0.80 0.97 0.81 0.90 0.99 0.90 0.90 0.97 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.98 1.00 0.97 0.97 0.95 0.98 0.90 0.90 0.98 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.98 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 10 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 11 0.97 0.70 0.80 0.92 1.00 0.95 12 0.90 0.99 0.80 0.90 1.00 0.95 13 0.98 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 14 0.97 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.92 0.95 15 0.87 0.98 0.90 1.00 0.71 0.86 16 0.76 0.89 0.97 1.00 0.97 0.86 17 0.97 0.96 0.76 0.71 0.98 0.99 18 0.90 0.98 0.98 0.80 0.97 1.00 19 0.80 0.95 0.97 0.97 0.92 0.95 20 0.97 1.00 0.98 0.97 0.84 1.00 21 0.76 0.98 0.92 1.00 0.84 0.86 22 0.97 0.70 1.00 0.76 0.92 0.97 23 1.00 0.80 0.71 0.92 0.95 0.99 24 0.84 0.77 0.97 0.97 0.90 0.97 25 0.97 1.00 0.76 0.97 1.00 0.90 26 0.92 0.74 0.80 0.98 0.84 1.00 27 0.71 0.97 1.00 0.80 1.00 0.95 28 0.95 0.95 0.90 0.97 0.97 0.90 29 0.76 0.99 0.98 0.92 1.00 0.95 30 0.97 0.70 0.98 0.98 1.00 0.97 31 1.00 0.70 0.97 0.98 0.92 0.99 157 32 1.00 0.98 0.97 0.97 1.00 0.95 33 0.92 0.74 0.90 0.97 0.92 0.95 34 0.87 0.70 0.98 0.97 0.76 0.92 35 0.95 0.86 0.98 1.00 0.87 0.92 36 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 37 0.76 0.77 0.98 1.00 0.71 0.99 38 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 39 0.92 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.99 40 0.90 0.96 0.92 0.98 0.97 0.99 41 1.00 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.97 1.00 42 0.95 0.95 0.97 0.80 0.95 0.92 43 0.95 0.94 0.98 0.76 0.98 0.81 44 0.76 0.96 0.98 0.76 0.71 1.00 45 0.90 0.90 1.00 0.92 0.97 0.99 46 0.87 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.99 47 0.90 0.97 1.00 0.90 0.92 0.99 48 0.71 0.97 0.90 0.97 1.00 1.00 49 0.87 0.97 1.00 0.97 0.97 0.83 50 0.84 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 51 0.84 0.80 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.97 52 1.00 0.99 0.98 0.97 1.00 1.00 53 0.71 0.82 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 54 0.87 0.98 0.90 1.00 0.97 0.99 55 0.71 0.82 0.98 0.98 0.98 1.00 56 0.71 0.80 0.98 0.97 0.76 0.99 57 1.00 0.95 0.92 0.98 0.76 0.97 58 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.98 0.98 1.00 59 0.90 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 60 0.90 0.99 0.92 0.92 0.76 0.94 61 0.90 0.86 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.90 62 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 63 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 64 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 65 0.95 0.86 1.00 0.80 0.98 1.00 158 66 0.92 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 67 0.95 0.95 0.97 0.80 0.95 0.92 68 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 69 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.00 0.95 70 0.87 0.95 0.97 0.97 0.97 1.00 71 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 72 1.00 0.92 0.97 0.98 0.97 0.97 73 0.98 0.98 0.97 0.92 1.00 1.00 74 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 75 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 76 0.80 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 77 0.80 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 78 0.80 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 79 0.71 0.95 1.00 0.80 0.76 0.97 80 0.92 0.89 0.71 0.90 0.98 0.99 81 0.87 0.89 0.90 0.90 0.97 0.95 82 0.87 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.87 0.72 83 0.90 0.99 1.00 0.97 0.87 0.99 84 0.97 0.82 0.98 0.92 0.97 0.97 85 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.90 0.98 0.99 86 0.76 0.89 1.00 0.97 0.84 0.99 87 0.97 0.94 0.90 0.71 0.97 0.97 88 1.00 0.82 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.83 89 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.97 90 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.90 1.00 0.90 91 0.90 0.94 0.98 0.92 0.95 0.94 92 0.98 1.00 0.98 0.97 0.84 0.97 93 0.76 0.98 0.97 0.98 0.95 0.99 94 0.87 1.00 0.97 0.92 0.90 0.97 95 0.97 0.86 0.97 0.80 0.97 0.97 Minimum 0.71 0.70 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.72 Table E.1. Interrater Agreements for Common Variables 159 Appendix F – Cluster Center Values Center Values Variable Task Interdependence Sequential Reciprocal Team 3.05 6.65 8.66 Center Values Variables Low High Member Dispersion 0.08 0.54 Perceived Time Constraint 2.24 4.66 Repository-Impersonal 2.91 4.06 Asynchronous ICT-Personal via vertical channel 1.43 3.88 Synchronous ICT-Personal via vertical channel 1.27 3.90 Asynchronous ICT-Personal via horizontal channel 1.14 3.73 Synchronous ICT-Personal via horizontal channel 1.21 3.72 Synchronous ICT-Group 0.55 3.79 Synchronous ICT-Structured Group 0.68 3.63 Table F.1. Cluster Center Values 160 [...]... task coordination information among all task performers 11 2.3 Matching Task Interdependence and Task Coordination Portfolios in Collocated Teams According to information processing theory, a higher interdependence task requires more information processing for coordination, which can be satisfied by a more complex task coordination mode with higher information processing capacity Previous studies in. .. mode of task coordination (Van de Ven et al 1976) Impersonal coordination requires predetermined task coordination information (e.g., rules and plans) to be conveyed to task performers Personal coordination involves communicating task coordination information from supervisor to subordinate or from peer to peer, perhaps altering or processing the information to some extent During group coordination, ... explained by information processing theory This theory suggests that a higher interdependence task requires more information processing for coordination, which can be satisfied by a more complex task coordination mode with higher information processing capacity In this study, we refer to a set of task coordination modes used for a task as a task coordination portfolio Unlike collocated teams working in. .. besides task interdependence that influence the design of task coordination portfolios in GVT? 2 How can these contingencies be fit to task coordination portfolios to achieve effective task coordination? 3 The paper starts by explaining the fit between task interdependence and task coordination portfolio in collocated teams Subsequently, we use a qualitative case study approach for in- depth investigation... the ICQ meeting Coordination design in this task was found to be contingent on the type of task interdependence No other influences on the choice of task coordination modes were indicated Coordination in this task was initially ineffective because of the existence of duplicate work when the project manager coordinated the task with the impersonal coordination mode alone at the start Task 2: Interview... (see Table 2) In total there are 13 tasks i.e., 5 in team A, 3 in team B, and 5 in team C For each of the 13 tasks, we identified its task coordination portfolio, additional contingencies besides task interdependence (if any) that influenced the task coordination portfolio design, and the effectiveness of its task coordination 4.1 Findings in Team A Task 1: Questionnaire Creation (Team Interdependence)... any) that influenced the task coordination portfolio design, (3) we assessed each task' s coordination effectiveness, and finally (4) derived the fit between GVT contingencies and task coordination portfolios by comparing portfolios used for specific contingencies and resultant outcomes across all tasks Step 1 – Identifying Task Coordination Portfolios As defined in this study, a task coordination portfolio... coordination, this essay offers an in- depth investigation regarding this matter Second, in investigating GVT task coordination, the essay builds on the concept of fit between task interdependence and task coordination portfolios in collocated teams; thus creating an opportunity for future research to empirically compare and contrast task coordination portfolios designs in collocated teams and GVT Third, the... In particular, we aim to identify optimal task coordination design under different GVT contingencies To investigate the phenomenon, we start with a review of explicit coordination studies in collocated teams which suggest matching task interdependence to task coordination mechanisms for effective task coordination 2.1 Task Interdependence Four types of task interdependence have been proposed (Grandori... team interdependence task consists of not only impersonal and personal coordination modes, but also group 12 coordination mode Figure 2 shows the fit between task interdependence and task coordination portfolio (i.e combination of coordination modes used for a task) in the collocated team context How this fit can be extended to the GVT context is of interest in this study Task Coordination Portfolio Task . Findings… 23 4.1 Findings in Team A 23 4.2 Findings in Team B 28 4.3 Findings in Team C 32 5 Discussions of the Findings 37 5.1 The Effect of Perceived Time Constraint on Group Task Coordination. Testing Results in Coding and Testing Phases 110 1 Essay 1 Designing Task Coordination Portfolios in Global Virtual Teams 1 Introduction 1.1 Research Motivation Global virtual teams. coordination studies in collocated teams (see Table A.1) suggest matching task coordination mechanisms to task interdependence for effective coordination, studies of implicit coordination in