doesthismakesense

My research explores how sensemaking, or problem solving occurs in geographically distributed teams. As we become increasingly connected how can we collaborate better? Why can't we explore problems and share knowledge as well via asynchronous communication tools like email, as we can when talking face-to-face? If you are part of a distributed team, let me know and hopefully we can shed some light on this mystery of modern working.

[doesthismakesense]

Just what the library needs.

[doesthismakesense]

Powell, A., Piccoli, G. & Ives, B., 2004. Virtual Teams : A Review of Current Literature and Directions for Future. Continued

This article concludes with a number of pages of discussion on future areas for research, to summarise, from my reading the key discussion points from each of the 4 categories are as follows:

Inputs

There is a lot of research which focuses on the design of interactions, in particular how you create FtF style interactions, or make up for a lack of FtF interactions. 

There is an opportunity to research the design of the actual team or work unit. 

There is also a lack of research which investigates either the impact of size of virtual team, or its composition i.e. how you choose who should be in a team.

Socio-emotional processes

There are still opportunities to research how you develop trust in virtual teams, especially given the complexity of multi-cultures/time zones/languages.

Task Processes

There is already lots of research which explores how communication happens in virtual teams. 

There is limited research into managed virtual teams, most research has been into self-directed teams.

More importantly though there is the opportunity to question whether traditional team models and processes can be applied to virtual teams. There exists in much of the research an assumption that virtual teams operate like traditional co-located teams. Could virtual team projects be deconstructed to enable object-orientated teams? And if so, what sort of projects are best for this? 

There is also a need for further research in the area of conflict resolution in virtual teams because the impact of conflict in virtual teams can be absolute, with avoidance being very simple. 

Outputs

Most traditional performance related research has focused on benchmarking virtual with traditional team performance. However, given the structural differences between virtual and traditional teams, Powell et al suggest instead that the focus should be on identifying when virtual teams should be used and then focus on maximising their performance. 

For me these represent the key considerations, and potential areas for research in virtual teams according to Powell et al (2004). 

[doesthismakesense]

Powell, A., Piccoli, G. & Ives, B., 2004. Virtual Teams : A Review of Current Literature and Directions for Future.

This is paper provides a review of the major themes in virtual team research, with its review based around Saunders (2000) life cycle model. 

The review suggests that there are 4 main categories of research in virtual 

Inputs

This includes research into the design and composition of virtual teams, including the endowment of resources, skills and abilities. 

Major sub-areas include design, culture, technical expertise and training.

Socio-emotional processes

Research in this category explores relationship building, cohesion and trust.

Task processes

These occur as team members work together to accomplish tasks/goals and the major sub-areas of research include communication, coordination and task-technology-structure-fit.

Outputs

Research in this category tends to focus on the performance of the team, typically looking at design quality, # of ideas generated, time taken to decide and satisfaction of the virtual team experience. Major sub-areas include performance and satisfaction. 

This review goes on to highlight the fact that the majority of the research into short-term (less than 6 months in this case) virtual teams has tended to be undertaken using almost exclusively student teams for research, whilst longer term research has tended to be field based. 

The paper then goes on to discuss potential areas for future research in each of the 4 categories. 

[doesthismakesense]

Amazing stuff

[doesthismakesense]

University of Lancaster Music Society windband rehearse for Proms 2013.

[doesthismakesense]

Teams operating in the virtual environment face greater obstacles to orderly and efficient information exchange than their counterparts in the traditional context, a difficulty that is compounded when the virtual team is global in nature

Powell, A., Piccoli, G. & Ives, B., 2004. Virtual Teams : A Review of Current Literature and Directions for Future. 

[doesthismakesense]

Peter Grimes on Aldeburgh beach

An ambitious production of Britten's Peter Grimes has been undertaken on the beach where it is originally set, defying the English weather! 

[doesthismakesense]

Amazing bit of chilled out for the sunshine

[doesthismakesense]

Brown, A.D., Stacey, P. & Nandhakumar, J., 2008. Making sense of sensemaking narratives. Human Relations, 61(8), pp.1035–1062.

This paper focuses on how narratives are used within groups to make sense of individuals actions within a group. 

This longitudinal study follows a group of game developers as they reflect on a completed project and what sensemaking processes they went through. 

Provides insight into how retrospective sensemaking occurs through story telling and how bias is applied. 

Perspective: Organisational studies

[doesthismakesense]

Suffolk Marshes

[doesthismakesense]

Hinds, P. & Kiesler, S., 2002. Distributed Work, The MIT Press.

This book explores distributed work.

[doesthismakesense]

further research on the range of issues surrounding virtual teams is required if we are to learn how to manage them effectively

Powell, A., Piccoli, G. & Ives, B., 2004. Virtual Teams : A Review of Current Literature and Directions for Future.