Global software development: Exploring socialization and face-to-face meetings in distributed strategic projects

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2007.01.001Get rights and content

Abstract

Socialization is one means through which globally distributed teams (GDTs) can improve collaboration. However, harnessing socializing processes to support globally distributed collaboration is not easy. In particular, infrequent and limited face-to-face (F2F) contact between remote counterparts might result in difficulties in sharing norms, attitudes and behaviours. In this paper we seek to understand how dispersed teams create socialization in globally distributed settings. Based on data collected at SAP, LeCroy and Baan we conclude that, while F2F meetings are important in socializing remote counterparts, other activities and processes employed before and after F2F meetings are no less important. In particular, the paper highlights the importance of re-socializing remote counterparts throughout a project lifecycle. Re-socializing means supporting the re-acquisition of behaviours, norms and attitudes that are necessary for participation in an organization. We offer a framework in which three phases of creating, maintaining and renewing socialization in GDTs are discussed. The paper concludes by offering managers some guidelines concerning socialization in GDTs.

Introduction

Recent years have witnessed the globalization of many industries. Consequently, globally distributed collaborations and virtual teams have become increasingly common in many areas, but in particular in software development (e.g. Kotlarsky and Oshri, 2005, Krishna et al., 2004, Herbsleb and Mockus, 2003, Battin et al., 2001, Carmel, 1999). Ongoing innovations in Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) have made it possible to cooperate in a distributed mode. From originally quite small projects, enabled by ICTs, companies now embark on major complex software development projects across multiple locations.

For example, more and more companies in developed nations are outsourcing parts of their IT services and business processes to developing nations (Carmel and Agarwal, 2002), which results in strategic projects on a large scale and with a longer lifespan. Specific examples include DuPont, the US-based global corporate, that in 2006 signed a sourcing contract with CSC and Accenture to develop and implement SAP Enterprise Resource Planning software and systems globally across more than 20 locations at a cost exceeding $1bn. Another example is a Tata Consulting Services (TCS) outsourcing project, in which globally distributed teams would provide support and application enhancement services to ABN AMRO Bank over five years. These teams provide support and application enhancement from centres in Mumbai, Bangalore, Sao Paolo, Luxemburg and Amsterdam.

Overall, a high degree of global collaboration has been evident since the 1990s. Friedman (2005, p. 176), in his book “The World is Flat”, describes how a global, web-enabled playing field has been created as a result of the convergence of 10 flattening factors (e.g. the introduction of search engines such as Netscape and Google and of workflow applications, and the growing tendency to outsource and offshore work), which offer a real-time platform for collaboration and knowledge sharing to almost anyone on the globe.

Collaboration and team performance depends, to some extent, on the socialization of the dispersed team members (Andres, 2002, Govindarajan and Gupta, 2001, Maznevski and Chudoba, 2000). Socialization refers to the process by which individuals acquire the behaviours, attitudes and knowledge necessary for participation in an organization (Ahuja and Galvin, 2003, Goodman and Wilson, 2000). Through socialization, the norms, identity and cohesion between team members develop, enabling team members to effectively communicate and perform (Ahuja and Galvin, 2003, Hinds and Weisband, 2003).

By and large, the existing research on socialization is based on co-located teams. In the context of non-co-located teams, research has emphasized the unique conditions under which socialization can be supported. For example, electronic communications can enhance the socialization of a newcomer in a virtual team (Ahuja and Galvin, 2003). Nonetheless, non-co-located teams may vary in their degree of virtuality (Crowston et al., 2005), in the length of the project and in the number of remote counterparts involved. In this regard, in addition to creating and maintaining socialization, distributed teams, especially those with a long lifespan, may need to re-acquire norms and re-socialize as the project progresses. Therefore, the key objective of this paper is to understand how globally distributed teams support the re-acquisition of norms and attitudes over time.

Data were drawn from several globally distributed software development projects at SAP, LeCroy and Baan. The results of the case analyses suggest that indeed various activities were carried out before, during and after F2F meetings to support socialization between remote counterparts. Furthermore, these activities were at the individual, team and organizational levels. As a conclusion, the lifecycle of socialization in GDTs is described and suggestions to managers and for further research are made.

Following this introduction, the next two sections provide reviews of the literature relating to socialization in teams in general and in globally distributed teams in particular. The next sections describe and analyze two cases of strategic GDTs from LeCroy and SAP, placing an emphasis on the mechanisms employed before, during and after F2F meetings. These cases are then compared with the Baan case, where a different approach to socialization was carried out. The following section discusses the findings of this study and offers a framework to consider the lifecycle of socialization in distributed teams. Lastly, practical implications and possible future research are discussed.

Section snippets

Socialization and teams

Socialization is the process through which one “learns the ropes” of a particular organizational role (Wooldbridge and Minsky, 2002). Most studies refer to organizational socialization as a process that is based on interactions between a newcomer and members of the organization (e.g. colleagues, superiors or subordinates). Through such interactions an employee is taught and learns what behaviours and views are customary and desirable at their workplace, and becomes aware of those that are not,

Socialization in globally distributed contexts: the challenge

One specific case of a “hybrid” team is a globally distributed software development team. Globally distributed projects involve two or more teams working together from different geographical locations to accomplish common project goals. In addition to geographical dispersion, globally distributed teams face time-zone and cultural differences that may include different languages, national traditions, values and norms of behaviour (Carmel, 1999) that may greatly reduce the extent of socialization

Design and case selection

An in-depth study of globally distributed software development projects is provided in this paper. A qualitative, interpretive approach is adopted. According to Yin (1994), case study research is appropriate to investigate a phenomenon in its real-life context, to answer how and why questions, when the investigator has little control over the events. Therefore, a case study method was chosen as the most appropriate approach for this research. The case study method is widely used in Information

Case studies of socialization: SAP, LeCroy and Baan

This section details the results of the three case studies carried out at SAP, LeCroy and Baan. Based on the empirical evidence presented below, we argue that, despite the challenges faced, the dispersed teams of LeCroy and SAP developed and sustained socialization through various activities that took place before, during and after F2F meetings, which ensured the renewal of socialization over time. Baan, on the other hand, had taken a different approach: socialization activities were encouraged

Discussion of key findings

The main objective of this study was to understand how globally distributed teams re-socialize through the re-acquisition of norms, attitudes and behaviours. We have suggested earlier that such teams may need to “re-acquire” norms, attitudes and knowledge because of the unique characteristics of these teams. Indeed, evidence from LeCroy and SAP suggests that their GDTs needed to re-socialize over time. For example, the introduction of a new technology at LeCroy created a need for the global

Socialization in globally distributed teams: A proposed framework

It is important to note that our findings are based on three case studies and therefore, by definition, meet to only a limited extent the criteria of transferability (the extent to which the findings can be replicated across cases). Additional research across multiple case studies is needed in order to verify the insights reported in this paper. With this in mind we can explore the approach to creating, maintaining and renewing socialization in globally distributed teams.

In line with the data

Practical implications

From a practical viewpoint, we argue that in order to achieve successful collaboration, firms should consider investing in the development of socialization despite the constraints imposed by global distribution. Socialization can be supported over time and at various levels within an organization, as shown in Table 3. We argue that such activities can be associated with the individual, team and organizational level. Yet, in practice, each level contributes to the development of socialization

References (31)

  • M.K. Ahuja et al.

    Socialization in virtual groups

    Journal of Management

    (2003)
  • J. Child

    Trust – The Fundamental Bond in Global Collaboration

    Organizational Dynamics

    (2001)
  • P. Kanawattanachai et al.

    Dynamic nature of trust in virtual teams

    Journal of Strategic Information Systems

    (2002)
  • P.G. Smith et al.

    From experience: leading dispersed teams

    The Journal of Product Innovation Management

    (2002)
  • H.P. Andres

    A comparison of face-to-face and virtual software development teams

    Team Performance Management

    (2002)
  • R.D. Battin et al.

    Leveraging Resources in Global Software Development

    IEEE Software

    (2001)
  • B. Bigliardi et al.

    Organizational socialization, career aspirations and turnover intentions among design engineers

    Leadership & Organizational Development Journal

    (2005)
  • E. Carmel

    Global Software Teams: Collaborating Across Borders and Time Zones

    (1999)
  • E. Carmel et al.

    The Maturation of Offshore Sourcing of Information Technology Work

    MIS Quarterly Executive

    (2002)
  • L. Cheng et al.

    Building Collaboration into IDEs

    Queue

    (2004)
  • Crowston, K., Howison, J., Masango, C., Eseryel, U.Y. 2005. In Academy of Management Conference, Honolulu,...
  • Friedman, T.L. 2005. The World is Flat, Farrar, Straus and Giroux,...
  • S.A. Furst et al.

    Managing the life cycle of virtual teams

    The Academy of Management Executive

    (2004)
  • Goodman, P.S., Wilson, J.M. 2000. In: Neale, M., Mannix, B., Griffith, T. (Eds.), Research in Groups and Teams, vol. 3....
  • V. Govindarajan et al.

    Building an Effective Global Business Team

    MIT Sloan Management Review

    (2001)
  • Cited by (125)

    • Information systems for sustainable remote workplaces

      2023, Journal of Strategic Information Systems
    • Outsourcers’ control mechanisms, vendors’ contract schemas, and project performance in cross-border IT outsourcing: A vendor's perspective

      2021, Industrial Marketing Management
      Citation Excerpt :

      However, vendors often experience relational conflicts, referred to as disagreements, incompatibilities, and tensions in outsourcing transactions (Lee et al., 2017). Relational conflicts are found to impede knowledge sharing and deter partners from pursuing collective goals, especially in cross-border outsourcing where cultural differences between members of the project teams are likely to cause miscommunication and misunderstanding (Kotlarsky & Oshri, 2008; Ndubisi, 2011; Oshri, Kotlarsky, & Willcocks, 2007). Extant literature argues that relational conflict is triggered by the uncertainty of transactions and the opportunism of exchange parties.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text