A Typology Framework for Virtual Project Teams … · A Typology Framework for Virtual Project Teams ... population was selected PMI chapter members. ... Social 7 • Vision and goals

A Typology Framework for Virtual Project Teams

Padhraic Ludden & Dr Ann Ledwith

• Introduction

• Research methodology

• Research background

• Survey development

• Results

Agenda

• Do you frequently work on virtual teams - A virtual team is

defined as a team where all the team members are not located at

the same physical location.

Yes No

Polling Question 1

• .Introduction

• The need for project teams to work on a global level

has increased

• This report aims to contribute to our understanding of

virtual teams and project management by surveying

the project management population to see if it is

possible, using physical and soft attributes of virtual

teams (defined from the academic literature), to

empirically identify virtual project team typologies.

Purpose

• Identifying virtual project team typologies and their

relationships with one another, which will assist in the

management of virtual project teams.

• Providing information on the impact of a virtual

project team typology on overall project success,

which will aid in the development of virtual project

teams that can support project success.

Aim

• Research Question 1: Using a set of virtual project team attributes

based on published research, can virtual team typologies be identified

by empirical investigation of data gathered from a large-scale sample of

the project work environment?

• Research Question 2: Is there empirical evidence that relationships

exist between team demographics and team typologies identified from

Research Question 1?

• Research Question 3: Do the identified team typologies from Research

Question 1 have specific impacts on the performance of virtual project

teams?

Research questions

• .Research Methodology

• The research method used was grounded exploratory

research using a quantitative survey distributed in

Sept. 2013

• The survey tool was Survey Monkey and study

population was selected PMI chapter members.

• Using the PMI chapter member’s advisory group and

PMI chapter mentors, the survey was distributed to

an estimated 2,500 chapter members.

• The total number of responses collected was 521,

which represents the sample size of the study.

• .Research Background

• 1. Temporal dispersion

• 2. Geographic dispersion

• 3. Cultural

• 4. Political

• 5. Social

• 6. Team membership

• 7. Use of communication technology

• 8. Task complexity

Eight key characteristics of virtual teams.

Key Characteristic Hard Attribute Soft Attribute

1. Temporal dispersion Team members in

different time zones

Time difference

between time zones

Extra hours worked

Difficulty of task execution

Impact on functional or workshop

relationship between team members

Lack of understanding of different

physiological and social habits or

norms

Time delays cause confusion

2 Geographic dispersion Number of locations

Key location

Geographical distribution of locations

Team structures at locations


3. Cultural Number of languages

Mandatory language

Number of nationalities

Number of organizations

Number of functional

departments

Number of subject matter

experts

Recognizing different cultural situations

Understanding different economic,

social, and legal conditions

Adapting to different cultural situations

Sensitivity to cultures reflected in

communication and interaction

Dominance of organizations

Use of organizational processes

Integration of functional department

members and subject matter experts into

the team

4. Political Team and team leaders’ political

reputation and standing

Team autonomy and freedom

Team leaders’ interactions with team and

team organizations


5 .Social Team vision and goals

Alignment to vision and goals

Formal job role versus expertise and

knowledge

Knowledge transfer and sharing

6. Team membership Experience of working on virtual teams

Experience of working with other team

members

Diversity of knowledge

Number of fully dedicated members

Number with dedicated roles

Number reporting directly to team

leader

Number of contractors


7. Use of

Communication

technology

Experience of using communication

technology

Usage of communication technologies

8. Task complexity Team skills

New group required

Dependency on individuals

Uncertainty

Time pressure

• .Survey development

• Numerous measures, but focused on practioner input

• In addition to the main survey, a further small-scale study of 50

practitioners with experience working on virtual teams was used

in order to establish a working measure of virtuality.

• This research found that from the hard attributes gathered from

the literature review , two are deemed to have the most impact

on the level of virtuality of a team:

1) the number of hours’ difference in time zones between the two

locations of the virtual team; and

2) the number of team locations existing for the virtual team.

• Based on the survey a ‘physical’ or ‘hard’ typology is developed

Virtuality measure

Component factor analysis was conducted on the virtual team

characteristic data variables of

• Team membership

• Political

• Social

• Culture

Component factor analysis

Principal component analysis (PCA) is a mathematical procedure that

transforms a number of (possibly) correlated variables into a (smaller)

number of uncorrelated variables called principal components.

Cluster analysis was then preformed using the principle components

defined from the factor analysis

Based on the Cluster analysis a ‘soft’ typology is developed

Cluster analysis

Cluster analysis or clustering is the task of grouping a set of objects in

such a way that objects in the same group (called a cluster) are more

similar (in some sense or another) to each other than to those in other

groups (clusters).

• .Results - Demographic

CountryNumber of

Responses

Ireland 106 (20%)

United States 77 (15%)

India 35 (7%)

England 31 (6%)

France 17 (3%)

Belgium 15 (3%)

Others: Canada, Sweden, Portugal Germany, Poland, Croatia, Italy,

Philippines, Brazil, Australia, Ghana, Mexico, South Africa,

Colombia, Netherlands, Switzerland, Greece, Indonesia, New

Zealand, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Austria, Costa Rica, Malaysia, Nigeria,

Pakistan, Argentina, Bulgaria, Chile, China, and Czech Republic.

239 (46%)

Nationality of respondents

Industry sector and organisation size

Industry SectorNumber of

Responses

Information Technology 125 (24%)

Telecommunications 53 (10%)

Financial Services 34 (7%)

Manufacturing 33 (7%)

Consulting 32 (6%)

Engineering 32 (6%)

Others: Resources, Government, Insurance, Pharmaceuticals,

Healthcare, Utility, Construction, Aerospace, Business Services, and

Food and Beverage

202 (39%)

Organization Size Distribution (People) Number of Responses

<= 1000 147 (31%)

>1000 <= 20,000 140 (29%)

>20,000 <= 50,000 45 (9%)

>50,000 <= 100,000 47 (10%)

>100,000 84 (18%)

Unknown 16 (3%)

Cost and duration of projects

Cost of Project

(US$)

Number of

Responses

Duration of Project Number of

Responses

>10 million 82 (17%) <= 3 months 42 (9%)

>5 million <= 10

million

33 (7%)>3months <=6months

88 (18%)

>1 million <= 5

million

94 (20%)>6months <= 1 year

125 (26%)

>300,000 <=

1million

90 (19%)>1 year <= 2 years

130 (27%)

<= 300,000 119 (25%) >2 years 94 (20%)

unknown 61 (13%)

• .Results - Hard Typology

• Do the virtual teams you work on normally consist of team

members dispersed across more than 4 locations , with the

largest time zone difference between any two locations being

greater than 6 hours

Yes No.

Polling Question 2

Moderately virtual: The difference in time zones between two

locations is fewer than six hours, and the number of team locations

is less than four.

Highly virtual: The difference in time zones between two locations

is greater than six hours, and the number of team locations is

greater than four.

Moderately virtual and highly virtual

• .Results - Soft Typology

• Dedicated team members

• Virtual team experience

• Team leader status

• Team status

• Vision and goals

• Expertise and knowledge

• Common processes

• Cultural awareness

• Cultural adaptiveness

Component factor analysis resulted in nine factors

Key

Characteristic

No.

of Qs Factors Meaning

Team

Membership

5 • Dedicated

team

members

The level of dedication of team members: Dedication-

measuring factors are: dedicated to the project, dedicated

roles, and reporting directly to the project manager.

• Virtual team

experienceThe team members were experienced with working on

virtual teams and also had previous experiences working

with other team members.

Political 5 • Team

leader

status

The team leader or leaders were well-known, had achieved

recognition, and had a high degree of interaction within the

team and within the organization or organizations to which

the team belonged.

• Team

statusThe team had a strong reputation for having the political

power to get things done and was allowed the freedom to

run the project as it wished.

Key

Characteristic

No.

of

Q’s Factors Meaning

Social 7 • Vision and goals The team had a clearly defined vision, goals, and

objectives and team members were aligned to them.

• Expertise and

knowledgeTeam members’ expertise was considered more

important than job title or position, and team members

were encouraged to share their knowledge with the

rest of the team.

Organizational

Culture4 • Common

processesThe team had one set of organizational policies,

methodologies, and processes.

Key Characteristic

No. of

Q’s Factors Meaning

National Culture 7 • Cultural

awarenessThe team members were good at recognizing the

different cultural situations that arose within the

team and understood the different economic,

social, and legal conditions of the various

countries in which the other team members lived.

• Cultural

adaptivenessTeam members worked hard to adapt to the

different cultural situations that occurred within

the team and were sensitive to other team

members’ cultural behavior. This was reflected in

the way team members communicated and

interacted within the team.

Cluster analysis

Attribute Virtually

challenged

( N=84)

Virtually

enhanced

(N=232)

Hybrid

(N=194)

Mean

Dedicated team members -0.06 0.35 -0.39 3.8

Virtual team experience -0.23 0.45 -0.43 3.4

Team leader status -0.85 0.28 0.01 3.9

Team status -0.46 0.45 -0.36 3.3

Vision and goals -1.63 0.37 0.21 3.8

Expertise and knowledge -0.10 0.40 -0.45 3.9

Common processes -0.86 0.43 -0.16 3.5

Cultural awareness -0.47 0.56 -0.47 3.4

Cultural adaptiveness -0.79 0.24 0.04 3.5

• .Results - Typology comparisons

– Team structure

• Moderately virtual versus highly virtual

• Virtually challenged versus virtually enhanced

– Team demographics



– Temporal dispersion factors



– Use of communication technology



– Task complexity



Comparison Analysis

• Independent-samples t test (two-sample t test) This is used to

compare the means of one variable for two groups of cases..

• Crosstabulation is a powerful technique that helps you to describe the

relationships between categorical (nominal or ordinal) variables.. We

use Pearson’s chi square test. Chi-Square tests the hypothesis that the

row and column variables are independent, without indicating strength

or direction of the relationship.

• Statistical significance -Mathematical probabilities like p-values range

from 0 (no chance) to 1 (absolute certainty). So 0.5 means a 50 per

cent chance and 0.05 means a 5 per cent chance. In most sciences,

results yielding a p-value of .05 are considered on the borderline of

statistical significance.

Team structure - physical

Team Structure Moderately Virtual Highly Virtual Test for Equality

Significance (two-tailed)

Mean Mean

Team structure

Number of people on team 29.45 56.84 0.034**

Number of team languages 1.50 1.60 0.448

Impact on work hours (extra

hours worked)

3.78 4.51 0.002**

Number of nationalities 3.93 7.80 0.008**

Number of organizations 3.03 5.47 0.012**


departments

3.66 5.30 0.000**


experts

4.25 8.72 0.000**

Team structure – physical

Team Structure Virtually Challenged Virtually Enhanced T-Test for Equality

Significance (two-tailed)

Mean Mean

Team Structure

Number of people on team 49.80 28.04 0.024**

Number of locations 7.11 7.09 0.994

Number of team languages 1.62 2.26 0.401

Largest time zone 7.41 8.04 0.342

Impact on work hours (extra

hours worked)

5.90 5.62 0.795

Number of nationalities 6.80 5.26 0.225

Number of organizations 1.41 1.42 0.848


departments

5.16 4.36 0.132


experts

5.57 6.21 0.288

Team demographicsDemographic Pearson Chi-Squared Test

for Difference

Moderately/Highly

Team Structure

All members are the same nationality 0.000**

All members in the same time zone N/A

All members in the same organization 1.000

Knowledge diversity of the team members 0.151

The makeup of the team members at locations 0.000**

Team Operation Processes

A face-to-face meeting that involved all of the team members took place 0.020**

A main location exists for the team 0.001**

There was an official or mandatory team language used 0.004**

The leadership structure on the team 0.055

Project Type

The duration of the project 0.104

The cost of the project 0.023**

Project Organization

The number of people employed by the organization executing the project 0.000**

Classification of organization 0.000**

Industry focus 0.079

Team demographicsDemographic Pearson Chi-Squared Test

for Difference

Challenged/Enhanced

Team Structure

All members are the same nationality 0.471

All members in the same time zone 0.385

All members in the same organization 0.917

Knowledge diversity of the team members 0.003**

The makeup of the team members at locations 0.133

Team Operation Processes

A face-to-face meeting that involved all of the team members took place 0.008**

A main location exists for the team 0.109

There was an official or mandatory team language used 0.936

The leadership structure on the team 0.096

Project Type

The duration of the project 0.256

The cost of the project 0.010**

Project Organization

The number of people employed by the organization executing the project 0.718

Classification of organization 0.698

Industry focus 0.761

• Except for the number of people on the team, no real differences exist

between virtually challenged teams and virtually enhanced teams.

• Highly virtual and moderately virtual teams are different in their physical

team structure, with highly virtual teams having a larger number of

team members, more nationalities, more organizations, and more

functional departments involved, as well as working more hours outside

normal business hours

• There tends to be a greater diversity of knowledge among team

members of virtually enhanced teams than virtually challenged teams.

• There is no difference in the diversity of knowledge between highly and

moderately virtual teams.

Team structure

• Virtually enhanced teams are more likely to host a face-to-face meeting

for the whole team than virtually challenged teams. Also, enhanced

teams hold a greater number of face-to-face meetings than challenged

teams.

• Moderately virtual teams are more likely to hold face-to-face meetings

for the entire team than highly virtual teams.

• There is no difference between virtually challenged and virtually

enhanced teams in the use of mandatory language.

• Highly virtual teams tend to use a mandatory language more so than

moderately virtual teams.

Team operation processes

• Moderately virtual team project costs tended to be less than US$5

million, while highly virtual projects costs are more evenly spread

across the ranges, over 40% cost more than US$5 million, compared to

approximately 20% of moderately virtual projects.

• There was no difference between virtually enhanced and virtually

challenged teams with regard to organization size and industry

classification

• More highly virtual teams existed in large organizations, whereas more

moderately virtual teams existed in smaller organizations

Project type and project organisation

Temporal dispersion

Temporal Dispersion Factors for Moderate/High

Moderately

Virtual

Mean

Highly-Virtual

Mean

Pearson Chi-Squared

Test for Difference

Executing tasks in parallel is difficult 2.59 3.26 0.004**

Delays in communication 2.96 3.41 0.101

Negatively impacted the working relationship2.39 2.69 0.256

Lack of understanding of the different physiological and

social norms 2.80 2.65 0.129

Lack of understanding of the different physiological and

social norms caused conflict 2.69 2.37 0.358

Confusion over clock times caused missed scheduled

meetings 1.86 2.10 0.109

Confusion over clock times caused missed task deadlines

1.78 2 0.315

Temporal dispersion

Temporal Dispersion Factors Virtually

Challenged Mean

Virtually

Enhanced Mean

Pearson’s Chi-

Squared Test for

Difference

Executing tasks in parallel is difficult 3.37 2.78 0.020**

Delays in communication 3.8 2.97 0.000**

Negatively impacted the functional working relationship

3.42 2.33 0.000**

Lack of understanding of the different physiological and social

norms 3.41 2.35 0.000**

Lack of understanding of the different physiological and social

norms caused conflict 3 2.16 0.000**

Confusion over clock times caused missed scheduled meetings

2.34 1.87 0.003**

Confusion over clock times caused missed task deadlines

2.36 1.73 0.000**

• The impact of temporal dispersion is significantly different between

virtually enhanced and virtually challenged teams.

• Time zone dispersion has a greater negative impact on challenged

teams than on enhanced teams.

• For highly and moderately virtual teams, there is no difference between

the two groups for the impact of temporal dispersion.

Temporal dispersion

Use of communication technologyUsage of communication technology Moderately-

Virtual

Highly-Virtual Pearson chi squared test

for difference

Mean Mean

Experience of using communication technology

4.20 4.40 0.058

Standalone video conferencing 2.00 1.94 0.054

Web conferencing 3.13 3.95 0.003**

Instant messaging 3.89 4.60 0.044**

Remote access & control tool 3.01 2.80 0.464

Email 5.49 5.63 0.314

Fixed telephone 4.49 4.47 0.54

Mobile phone 4.11 4.02 0.127

Letter /Fax 1.58 1.35 0.211

Social networks 1.42 1.36 0.881

Data sharing repositories 3.45 4.35 0.002**

Team and organisation web portals3.18 3.46 0.601

Use of communication technology

Usage of Communication Technology Virtually Challenged Virtually Enhanced Pearson’s Chi-

Squared Test

Mean Mean

Experience of using communication technology

3.92 4.40.000**

Stand-alone video conferencing 1.92 2.05 0.776

Web conferencing 3.24 3.76 0.217

Instant messaging3.64 4.32

0.152

Remote access and control tool 2.38 2.88 0.250

Email 5.51 5.57 0.656

Fixed telephone 4.5 4.45 0.682

Mobile phone 4.08 4.27 0.351

Letter/Fax 1.51 1.53 0.825

Social networks 1.15 1.54 0.106

Data-sharing repositories 3.7 3.92 0.484

Team and organization web portals 2.59 3.62 0.001**

• Team members of highly virtual and moderately virtual teams show no

difference in their experience of using communication technology

• Highly virtual team members are heavier users of web conferencing

tools, instant messaging, and data-sharing repositories than moderately

virtual teams

• Team members from enhanced teams are more experienced than team

members from challenged teams in the use of communication

technology.

• Enhanced teams are heavier users of team and organization web

portals than challenged teams

Use of communication technology

Task complexityTask complexity statements

Moderately-virtual Highly-VirtualPearson chi- squared test

for difference

True True

The task was unlikely to be accomplished

successfully using only the skills within the team52% 57.95 0.370

The task was addressed by a new group formed

specifically for the purpose 41% 36.8% 0.519

The task required collective input and agreement

from more than 20 people 59% 40.6% 0.005**

The success of the task was dependent on

understanding preferences or needs of individuals

outside the group34% 28.6% 0.375

The outcome of the task was influenced by events

that were highly uncertain and difficult to predict47% 40.6% 0.329

The task was completed under extreme time

pressure 46% 37.6% 0.197

Task complexityTask Complexity Virtually

Challenged

Virtually Enhanced Pearson’s Chi-

Squared Test

Statement True True

The task was unlikely to be accomplished successfully

using only the skills within the team

52.7% 58.7% 0.445

The task was addressed by a new group formed specifically

for the purpose

39.2% 36% 0.723

The task required collective input and agreement from more

than 20 people

50% 49.3% 1.000

The success of the task was dependent on understanding

preferences or needs of individuals outside the group

33.8% 27.6% 0.381

The outcome of the task was influenced by events that were

highly uncertain and difficult to predict

40.5% 42.2% 0.906

The task was completed under extreme time pressure 37.8% 40.9% 0.743

• .Impact of Virtual Team Typologies

on Project Success

Which of the following options do you think has the greatest impact

on the success of the project being performed by a virtual project

team ( please select one option)

• Option 1 : The level of physical dispersion of the team members

across locations and time zones

• Option 2: The cultural , political , social and team membership

makeup of the virtual team

Polling Question 3

Virtually

Challenged

Virtually

Enhanced

Pearson Chi-

Squared Test

for Difference

Moderat

ely

Virtual

Highly

Virtual

Pearson Chi-

Squared Test

for Difference

Completed on schedule 2.86 3.73 0.000** 3.4 3.44 0.665

Completed within budget 2.84 3.72 0.000** 3.52 3.44 0.873

Achieved quality and performance

objectives3.08 4.14 0.000** 3.72 3.97 0.196

Deliverables met client expectations 3.3 4.08 0.000** 3.82 4 0.554

There is a significant difference in the performance of virtually

enhanced teams compared to virtually challenged teams

There is no significant difference between the performance of highly

virtual teams and moderately virtual teams.

Virtually enhanced teams have the best project success rate and

virtually challenged teams have the worst project success rate. The

project success rates of both moderately virtual and highly virtual teams

lies between challenged and enhanced teams, but there is no

difference between the project success rates of highly and moderately

virtual teams.

• .The best Typology – virtually

enhanced

Attribute Virtually Enhanced

Dedicated team members The team members are dedicated to the project, have a dedicated role, or report directly to the

project leader.

Virtual team experience The team members have previous experience working on virtual teams and have previously worked

together.

Team leader status The team leader or leaders were very well known, have achieved recognition, and have a very high

degree of interaction within the team and within the organization or organizations to which the team

belonged.

Team status The team has a strong reputation for having the political power to get things done and is likely to

be allowed the freedom to run the project as it wishes.

Vision and goals The team has a strong and clearly defined vision, goals, and objectives, and team members are

strongly aligned to them.

Expertise and knowledge Team members’ expertise and knowledge is considered much more important than job title or

position, and team members are strongly encouraged to, and actively share their knowledge with the

rest of the team.

Common processes The team has one set of organizational policies, methodologies, and processes.

Cultural awareness The team members are good at recognizing the different cultural situations that arise within the

team and understand the different economic, social, and legal conditions of the various countries in

which the other team members lived.

Cultural adaptiveness Team members work hard to adapt to the different cultural situations that occur within the team, and

are sensitive to other team members’ cultural behaviors. This is reflected in the way team members

communicate and interact within the team.

Dr. Ann Ledwith & Padhraic Ludden

This research was carried out with the support from PMI under their

research grant program.

Thanks to Carla Messikomer, Kristin Dunn, Juan C Nogueira, Kim

Shinners and Kimberly Whitby for all there support and assistance in

developing the research report and webinar.

Thank You

PMI | Collaborative Project Procurement Arrangements

How to Obtain PDU Credit

• By attending this one hour webinar you will earn one (1) PDU. Participants

accounting for their Category A programs may search by program activity

number, “MAR 2016 Webinar,” or by title, “A Typology Framework for Virtual

Teams.” The PMI Code of Ethics would be the guide for individuals reporting

their PDUs.

– See PMI’s website for more information for reporting PDUs:

https://ccrs.pmi.org/search/

• If you have linked your PMI credentials to your ProjectManagement.com, we

will batch report your PDU for you. If you have not linked your accounts, you

will need to manually report the PDU on PMI’s website.

https://ccrs.pmi.org/search/

http://projectmanagement.com/

• First, it provides a clear, practitioner-based definition of virtuality. Virtual

teams that have more than four team locations and a time difference of

more than six hours between locations are classified as highly virtual,

while those with fewer than four team locations and a time difference of

less than six hours are moderately virtual.

• While earlier researchers have used various definitions of team

virtuality (Bell & Kozlowski, 2002; Fiol & O’Connor, 2005; Griffith &

Neal, 2001), none have produced a simple, easy-to-operationalize

measure. An additional advantage of this approach is that it is

consistent with more recent research (Schweitzer & Duxbury, 2010).

Research Contribution 1

• The second contribution is the identification (based on a set of team

characteristics) of virtually challenged and virtually enhanced teams..

These characteristics have a sound theoretical basis, having been

developed from a detailed review of existing literature on virtual teams.

But more importantly, they have been validated against a large sample

of international firms from a range of sectors and disciplines.

• What is particularly interesting about this list of characteristics is that,

with the exception of an increased emphasis on culture and possibly on

aligned processes, they could be describing success characteristics of

any team. In other words, the traits and characteristics of a successful

team apply whether the team is virtual or not.

Results – Contribution 2

• Physical virtuality does not have a significant impact on team

performance. This is at odds with earlier research (Griffith & Neale,

2001; Chudoba et al., 2003), but may be a reflection of today’s working

practices, in which the use of communication technology is now the

norm for all teams, whether co-located or virtual; thus, the impact of

virtuality is reduced.

• While physical virtuality does not have an impact on success, the

characteristics of the virtually enhanced teams are significantly linked

with project success across all four measures.

• This provides a very clear template for how virtual teams need to be set

up if they are to deliver successful projects. It is also interesting that the

“softer” characteristics (e.g., status, vision, and experience), have a

much greater impact on project success than the “harder” physical

characteristics of geographic and temporal dispersion.

Results – Contribution 3

Moderately virtual with highly virtual

Virtually challenged with virtually enhanced

– Team structure – Physical

– Team demographics

– Temporal dispersion factors

– Use of communication technology

– Task complexity

A Typology Framework for Virtual Project Teams … · A Typology Framework for Virtual Project Teams ... population was selected PMI chapter members. ... Social 7 • Vision and goals

Documents