Use of collaborative technologies and knowledge sharing in co-located and distributed teams: Towards the 24-h knowledge factory

Abstract

The relocation of knowledge work to emerging countries is leading to an increasing use of globally distributed teams (GDT) engaged in complex tasks. In the present study, we investigate a particular type of GDT working ‘around the clock’: the 24-h knowledge factory (Gupta, 2008). Adopting the productivity perspective on knowledge sharing (Haas and Hansen, 2005, Haas and Hansen, 2007), we hypothesize how a 24-h knowledge factory and a co-located team will differ in technology use, knowledge sharing processes, and performance. We conducted a quasi-experiment in IBM, collecting both quantitative and qualitative data, over a period of 12 months, on a GDT and a co-located team. Both teams were composed of the same number of professionals, provided with the same technologies, engaged in similar tasks, and given similar deadlines. We found significant differences in their use of technologies and in knowledge sharing processes, but not in efficiency and quality of outcomes. We show how the co-located team and the GDT enacted a knowledge codification strategy and a personalization strategy, respectively; in each case grafting elements of the other strategy in order to attain both knowledge re-use and creativity. We conclude by discussing theoretical contributions to knowledge sharing and GDT literatures, and by highlighting managerial implications to those organizations interested in developing a fully functional 24-h knowledge factory.

Introduction

The relocation of knowledge work to emerging countries has been largely analyzed as a cost-savings driven phenomenon (Manning et al., 2008). Reports from the Association of Computer Machinery (ACM), the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) and the National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) have described offshoring in the context of jobs being gained or lost due to cost savings between nations like in a competitive zero-sum situation, where work can only be done in one country or the other (IEEE, 2004, White, 2004, Asprey et al., 2006).

Research in organizational theory, strategy, and psychology reinforces the idea that knowledge work, such as product development, can be done most productively in a single location. For instance, Thompson’s (1967, pp. 54–61) early work on structural contingency theory posited that activities like product development create reciprocal interdependence between individuals and subunits. Reciprocal interdependence is most effectively managed by locating individuals in close proximity to facilitate high levels of communication between them. Similarly, transaction cost theorists have suggested that knowledge work, such as information technology development, is best performed internally due to concerns over the loss of control over work (Loh and Venkatraman, 1995), high transaction costs (Ang and Straub, 1998), and threat of knowledge loss (Duncan, 1998) when knowledge work is outsourced. Finally, studies on inter-personal communication have shown that geographic distance reduces the opportunity for face-to-face interaction (Conrath, 1973), which is necessary for transferring tacit knowledge between individuals and organizations (Espinosa et al., 2007, Kogut and Zander, 1992, Porter, 1998, Tallman et al., 2004). Traditionally, physical distance was considered detrimental to inter-personal and inter-organizational collaboration, which is why many firms in the 1980s and 1990s preferred co-locating large cross-functional teams at a single site (Eppinger and Chitkara, 2006).

However, recent advances in information technology have enabled virtual distributed teams to perform knowledge work effectively without meeting face-to-face (Cummings, 2004, Humphrey, 1995, Maznevski and Chudoba, 2000). By virtual teams, we mean groups of workers who are geographically and temporally dispersed and are assembled via technology to accomplish an organizational task (Jarvenpaa et al., 1998, Lipnack and Stamps, 1997). When virtual teams are based in different countries, they are referred to as GDTs, i.e. globally distributed teams. The rich and vibrant body of research on virtual teams and GDTs (Gibson and Cohen, 2003), and the increasing reliance of organizations on virtual teams in diverse activities such as research and development laboratories (Brockhoff, 1998), IS development (Chakrabarty, 2006), and software development (Carmel, 1999) suggest the potential for a new model of distributed knowledge production that can leverage geographic distance for strategic advantage.

Over time, the view of offshoring as primarily a cost saving exercise has gradually transitioned to a perspective that views offshoring as a mechanism for utilizing a globally distributed workforce in a new manner made possible by advances in information systems (Venkatraman, 2004, Cullen et al., 2005, Walsham, 2005, Manning et al., 2008, Gupta, 2008). And while this development may seem obvious to managers of organizations practicing the model described in this paper, the academic literature contains many gaps in our knowledge about the functioning and performance of virtual teams in a distributed knowledge work environment. For instance, while there has been a considerable amount of research on inter-personal issues such as conflict, trust, and identity in virtual teams (Jarvenpaa et al., 1998, Jarvenpaa and Leidner, 1999. Montoya-Weiss et al., 2001, Cramton and Hinds, 2005, Hinds and Mortensen, 2005), there has been less research on the use of tools and methods in distributed teams when increased handoffs between team members exist; the same void exists for analyzing the conditions under which the use of such tools can improve the effectiveness of the distributed model, and in understanding how differently structured GDTs actually work (O’Leary and Cummings, 2007). In addition, one common criticism of research on globally distributed teams is the lack of extended field experiments – conducted in commercial environments – that have compared the behaviors of co-located and distributed teams and how these behaviors are related to the performance of the distributed model. These issues are important for understanding the effective management of geographically distributed teams: how can distributed teams work effectively with frequent transfer (handoffs) of work-in-progress with each other?; how can subsets of team members work during daytime in their respective countries and still achieve round-the-clock operation for the entire team?; and how effective can geographically distributed teams be in comparison to collocated teams?

In this paper, we advance our knowledge of globally distributed teams by conducting a field study that compares the collaboration activities between members of a globally distributed team with the collaboration activities between co-located team members performing a similar task. Here, we consider offshoring in a mutually beneficial perspective where the interests of workers in high-income economies are aligned with workers in other countries and customers worldwide. The research question that guides this research is: in a commercial setting how do distributed and co-located teams performing the same task differ in their patterns of communication and knowledge sharing, and in their performance? In investigating this issue, we use the productivity perspective on knowledge sharing in organizations proposed by Haas and Hansen, 2005, Haas and Hansen, 2007, 2007).

Specifically, our focus will be on one type of globally distributed team, i.e., the 24-h knowledge factory model (Gupta and Seshasai, 2007), which advocates continuous work on knowledge-based tasks by individuals located in time zones that allow for 24-h engagement. Each individual in such work environments work the normal workday hours that pertain to his or her local time zone, and then pass the task to fellow workers located in a different time zone.

Our setting is a case study of a two-site, global work environment (in contrast to a fully localized work arrangement); we believe that the insights gained from examining this case study can serve as the basis for analyzing the characteristics of true 24-h knowledge factories that are rapidly evolving in different industries.

This paper is organized as follows: first, we introduce the concept of the 24-h knowledge factory; then we discuss the productivity perspective on knowledge sharing and develop hypotheses. After describing the methodology followed to conduct our longitudinal field experiment of two teams (one co-located and one distributed), we present our results and conclude with a reflection on the theoretical and practical contributions of our study.