Research on distance collaboration:
Distance collaboration and dispersed teams, if managed well, increase innovation and productivity.
By Gillian Kerr, RealWorld Systems
The information in this article is current as of August 1, 2004.
This article is a summary of recent research literature on the benefits and success factors related to dispersed teams. I've been pulling it together for a couple of projects, and though this month's column may be dense, the references might be useful for people who are trying to design collaboration initiatives.
Distance collaboration is difficult to manage successfully (Olson & Olson,
2000), but with the changing nature of work, dispersed teams are ubiquitous
(O'Leary & Cummings, 2004). Most of us don't have a choice - we use phone
and email to communicate with most of our colleagues at least some of the
time. More and more often we're working in dispersed teams, where at least
some people on a project are in a different location from others. A growing
field of research is showing how to manage dispersed teams successfully, and
what the advantages are.
The two major benefits of distance collaboration are in innovation and productivity.
It turns out, not surprisingly, that innovation is more likely to happen when
new ideas are brought into a group. In practice, new ideas are brought in
through the social and work networks of the group members, so for innovation,
you want a group that is linked to diverse external networks through their
various relationships. In fact, diversity seems to be an essential condition
for learning and innovation (Nooteboom & Gilsing, 2004). If you can manage
a dispersed work group, you can systematically pull in a highly diverse team
who can later be assigned to another team, ensuring that new ideas are spread
throughout the organization. See Cummings (2004) for details. It's important
to note that successful innovations also are more likely to happen in organizations
that encourage knowledge sharing with external networks, and encourage group
members to communicate relevant information between each other.
Productivity includes impact as well as efficiency and cost effectiveness.
For example, improved productivity can mean that a team does the same work
faster or cheaper, or it can mean that the team's work is higher quality and
has more impact on the organization. In academic research, productivity could
be measured by impact factors of published papers, research citations, or
number of peer-reviewed articles approved.
Impact and quality is higher when project teams can take advantage of experts who don't happen to be located nearby (Faraj & Sproull, 2000). This is related to the importance of diverse networks, but it also is tied to the increased knowledge available to teams who can engage distant contributors (Majchrzak, Malhotra, Stamps, & Lipnack, 2004).
Efficiency and cost effectiveness is improved when teams can be built and managed without moving them all to the same physical location. Distance collaboration processes, though difficult to establish at the beginning, can be spread throughout an organization and dramatically reduce the costs and failure rates of dispersed teams (Beise, 2004; Powell, Piccoli, & Ives, 2004). Other potential sources of efficiency include lower costs for training (Kirschner & van Bruggen, 2004), and if flexible satellite offices are enabled, reduced costs for physical plans and office occupancies. Note that dispersed teams are not the same as telecommuting (for discouraging reviews of telework and productivity, see (Bailey & Kurland, 2002; Westfall, 2004).
Management processes in dispersed teams
Dr. Jonathon Cummings, after many years of studying dispersed teams in major organizations,
summarizes the most important effective management practice thus: "What should
work group leaders make sure to do when members are geographically dispersed
rather than co-located? The empirical evidence...provides one simple answer
- communicate frequently with members," informally and outside meetings, face
to face if possible and by phone if not. (Cummings, In press)
According to his research and others', in virtual teams, leaders have a paradoxical role. They have to provide the interface between the team and the broader organization, negotiating expectations and resources between them. They have to provide a constant stream of informal and formal communication between members to ensure lines of communication stay open and that problems are identified before they get too serious. But they also have to allow multiple routes for information flow so they don't end up as 'bottlenecks'. Some research suggests that many leaders restrict information flow out of 'ego needs', dramatically reducing the effectiveness of their teams. In co-located teams, it might be easier for members to communicate informally even if the leader is trying to impose too much centralization. In distributed teams, with less opportunity for informal conversation, this creates a serious problem for effectiveness and can cripple a team. (Cross, Parker, & Borgatti, 2002; Cummings, 2004; Cummings & Cross, 2003)
Communication norms within groups include predictability. If people don't respond to their messages in a reasonable time, the team falls apart. This is a crucial norm and must be described and enforced. Team members that break agreements decrease trust, and the performance of the team is compromised (Aubert & Kelsey, 2003; Piccoli & Ives, 2003). A 'reasonable time' might be defined as within 2 hours in one project, or within a week in another project, but most sectors have norms (such as one business day) when specific expectations are not negotiated.
Project management research suggests that at minimum, teams define measurable objectives and milestones, and then revise the project as required based on continued monitoring of those milestones (De Meyer, Loch, & Pich, 2002). Otherwise distance projects tend to fail because they are 'out of sight and out of mind' (Fussell, Kiesler, Setlock, & Scupelli, 2004). Appropriate technology is vital here because tools like instant messaging can remind team members of the presence of their colleagues (Majchrzak et al., 2004).
I'm planning to list a number of other management processes that appear to lead
to more successful collaborations, as well as describe the kinds of technology
that are most useful. If you'd like to be kept updated, e-mail me at gkerr at
realworldsystems.net.
References
Aubert, B. A., & Kelsey, B. L. (2003). Further understanding of trust and performance
in virtual teams. Small Group Research, 34(5), 575-618.
Bailey, D. E., & Kurland, N. B. (2002). A review of telework research: Findings,
new directions, and lessons for the study of modern work. Journal Of Organizational
Behavior, 23, 383-400.
Beise, C. M. (2004). IT project management and virtual teams. Paper presented
at the Proceedings of the 2004 conference on Computer personnel research: Careers,
culture, and ethics in a networked environment, Tucson, AZ, US.
Cross, R., Parker, A., & Borgatti, S. (2002). A bird's-eye view: Using social
network analysis to improve knowledge creation and sharing. Executive strategy
reports. Retrieved July 16 2004
Cummings, J. N. (2004). Work groups, structural diversity, and knowledge sharing
in a global organization. Management Science, 50(3), 13.
Cummings, J. N. (In press). Leading groups from a distance: How to mitigate
consequences of geographic dispersion. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers,
Inc.
Cummings, J. N., & Cross, R. (2003). Structural properties of work groups and
their consequences for performance. Social Networks, 25, 197-210.
De Meyer, A., Loch, C. H., & Pich, M. T. (2002). Managing project uncertainty:
From variation to chaos. Mit Sloan Management Review, 43(2), 60-+.
Faraj, S., & Sproull, L. (2000). Coordinating expertise in software development
teams. Management Science, 46(12), 1554-1568.
Fussell, S. R., Kiesler, S., Setlock, L. D., & Scupelli, P. (2004). Effects
of instant messaging on the management of multiple project trajectories.
Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2004 conference on Human factors in
computing systems, Vienna Austria.
Kirschner, P. A., & van Bruggen, J. (2004). Learning and understanding in virtual
teams. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 7(2), 135-139.
Majchrzak, A., Malhotra, A., Stamps, J., & Lipnack, J. (2004). Can absence make
a team grow stronger. Harvard Business Review, 82(5), 131-+.
Nooteboom, B., & Gilsing, V. A. (2004, 19-Jan-2004). Density and strength of
ties in innovation networks: A competence and governance view. ERIM Report
Series Research in Management Retrieved July 30, 2004, from https://ep.eur.nl/handle/1765/1124.
O'Leary, M. B., & Cummings, J. N. (2004). Geographic dispersion in teams: The
interplay of theory and methods. Unpublished - May 4, 2004, 48.
Olson, G. M., & Olson, J. S. (2000). Distance matters. Human-Computer Interaction,
15(2-3), 139-178.
Piccoli, G., & Ives, B. (2003). Trust and the unintended effects of behavior
control in virtual teams. Mis Quarterly, 27(3), 365-395.
Powell, A., Piccoli, G., & Ives, B. (2004). Virtual teams: A review of current
literature and directions for future research. ACM SIGMIS Database, 35(1),
6-36.
Westfall, R. D. (2004). Does telecommuting really increase productivity? Fifteen
rival hypotheses. Communications of the ACM Volume 47, Issue 8 (August
2004). Retrieved July 30 2004 from http://www.cyberg8t.com/westfalr/prdctvty.html.
**********
Gillian Kerr, Ph.D., C.Psych.
RealWorld Systems
gkerr at realworldsystems.net
Read my weblog at http://blog.realworldsystems.net
