Virtual Teams

[njwilliamson]

My hypothesis is that virtual teams reach efficacy faster than face-to-face teams because they do not have the social constraints, they can get on task quicker and stay on task longer. A virtual team is dependent on technology. I need an experiment to test this. Are there any suggestions?

[Craig_Bridge]

1) Think about what you need to control to isolate what you are trying to differentiate from other related possibilities.
2) Think about what metric you are going to use.
3) Think about what you are going to ask the teams to accomplish.

This and much more is what experiment design is all about. You are the investigator, it is your job to propose a methodology. Do some research in what other investigators attempting to measure similar things tried. If you want to bounce some ideas off the experts, please come back with some specifics.

[njwilliamson]

Thank you for your reply. I think what I'm trying to control is the FtF interaction to see if indeed a virtual team is more efficient, is that correct? I don't understand your question about the metric I am going to use, what does that mean? Concerning what the teams will accomplish...does it matter? I was thinking five different projects. Below is what I have thought about. Your input would be appreciated.

The experiment will be executed through the use of an exploratory case study as the basis for the research design. I'm choosing a case study thinking that these are useful for analyzing commonalities and differences that share key criteria. It is an appropriate method for preliminary research such as this in which the researcher has little control of the key variables. It will be task specific measuring efficacy through both a VT and FtF. I propose a study done by ten randomly chosen teams. The teams chosen will work over the course of one semester doing five different projects. Five teams will be strictly virtual, that is there will be no FtF contact among the team members or with the business. The other team will be FtF.

[Craig_Bridge]

A "metric" is some non-subjective measurement. Standardized tests used by educators are one type of "metric", definitely not a metric of interest in your experiment.

If all the teams aren't working on the same problem, then how are you going to evaluate which type of team was more efficient? Different problems might be more difficult independent of what kind of a team works on them. Some problems maybe better suited to solution by one type of team. It is hard work to come up with measurements (metrics) and projects that won't bias the result.

It is difficult to get a commitment from a large number of people for a long period of time to do your experiment unless you can piggy back on some project they have to do for other reasons.

You might want to consider something that can be done in a much shorter time frame to reduce the commitment by your volunteers.

Based on 30+ years of Engineering team experience, the larger the team, the fewer people on the team who actually do the work. The smaller the team, the wider the performance variance will be. The better balanced and complementary the team is in terms of preferred roles(organizer, researcher, craftsman, etc), the better the outcome. These are all difficult factors to control without using large sample sizes.

[njwilliamson]

Thanks again for your time. I see your point, I was thinking that if I use five different projects and ten teams, then I am repeating the experiment demonstrating that it can be reproduced. Each set of teams (virtual and face-to-face) will be working on the same project, but I will control the #of people on each team, the gender ratio of each, and probably do a demographic questionnaire age/culture of each one. Maybe it would be better to just do one project and replicate that one project 5 times. That does sound easier.

One question I have about the roles issue, isn't that a team characteristic in general? I know there has been lots of research done on functioning of and roles on teams. One thing that people postulate is there is little trust on virtual teams which would hinder its efficacy. I disagree, look at all the on-line dating, I think people end up having a faster level of trust virtually. Trust is a characteristic of teams and I think that proving they are more efficient will prove that trust develops quickly in a virtual relationship. Again thanks for your input.

[Craig_Bridge]

One question I have about the roles issue, isn't that a team characteristic in general?

Yes it is; however, with small sample sizes, the make-up or fit of the team can cause a large variance and possibly be more significant than the team type.

If the preferred roles mesh, it is team dynamics or "team chemistry" in a sports team, you get something bigger than the sum of the individuals. With a bad fit, you get less than what the individuals are capable of.

With larger sample sizes, you are more likely get a mixture of good and bad fits in both team types which should average out the "team chemistry" effects and give you a higher probability of the results being valid.

In any case, you are going to have to come up with metrics that you can perform valid statistical analysis on.

[njwilliamson]

Okay, I'm simplifying...a case study doesn't work, I do need an experimental design, one with strict guidelines that can be measured. I've almost completed my literature review, and I'm convinced that Virtual Teams are more efficient than Face-to-Face teams as long as they keep the same characteristics of efficient work teams. So, I will be setting up an experiment for that. I thank you for the dialogue, it has helped me process this and understand where I need to go.

~nancy

[ChrisG]

This is a bit of a tangent, but my experience in the workplace has been that face to face meetings are almost always more productive than electronic (phone or web) meetings. It would be interesting to see if you can detect any differences between younger people who have grown up using AIM, text messaging, and other electronic modes of communication versus older folks like me who weren't introduced to these things until after our brains had calcified.