Gary Broils, D.B.A. - Dissertation Defense: Virtual Teaming and Collaboration Technology

A D I S S E R T A T I O N P R E S E N T E D I N P A R T I A L F U L F I L L M E N T O F T H E R E Q U I R E M E N T S

F O R T H E D E G R E E D O C T O R O F B U S I N E S S A D M I N I S T R A T I O N

F E B R U A R Y 2 0 1 4

U N I V E R S I T Y O F P H O E N I X

VIRTUAL TEAMING AND COLLABORATION TECHNOLOGY: A STUDY OF INFLUENCES ON

VIRTUAL PROJECT OUTCOMES

Gary C. Broils

02/08/2014

1

VIRTUAL TEAMING AND COLLABORATION TECHNOLOGY

Introductions

02/08/2014 VIRTUAL TEAMING AND COLLABORATION TECHNOLOGY

2

Member Position

Dr. Eric A. Turner, Ed.D. Chair

Dr. Leah P. Hollis, Ed.D. Committee Member

Dr. Andrew Potter, Ph.D. Committee Member

Gary C. Broils Doctoral Candidate

Outline


3

Introduction Problem Purpose Theoretical framework Methodology Method and design rationale Results Significance Recommendations

Outline

Introduction

Traditional leadership and collaboration methods have proven ineffective for virtual teams . Lower project success rate for virtual projects

compared to traditional face-to-face projects (Anantatmula & Thomas, 2010; Arnold, 2008; Goodbody, 2005; Lee, 2010; Verburg, Bosch-Sijtsema, & Vartiainen, 2013)

Virtual teams operate across geographic or

organizational boundaries and use telecommunication and other information technologies to collaborate during group tasks.

This current study examines virtual team context and the influence of technology on virtual team collaboration and leadership.

4


• Introduction

• Problem

• Purpose

• Theoretical framework

• Methodology

• Method and design rationale

• Results

• Significance

• Recommendations

Dissertation Defense

Outline

Problem

Leaders do not know what collaboration technology is most effective, considering contextual factors for virtual teams (Hambley, 2005).

Project leadership and collaboration among virtual project team members require particular techniques to achieve project success (Bjørn & Ngwenyama, 2009; Hsin Hsin, Shuang-Shii, & Shu Han, 2011; Lee, 2010; Sadri & Condia, 2012).

There is a lower success rate for virtual projects compared to face-to-face projects because of challenges specific to the virtual context, such as use of appropriate technology. Less than 30% of virtual projects succeed

(Goodbody, 2005)

5


• Introduction

• Problem

• Purpose


• Methodology


• Results

• Significance

• Recommendations


Outline

Purpose

The purpose of the current quantitative correlational study was to explore relationships between the study’s variables: Contextual factors for virtual teams (independent) Collaboration technology (independent) Virtual project outcomes (dependent)

The quantitative method and correlational

research design was most appropriate for achieving the objectives of the study because use of these statistical methods provides a systematic way to test relationships among the study’s variables.

6


• Introduction

• Problem

• Purpose


• Methodology


• Results

• Significance

• Recommendations


Outline

Theoretical framework

This study had a theoretical background in organizational behavior and leadership theory. Organizational theorists study and apply

knowledge of the actions of people to identify effective practices within organizations (Newstrom & Davis, 2002)

Scholars and researchers study leadership theory to help people evolve their leadership competencies

The theoretical basis for the study included the

following: Aspects of organizational behavior (scientific

management and systems theory) An alternate leadership theory termed substitutes

for leadership theory (SLT)

7


• Introduction

• Problem

• Purpose


• Methodology


• Results

• Significance

• Recommendations


Research Question 1


8

What is the relationship between contextual factors of the virtual team environment and project outcomes?

A hypothesis tested the effects of the virtual team environment on project outcomes. H01: There is no statistically significant linear relationship between contextual factors

of the virtual team environment and project outcomes for virtual teams. HA1: There is a statistically significant linear relationship between contextual factors

of the virtual team environment and project outcomes for virtual teams.

Research Question 2


9

What is the relationship between use of collaboration technology by virtual teams and project outcomes?

The below hypothesis tested the effects of using different collaboration technologies on project outcomes. H02: There is no statistically significant linear relationship between use of

collaboration technology and project outcomes for virtual teams. HA2: There is a statistically significant linear relationship between use of

collaboration technology and project outcomes for virtual teams.

Research Question 3


10

How do contextual factors of the virtual team environment and use of collaboration technology influence project outcomes?

A hypothesis tested the effects on project outcomes from elements of the virtual team environment combined with use of different collaboration technologies. H03: There is no statistically significant linear relationship between contextual

factors of the virtual team environment and use of collaboration technology on project outcomes for virtual teams.

HA3: There is a statistically significant linear relationship between contextual factors of the virtual team environment and use of collaboration technology on project outcomes for virtual teams.

Outline

Methodology

The process of selecting subjects in the study included recruitment of project managers and team members with direct experience working on a virtual team or a recent observation of a virtual team using e-mail announcements.

The study employed quantitative methods to capture information from study participants who can provide relevant perspectives about virtual projects and collaboration technology.

Analysis of open-ended question data used the manifest coding content analysis technique to identify emergent themes based upon the frequency that words appear in the responses.

11


• Introduction

• Problem

• Purpose


• Methodology


• Results

• Significance

• Recommendations


Outline

Method and design rationale

Correlational research was most appropriate for this quantitative analysis because the study examined relationships between variables of interest (Leedy & Ormrod, 2010). Descriptive statistics Linear multiple regression analysis

The review of literature identified… Knowledge gaps related to the specific problem of a

low success rate for virtual projects The need to further explore how collaboration

technology influences the relationship between contextual factors for virtual teams and project outcomes

12


• Introduction

• Problem

• Purpose


• Methodology


• Results

• Significance

• Recommendations


Relationship Model


13

Method and design rationale (con’t)


14

The target population were persons in the United States and worldwide with direct experience on a virtual team or a recent observation of a virtual team.

This study used personal characteristic sampling focused on persons who share a specific characteristic of direct experience working on a virtual team or a recent observation of a virtual team.

Power analysis results for achieving a 95% confidence interval from the population indicated a minimum of 55 surveys are needed to test all hypotheses based on formulas derived by G*Power 3 (Faul, 2010).

Method and design rationale (con’t)


15

The sample in the current study included survey responses of 73 respondents from the target population of project leaders and virtual team members worldwide.

Prospective participants invited to take part in the study acknowledged an informed consent statement advising that participation was voluntary and their agreement to participate is consent.

The lack of an existing survey required custom development of instrumentation solely for the purpose of the study to capture relevant data from participants addressing the research questions Pilot study Instrument reliability and validity tests

Outline

Results

Results identified a general relationship trend between some individual contextual factors of the virtual team environment and project outcomes for virtual teams. Statistical p-values for both facilitation type (p =

0.03) and facilitator experience (p = 0.04) indicate they statistically significantly predict virtual project outcomes (p < 0.05)

The data reflects a general relationship between use of different collaboration technologies and project outcomes for virtual teams. Of different collaboration technologies, document

management tools (p = 0.04), blogs (p = 0.02), and social networking (p = 0.02) statistically significantly predict virtual project outcomes based on their p-values

16


• Introduction

• Problem

• Purpose


• Methodology


• Results

• Significance

• Recommendations


Results (con’t)


17

Statistical analysis identified a general relationship between contextual factors of the virtual team environment combined with use of different collaboration technologies and project outcomes for virtual teams. The overall p-value for the model for interactions between configuration and

collaboration technology (p = 0.03) significantly predicted virtual project outcomes The relationship was supported by the following interactions:

Interaction Sig. (p-value)

Configuration and use of document management tools 0.03

Configuration and use of blogs 0.01

Configuration and use of social networking 0.03

Results (con’t)


18

Statistical significance testing for each of the individual independent variables based on p-values show the following interactions statistically significantly predict virtual project outcomes:

Interaction Sig. (p-value)

Culture and use of blogs 0.01

Culture and use of social networking 0.02

Language and use of blogs 0.02

Language and use of social networking 0.01

Face-to-face interaction and use of blogs 0.01

Face-to-face interaction and use of social networking 0.01

Dispersal and use of blogs 0.03

Dispersal and use of social networking 0.04

Hypothesis Testing


19

Significance level was used to test the null hypotheses. The null hypothesis was rejected if a regression model’s results indicated at least one of the independent variable’s p-values located in the “Sig.” column on the coefficients table was less than .05.

Results (con’t)


20

For each of the posed research questions, content analysis supported rejecting the null hypothesis.

Participant comments indicated that strong leadership contributed to their project’s outcome.

Participants said use of collaboration technology, or lack of use of technology, has considerable influence on project outcomes.

Study participants indicated technical solutions are an integral part of virtual team collaboration and communication.

Results (con’t)


21

A limitation of the current study was no consensus exists among researchers or professionals for measuring project success (PMI, 2008). Of the projects examined in the current study (n = 62), the percentage of responses

indicating agreement or strong agreement that the project achieved its desired outcome was quality of product and project (85.48%), timeliness (74.19%), budget compliance (69.35%), and level of customer satisfaction (80.64%).

These proportions of seemingly successful projects did not align with statistics which indicate a success rate for projects is between 28% and 40% (Morris, 2008).

Results of the current study, in contrast to prior research of project success rates, confirm the continual problem of how to objectively and consistently measure project outcomes.

Outline

Significance

Results provide insight into how the setup of virtual teams and use of tools for collaboration influences the outcome of virtual projects.

While some prior studies examined team leadership and collaboration among team members in both face-to-face and virtual projects, little research has focused on the effects of collaboration technology on virtual teams and project outcomes.

This study extends the existing body of literature through exploration of the different types of collaboration technology and most effective team configurations for virtual projects.

22


• Introduction

• Problem

• Purpose


• Methodology


• Results

• Significance

• Recommendations


Significance (con’t)


23

From this study, leaders of virtual projects may inform their decision-making toward virtual teaming and use of appropriate collaboration technology considering the virtual team context.

Discoveries in the current study can serve as valuable information to decision makers, planners, and team leaders using collaboration technology in virtual projects when evaluating team configuration alternatives and use of collaboration technology to improve the success rate of virtual projects.

Outline

Recommendations

Further research should include: 1. Replicating the study with a larger sample

and expanded scope for contextual factors of the project environment.

2. Replicating the study adding gender to the

demographic data collected. 3. A cross-cultural study involving participants

from countries outside the United States. 4. Challenging the project success paradigm to

evolve from traditional measures of project outcomes.

24


• Introduction

• Problem

• Purpose


• Methodology


• Results

• Significance

• Recommendations


QUESTIONS?

VIRTUAL TEAMING AND COLLABORATION TECHNOLOGY 02/08/2014

25

Thanks for your attendance!

References

Anantatmula, V., & Thomas, M. (2010). Managing global projects: A structured approach for better performance. Project Management Journal, 41(2), 60-72. doi:10.1002/pmj.20168.

Arnold, G. (2008). Examining the relationship between leadership style and project success in virtual projects (Doctoral dissertation). Available from Dissertations & Theses @ University of Phoenix. (Publication No. AAT 3345049).

Bjørn, P., & Ngwenyama, O. (2009). Virtual team collaboration: Building shared meaning, resolving breakdowns and creating translucence. Information Systems Journal, 19(3), 227-253. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2575.2007.00281.x.

Faul, F. (2010). G*Power Version 3.1.3. Retrieved April 2, 2012, from http://www.psycho.uni-duesseldorf.de/abteilungen/aap/gpower3

Goodbody, J. (2005). Critical success factors for global virtual teams. Strategic Communication Management, 9(2), 18-21. (Document ID: 834466711).

Lee, M. (2010). E-leadership for project managers: A study of situational leadership and virtual project success (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Digital Dissertations and Theses Database.

Hambley, A. (2005). Virtual team leadership: The effects of leadership style and communication medium on team interaction styles and outcomes (Doctoral dissertation, University of Calgary, Canada). Available from ProQuest Digital Dissertations and Theses Database.

02/08/2014

26


References

Hsin Hsin, C., Shuang-Shii, C., & Shu Han, C. (2011). Determinants of cultural adaptation, communication quality, and trust in virtual teams' performance. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 22(3), 305-329. doi:10.1080/14783363.2010.532319.

Leedy, P. D. & Ormrod, J. E. (2010). Practical research: Planning and design (9th ed.). UpperSaddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Morris, R. A. (2008). Stop the insanity of failing projects. Industrial Management, 50(6), 20-25. Newstrom, J. W., & Davis, K. (2002). Organizational behavior (11th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Higher

Education. Project Management Institute. (2008). A guide to the project management body of knowledge:

PMBOK® guide (4th ed.). Newton Square, PA: Project Management Institute. Sadri, G., & Condia, J. (2012). Managing the virtual world. Industrial Management, 54(1), 21-25. Verburg, R. M., Bosch-Sijtsema, P., & Vartiainen, M. (2013). Getting it done: Critical success factors for

project managers in virtual work settings. International Journal of Project Management, 31(1), 68-79.

02/08/2014

27


Gary Broils, D.B.A. - Dissertation Defense: Virtual Teaming and Collaboration Technology

Business

Transcript of Gary Broils, D.B.A. - Dissertation Defense: Virtual Teaming and Collaboration Technology