karen’s research shows virtual distance can cause competitive disadvantage, project failure, and economic loss. the research also showed that virtual distance does NOT only occur with geographically dispersed teams. yep, geographic distance is NOT REQUIRED. instead, the focus of the definition is on electronic communication.

Of course, geography can play into virtual distance, but the concept itself is really independent of location. You are at risk for virtual distance any time electronic communications becomes a substantial substitute for talking on the phone and meeting face-to-face. That lack of perceived “closeness” can have very real effects on the productivity, efficiency, and ultimately on the success of, IT projects.

there’s lots of research out there concerning the problems of electronic communication so this isn’t a new revelation. i don’t know of any research that shows how much in-house teams use electronic communication in comparison with f2f but i think it’s pretty obvious electronic communication is on the increase. at what level does it become to the detriment to the team?

karen consults and the website doesn’t reveal much but i’m intrigued and repulsed by this:

Using a set of metrics coined the Virtual Distance Indexâ„¢, VDI helps global corporations quantitatively measure the extent to which they are exposed to Virtual Riskâ„¢.

i can understand the desire to have a lovely little quiz or checklist which you can apply to your team in order understand problems and then used as a roadmap out of those problems but i don’t think they work very well.

having used a psychometric instrument in my research, i don’t have a lot of faith in them. i think it’s too easy to administer the instrument, get a result and rely very heavily on that result as the whole story. i think some instruments out there are easy to see through and there is research that some people try to answer these the way they think the administrator wants them to be answered. an example from my research, was collaboration was the #1 preferred way of dealing with conflict. if you think about conflict in your teams, is collaboration really the preferred way? that wouldn’t be my answer from previous experience. however i do think people know consciously and subconsciously that they should be collaborate as much as possible.

the latest issue of the M/C journal focuses on collaboration. i have only read the editor’s notes and the titles of the articles look very intriguing. i expect to comment more on the journal.

i am a fan of collaboration. sure i’m brilliant (laugh now – meant to be a joke) but i can’t know everything going on in the world. i can’t be an expert on teams as well as code perfect php, speak fluent german and know every intricate detail on tax law but if i had aspirations of building a financial software package for the german market I would need those skills plus more (i’m not btw). of course collaborating with a team who had those skills would allow me to develop such a product.

during my research, i looked at conflict management styles (of which collaboration is one). in 1964, blake & mouton wrote ‘ the managerial grid ‘ and developed 5 management styles based on how much you care about people & production. the 2 dimensional framework still persists and was made even more famous in 1976 with the thomas-kilmann instrument measuring conflict styles (Thomas-Kilmann conflict mode instrument ).

it’s unclear as to the effects of collaboration in conflict. brown (1992) thought it was best to use collaboration in all situations. some reports found using collaboration in conflict increased promotability (blake & mouton, 1964; thomas, 1971) while others linked it to negative team functioning and effectiveness (de dreu & van vianen, 2001). when administering the ‘dealing with conflict instrument’ (hiam, 1999) to my research participants:

collaboration was the dominant preferred style for handling conflict!

in fact, 89% said they preferred to use collaboration. while testing the instrument, hiam’s research also showed collaboration was the primary style but at 47% – no where near as high as my 89%. i wonder if this is because of the push towards teamwork or the influence of the buzzword? could it be industry specific (i don’t know those details of his study but mine were heavy IT)? is it a virtual vs face-to-face team difference?

my gut feeling is collaboration should not always be used during conflict. how well each style works was beyond the scope of my research but maybe there will be something in this journal that further explores the issue.

fyi, the research involves an online survey which takes approximately 15-20 min and a short follow-up interview (via IM or email).

this time around i was thinking about cross-cultural communication, specifically in virtual teams. i have worked in many virtual teams over the years and like online communities, they fascinate me.

(to be continued)

so now i guess ill try to touch on some high (and low) points of the journey as well as my research results and what is going on in the industry. since i’ve handed in my final version, i haven’t touched the thing. it’s been a good break. but now it’s time for me to get back on it. back into the habit of writing.

today is the last day of my 30 day trial and i just realised academics can get longer time periods for free. one of the conditions is promoting the site on your website so below is the blurb they’d like to see.

i think it’s a handy site… which is why i want more than 30 days.

QuestionPro Online Survey Software employs an easy to use Wizard interface to author and deploy Web Based and Email Surveys. No knowledge of HTML or programming is required. A comprehensive suite of analysis tools, ranging from Simple Frequency to TURF to Conjoint, are also provided for data analysis. In addition, QuestionPro Web Survey Software provides seamless integration with SPSS and Microsoft Office products.

QuestionPro Online Surveys also licenses its software free to Students and Researchers in the academic community. The projects have to be strictly academic in nature and should not be part of any other funded research or consulting.

we had a really crappy phone line so we didn’t talk long. we decided to meet up this week which we did yesterday.

after the conversation i was thinking about the last time i attempted this thesis thing. in our one phone convo i think i talked more about this and had a more constructive convo than i did in the 6 or so months i attempted the last one.

yesterday i met F f2f. not only did she read my proposal but she had a ton of comments. not the kind of comments scribbled in the margins but the kind where she had thought about the topic and my methodology and had some ideas.

she also confirmed that my proposal is waaay too big. gave me some things to think about in order to narrow it down. surprisingly she also suggested i not approach any firms yet and that i spend more time working on the subject matter.

so far so good. 90min meeting. she even seemed excited about the topic.