Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Tension between perceived collocation and actual geographic distribution in project teams

  • Original Article
  • Published:
AI & SOCIETY Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper describes an exploratory comparative study of knowledge workers and their challenges in high tech global project teams. More specifically we focus on the tension between perceived collocation and actual geographical distributed project work as a function of: (1) the demand to distribute and shift attention in multi-teaming, (2) virtuality i.e. number of virtual teams participants engage in, (3) the continuous adjustment and re-adjustment to new places they perform their activity, and (4) the collaboration technologies they use. We present the methodology for data collection that included semi-structured interviews, surveys, and on site shadowing of the project participants, and discuss the findings from the data analysis. The study is based on the bricks-bits-interaction framework. It is at the intersection of the design of physical spaces, i.e., bricks; rich digital information and collaboration technology (ICT) content, mobile devices and network infrastructures, i.e., bits, and emergent work practices, process, and new ways people behave in communicative events using the affordances of ICT augmented physical, virtual spaces and digital content, i.e., interaction.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allen TJ (1977) Managing the flow of technology. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong D, Cole P (2002) Managing distances and differences in geographically distributed work groups. In: Hinds P, Kiesler S (eds) Distributed Work. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 167–186

    Google Scholar 

  • Bosch-Sijtsema PM, Ruohomäki V, Vartiainen M (2009) Knowledge work productivity in distributed teams. J Knowl Manage 13(6):533–546

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carmel E (1999) Global Software Teams: Collaborating Across Borders and Time Zones. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  • Chudoba K, Wynn E, Lu M, Watson-Manheim MB (2005) How virtual are we? Measuring virtuality in a global organization. Inform Syst J 15(4):279–306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cramton CD (2001) The Mutual knowledge problem and its consequences for dispersed collaboration. Organ Sci 12(3):346–371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhard KM (1989) Building theories from case study research. Acad Manage Rev 14(4):532–550

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Espinosa JA, Carmel E (2003) Modeling coordination costs due to time separation in global software teams. In: Proceedings of International Workshop on Global Software Development, part of the International Conference on Software Engineering Work in Portland, Oregon, USA, May. Paper available at http://gsd2003.cs.uvic.ca

  • Fruchter R (2001) Bricks & Bits & Interaction. In: Terano T, Nishida T, Namatame A, Ohsawa Y, Tsumoto S, Washio T (eds) Lecture Notes on Artificial Intelligence (LNAI) 2253. Springer Verlag, Berlin, pp 35–42

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffith TL, Sawyer JE, Neale MA (2003) Virtualness and knowledge in teams: managing the love triangle of organizations, individuals, and information technology. MIS Q 27(2):265–287

    Google Scholar 

  • Hinds PJ, Bailey DE (2003) Out of sight, out of sync: understanding conflict in distributed teams. Organ Sci 14(6):615–632

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede G (1980) Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Cross-cultural research and methodology series, vol. 5. Sage, Newbury Park

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede G (1991) Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. McGraw-Hill books, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Jin Y, Levitt R (1996) The virtual design team: a computational model of project organizations. J Comput Math Organ Theor 2(3):171–195 (Fall 1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levitt R, Kunz J (2002) Design your project organization as engineers design bridges. CIFE Working Paper #73, August 2002

  • Lu M, Watson-Manheim MB, Chudoba K, Wynn E (2006) Virtuality and team performance: understanding the impact of variety of practices. J Glob Inform Technol Manage 9(1):4–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Martins LL, Gilson LL, Maynard MT (2004) Virtual teams: what do we know and where do we go from here? J Manage 30(6):805–835

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maznevski ML, Chudoba KM (2000) Bridging space over time: global virtual team dynamics and effectiveness. Organ Sci 11(5):473–492

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Leary M, Cummings J (2002) The spatial, temporal, and configurational characteristics of geographic dispersion in teams. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Conference, Denver, CO

  • Olson GM, Olson JS (2000) Distance matters. Human Comput Inter 15:139–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powell A, Piccoli G, Ives B (2004) Virtual teams: a review of current literature and directions for future research. Data Base Adv Inform Syst 35(1):6–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson JD (1967) Organizations in action. Social Science bases of administrative theory. Mc.Graw-Hill Book company, New York, pp 51–65

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson-Manheim MB, Chudoba K, Crowston K (2002) Discontinuities and continuities: a new way to understand virtual work. information. Technol People 15(3):191–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yoo Y, Alavi M (2004) Emergent leadership in virtual teams: what do emergent leaders do? Inform Organ 14(1):27–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study is part of the joint Stanford-Helsinki University of Technology research project ProWork: Workplace Management that is sponsored by the Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation (TEKES), ProWork project company partners, and the PBL Lab at Stanford University.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Project Based Learning Laboratory, Stanford University, 473 Via Ortega, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA

    Renate Fruchter

  2. BIT: Work Psychology and Leadership, Helsinki University of Technology, P.O. Box 550, Greater Helsinki, Finland

    Petra Bosch-Sijtsema & Virpi Ruohomäki

Authors
  1. Renate Fruchter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Petra Bosch-Sijtsema
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Virpi Ruohomäki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Renate Fruchter.

Appendix

Appendix

1.1 Survey 1: background information

  • Geographic distribution and interaction

  • Productivity as a function of skill, role, distance

  • Distributiveness that provided quantitative data regarding number of teams each individual is involved in

  • Business geographic distribution

  • Skill and cultural awareness and social network

  • Workload

  • Swift vs. long term teams

  • Virtuality that provided quantitative information regarding number of geographically distributed teams each individual in engaged in

  • Physical and virtual space interaction and ICT

  • Communication, collaboration, and coordination

  • Communication channel preferences by role in team (i.e., manager, coordinator, engineer, technician) and task

  • Individual and collaborative work tasks

  • What-Where-Who: Activity and location where the activity is performed by role in team

  • Challenges and needs that was an open question allowing each member to identify specific hindrances that require attention.

1.2 Survey 2: knowledge work and productivity

  • Job characteristics and satisfaction based on task type, complexity of task, job satisfaction, control, workload, team interdependence

  • Work distribution

  • Change in team composition frequency

  • Communication with team members

  • Individual performance in terms of work quality, satisfaction, and self-representation

  • Team performance

  • Team satisfaction

1.3 Survey 3: workplace

  • Motivation to go to work

  • Role and task driven use of workplace

  • Role/Task relation to workplace type

  • Workplace performance link to roles

  • Enablers and hindrances => Opportunities

  • Individual productivity-workplace

  • Team productivity-workplace

  • ICT availability and skills

  • Access to space and ICT

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fruchter, R., Bosch-Sijtsema, P. & Ruohomäki, V. Tension between perceived collocation and actual geographic distribution in project teams. AI & Soc 25, 183–192 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-009-0254-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-009-0254-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation