Virtual Collaborative Work

February 2007

Establishing and Sustaining Collaboration and Shared Work in Virtual Environments Roberto J. Rodrigues, Consultant Information and Knowledge Management Area (DD/IKM) Pan American Health Organization Washington D.C.

Abstract This paper reviews critical issues related to the establishment and functioning of teams and work groups that utilize virtual (mediated) resources such as audio and videoconferencing and computer-based solutions, e.g. e-mail, listservers, MSSharePoint, webmeeting, or other virtual information and communication technology applications. Comments and recommendations are based on practical learned lessons, as reported by public and private organizations, and on the experience gained over the past three years by PAHO’s DD/IKM Area with the use of telephone conferencing, videoconferencing, NetMeeting, SharePoint, and Elluminate Live! to support work group activities.

1. The Nature of Teams and Consultative Groups A team is an assembly of a relatively small number of people working collaboratively, frequently in contact, and committed to a common goal, purpose, approach, and performance for which they hold themselves mutually accountable. Not every group of people working together is a team. As a matter of fact, very few groups of people working together function as true teams [1, 2]. Facts about teams: •

When a team cannot be assembled and the individuals of the group pursue their own agendas, the work of the group generally will default to a mediocre solution rather than the best solution.

•

A true team will collaborate to the best solution, rather than default to a mediocre solution.

•

The person initiating the team (Team Sponsor) has ownership and continuing responsibility throughout the life of the team.

•

Team performance is comprised of both individual results and collaborative workproducts, which require synergy among the team members.

2

•

Creating and sustaining successful teams involves a teaming planning process that involves establishing a foundation for the team work, chartering the team, sustaining the effectiveness of the team throughout the work period, and accomplishing the goals and purposes for which the team was established.

Differently from a team, a consultative group is an assembly of people working independently of each other, with limited intergroup communication, with the objective of producing a collective product. Consultative group members are individually responsible for accomplishing specific tasks. The output of a work group, usually edited and given unity by a rapporteur or coordinator, is equal to the sum of its inputs and frequently misses the richness, innovation, and insights that characterize true team work. 2. The Successful Team Most teams fail because they do not adequately plan for success. Creating and sustaining successful teams involves a disciplined teaming process supported by leadership, facilitation, training, materials, and activity and performance support products [1].

2.1. Pre-Team Activities An important initial definition must be reached regarding the time of team being assembled – there are three types of teams: teams that decide, teams that recommend, and teams that implement. The following questions must be answered: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i.

What is the purpose of this team? Are they charged with making recommendations, making decisions, or taking action? What value does it bring to the Organization? What critical skills are needed for the team to succeed? What resources are needed (time, people, training, technologies)? What are the deliverables? How will success be measured? When is the team finished? What rewards or recognition can the team members expect?

3

They will help define: •

The Purpose of the team and the establishment of Ownership and Leadership

•

The Process to be used by the team: Charter, Members, and Support Tools

•

The Payoff, i.e. the definition of Success before the team is initiated

•

Team Sponsor - promoter or highest level "manager" of the team. This is the person who defines the goals and purpose, approves the requirements, and sets the measurements for the expected team outputs. This is the person who defines the deliverables.

•

Team Leader - the "operator" of this process and who detains the knowledge or specialized content of the field that the team will examine. This is the person who accomplishes the requirements and applies the measurements. This is the person who delivers the deliverables created through the efforts of the team.

•

Team Facilitator - helps a team by managing and making the work of the team easier. The facilitator: identifies team operation problems, helps resolve conflicts, helps make meetings more productive, and keeps the team focused and moving ahead.

•

Team Supporter – usually a professional with experience in the application and use of information and communication technologies and group decision support systems (GDSS). The supporter role is to train and assist team members in the use of electronic resources aimed at minimizing common communication barriers through applications such as audioconference, videoconference, and computer-mediated solutions.

2.2. Step 1: Chartering the Team

4

•

Align the Purpose - team understands the Sponsor’s purpose and milestones

•

Align the People - gain buy-in, assesses skills and competencies, sets operating rules, and sets roles and responsibilities

•

Align the Process – establishes guidelines for team operation and for team communication

2.3. Step 2: Sustaining the Team

The very thing that makes teams work well -- common goals, shared focus, physical proximity, working rapport -- can easily lead to a number of “disabilities”; isolation, team myopia, and capacity building sclerosis. The team Leader and the Facilitator must be aware of the following limitations of team: Teams can become “silos” - People in teams often complain that they have trouble getting information from other teams. They reinvent tools, analyses, or approaches developed by their peers on other teams and waste time searching for information they know one of their colleagues has. Teams can get isolated - Team members naturally focus inward, concentrating on team goals and connecting with teammates. This sort of isolation is common for cross-functional teams. Even when team members fully intend to share insight and information with other teams, team goals often pull so strongly on people’s time, that they simply cannot find the time to do so.

5

Isolation can lead to team myopia - When teams have very little contact with other teams or are isolated for extended periods, they can get into the habit of rejecting ideas from outside and lose their ability to generate new ideas. Research in creative thinking has long shown that new ideas usually come from the intersection of disciplines, perspectives, or ways of thinking. Scientists often do their most creative work a few years after they changed fields. Small companies working at the edge of a field often develop new technologies. Teams’ most creative ideas often come when they see how people in other organizations or sectors perform similar processes. Teams can easily neglect long-term capacity building - Most organizations need to balance the tension between short-term production goals and long-term capacity building. On an organizational level, this is the tension between production and product development. On an individual level, it is the tension between focusing on current projects and taking the time to develop and share knowledge. Because teams are typically tasked with output goals -- producing a product or service-- they tend to pull people toward the production side of this tension.

2.4. Step 3: Crossing the Finish Line

3. Networking and Working in Virtual Environments Networking and work in virtual environments are forms of collaboration in which frequent exchanges and interdependent work is done and responsibility for the outcomes is shared, but the participants are geographically dispersed, and rely on mediated communication to produce an outcome, such as a shared understanding, evaluation, strategies, recommendations, decisions, action plans, and final products. Such interactive collaborations can occur in “real” or “near real-time” (synchronous environment) or in a “on demand” mode (asynchronous environment).

6

Virtual collaboration uses “mediated-communication” rather than face-to-face (FTF) encounters. The principal modes are audioconference (AC), videoconference (VC), and computer-mediated communication (CMC). These are increasingly being used for contacting experts not readily available for FTF meetings, to improve response time, and to save money. Such forms of collaboration occur in many walks of life and at many different levels of organizations. It is important to understand how the form of virtual collaboration, i.e., the communication medium, influences group processes and outcomes—not only in the most obvious ways, such as timeliness, but with respect to issues such as the quality of outcomes. Most research in mediated communication focuses on comparing a given medium with FTF communication or compares different media for specific tasks, such as negotiations. For instance, it is known that the various communication media can have adverse effects, which are often not evident to participants. However, these adverse effects can be avoided or mitigated by the appropriate choice of communication medium for the tasks at hand and by adopting good practices and aids. 3.1. Cognition in Network-centric Interactions Network-centric interactions are characterized by information sharing across multiple levels of traditional organizational levels. Information sharing is made possible by networking the staff down to the individual level. They depend upon the availability of information on the area being addressed and other relevant aspects of the operational environment and on a technological infrastructure of interconnected computers. Fundamental to network-centric interactivity is the notion that, with accurate and detailed information being available, highly complex groups organize naturally and optimally from the bottom up. Such bottom-up organization (“self-synchronization”) stands in stark contrast to what has historically and traditionally been a highly centralized, top-down command and control approach used by top-level managers to communicate linearly from the top down. By enabling more extended self-synchronization, network-centric interactivity change the balance between bottom-up initiative and top-down directive in favor of bottom-up initiative resulting in dialogue, novel perspectives, and innovative recommendations and solutions [3]. 3.2. Communication Media and Virtual Work Processes The way various communication media affect group processes and outcomes depend on many factors: communication medium (or media), task type, context, group characteristics, and individual characteristics. Moreover, these factors interact, complicating interpretations of results. Finally, it is important to note that the baseline for comparison – face to face (FTF) communications -- also has many inherent problems. One must be consider many issues -- for example, it is necessary to distinguish the focus of the meetings, whether FTF or virtual, are they more focused on fact finding, negotiations,

7

socialization, or people problems? Despite these complications, a number of conclusions emerge from the empirical literature. The following have consistently being mentioned across different experimental conditions [4]: •

All media change the context of the communication, generally reducing cues used to (a) regulate and understand conversation, (b) indicate participants’ perspective, power, and status, and (c) move the group toward agreement.

•

In audio and video conferencing and computer-mediated communications, participants tend to cooperate less with those at other “nodes” and more often shift their opinions toward extreme or risky options than they do in FTF collaboration.

•

In audio and videoconferencing collaboration, local coalitions can form in which participants tend to agree more with those in the same room than with those on the other end of the line. There is a tendency disagree with those on the other end of the communication link.

•

Computer-mediated communications can reduce efficiency as measured in time to solution, status effects, domination, participation, and consensus. It has been shown useful in broadening the range of inputs and ideas. However, it has also been shown to increase polarization, and reduce individuation and inhibition. Individuals may become more extreme in their thinking, less sensitive to interpersonal aspects of their messages, although more honest and candid in their opinions.

4. Suggestions for Improving Network-centric Collaborative Work The findings outlined above have some direct practical significance. For instance, awareness of the tendency to form local coalitions might help prevent them. However, many of the effects discussed may not obvious to the participants of the team, and explicit mitigation strategies are therefore called for. Drawing upon the literature and our own experience follows a summary of measures to mitigate problems related to the use of network-centric communication technologies and systems: •

Assure, as far as feasible, that people know each other personally before relying upon virtual collaboration or, next best, building in time for “ice-breaking,” socialization, and development of common understanding of purpose.

•

Group Leaders and Facilitators must be trained and constantly aware about how to prepare for, lead, or moderate virtual collaboration and about the problems to watch for. This typically requires conscious effort and experience, as does learning to be a good chairperson of a live meeting. Simply “doing it” and relying upon intuition is unwise.

8

•

Experienced Facilitators with insight into the limitations of the technologies, their operational procedures, and potential ways to bypass unavailability, connectivity problems, and other technological failures, is important although the experience has shown that they must have some subject-matter knowledge and peer recognition to have credibility.

•

In most cases, a knowledgeable, respected, and open Leader, trained in the communication medium being used can do much to circumvent participation problems related to geographically separated team members

•

Using up-to-date technology, e.g., good sound, good video, and easy sharing of documents and graphics is important. Moreover, specialized group decision support software (GDSS), e.g. MS-SharePoint, can be very helpful when used well -- a function of education and experience.

•

Individuals should be given guidelines and advice to minimize “flaming”, reduce tendencies to think poorly of people at other nodes, and encourage awareness of unintended risky behaviors.

References 1. Buckman Laboratories International (2005). Buckman’s Team Tools. PowerPoint presentation 2. McDermott R (1999). Learning across teams: The role of communities of practice in team organizations. Knowledge Management Review (May/June) 3. Wesensten NJ, Belenky G, and Balkin TJ (2005). Cognitive readiness in network-centric operations. Parameters (Spring Issue): 94-105 4. Waifan L and Davis PK (2005). Challenges in Virtual Collaboration. Rand National Defense Research Institute. ISBN 0 8330 3700 5