Virtual Teams – We’ve Got the T-shirt!
Pene Welsh and Carmel Moynihan
Curtin University Graduate School of Business, 78 Murray Street, Perth, Western Australia 6000
www.gsb.curtin.edu.au
[email protected]
[email protected]
Abstract
The Curtin University’s Graduate School of Business (GSB) was faced with the challenge of
providing on-line education to meet the needs of postgraduate MBA students. Students required the
delivery of their learning to be flexible to accommodate their access and equity needs. Organisations
increasingly demand staff who are knowledgeable, “cyber savvy” and skilled in team processes. This
provided the impetus to develop e-Learning units that were based around virtual teams. This paper
discusses the reasons for such development and how the GSB implemented their virtual team process
within the marketing units.
Key Words:
Teams, virtual, e-learning, education, MBA, information technology
Introduction
Curtin University’s Graduate School of Business (GSB) was faced with the challenge of providing online education to meet the needs of postgraduate Master of Business Administration (MBA) students
who required a degree of flexibility to accommodate their business circumstances and lifestyle
choices. The GSB also recognised the importance of providing an alternative delivery method of
education to students with access and equity issues.
The future of business demands that students be “cyber savvy”, as according to Makimote et al., (2001
p 38) “technology frees people from the constraints of time and location”. One of the significant
learning outcomes of the GSB’s MBA program stresses the importance of students being literate in
existing and developing technologies to prepare them for the broader business environment. The
GSB’s approach to knowledge acquisition in these areas is to embed learning outcomes into course
development.
The GSB was utilising Lotus Software’s LearningSpace in its existing e-Learning environment. Lotus
QuickPlace was piloted in Trimester 1, 2002 to provide a virtual team environment in two marketing
units – Marketing Management 555 and Competitive Marketing Strategy 660. While this pilot project
proved highly successful for the majority of students, it was not without anguish for other students.
This paper explores the challenges from the perspective of the GSB, its lecturers and students,
including the areas of teamwork in a virtual environment and Information Technology.
The GSB’s experience with the implementation of group software and virtual teams is used to
examine the issues that arose in this learning environment.
Background
“Rapid Market changes, technological advances, economic slow downs, and an
eagerness to continuously improve operations reinforce the 1990’s movement to
develop self directed empowered teams that are not just productive but creative”.
Kezsbom (2001 p 41)
Business requires employees with a number of skill and knowledge sets, to meet the ongoing changes,
both technological advancement and changing economic circumstances. The responsibility of
business educators is to present organisations with graduates equipped to work in the global
environment and who are able to adopt new technology as a part of everyday work. As a fundamental
part of the new business environment, MBA graduates must possess both the necessary knowledge,
achieved through course content, and skills, gained during the process of learning, especially working
in virtual teams and utilising the associated technology.
For two years (2000-2001) the Graduate School of Business (GSB) provided an on-line learning
environment for its MBA students. Initially known as Mixed Mode, students were provided with
access to Lotus LearningSpace, a proprietary web based learning management system (LMS).
Compulsory face-to-face sessions, offered two to three times throughout the trimester, supported the
on-line delivery.
The implementation of on-line learning at the GSB followed on from research conducted by
Ladyshewsky and Nowak (1999). The research found that students wanted more flexibility in delivery
of their education, however, still preferred an option that offered some face-to-face contact with the
lecturer.
At the time of implementation, in 2000, this Mixed Mode delivery offered the best alternative to text
based distance education, providing students and lecturers with individual and group interaction.
During 2001, eleven units were delivered through the Mixed Mode medium. Student evaluation of
this delivery method indicated that:
1. some students felt disadvantaged by having to attend compulsory face-to-face sessions; and
2. students wanted increased functionally from the software to support teamwork and
collaborative learning.
In response to student feedback and an internal evaluation of the Mixed Mode delivery medium,
Trimester 1, 2002 saw the Marketing units being made available fully on-line with optional face-toface sessions. This proved the closest possible alignment with face-to-face learning and was a viable
alternative to distance education for those students unable to attend compulsory seminars. Mixed
Mode was renamed “e-Learning” to refle ct these changes.
The online delivery of the marketing units had to provide a forum for significant discussion that
included both small group and plenary sessions, as well as an assessable trimester long team project.
The existing LMS, LearningSpace, was geared toward individual learning, thus a complementary
software solution was sought to facilitate team learning and group discussions.
Lotus QuickPlace was chosen as the best option as it offered a virtual team environment, meeting the
needs of students, lecturers and the syllabus requirements, as well as taking advantage of emerging
technologies.
Virtual Teams at GSB - Exploring the Environment
"A Virtual Team is a group of people who work interdependently with a shared
purpose across space, time and organization boundaries using technology"
(Lipnack & Stamps 2000 p 18).
Embedded in all MBA units offered by the GSB are learning outcomes which include integrative and
innovative thinking, the management of different perspectives and achieving literacy in existing and
developing technologies. Implementing Virtual Teams into unit development met the GSB’s learning
outcomes criteria and provided an opportunity for the students to experience both the technology and
how it can be used as a tool in developing teams in dispersed geographical locations.
For some GSB students “across space and time” is a reality for their work and lifestyle choices. While
some were forced by circumstances to enrol in the e-Learning units, i.e. it was the last unit of their
MBA; others elected to study via the e-Learning mode supporting the view of Lipnack and Stamps
(2000 p 28) that “Virtual Teaming is a twenty-first century survival skill”.
Just as developing trust and communication in face-to-face teams is essential it is no le ss important in
a virtual team. So as Tuckman (1960) rightly pointed out, turning groups into teams is a complex
process and his model of team development i.e. “forming, storming, norming, performing” is as
applicable in virtual teams as it is face-to-face teams. Lipnack and Stamps (2000 pg 102) concur,
stating that in virtual teams it should be “90% people 10% technology”.
In implementing a virtual learning space, the technology became the medium for team
communication, as well as the tool for managing team processes. At the GSB, the technology offered
within QuickPlace is viewed as the enabler of student learning and does not replace the lecturer, but
rather is a tool to facilitate the team-based assessment.
The Education Challenge
“At the university level, teaching of facts and theories should be considered as
secondary to the development of students’ critical thinking and use of higher level
reasoning strategies”.
Ip (2001 p 1)
It was important that students viewed the on-line marketing units as equal to the face-to-face delivery
method, in both content and assessment. As 50% of the students’ work is assessed on teamwork, it
became apparent that the current Mixed Mode delivery method lacked the appropriate tools for an
assessable team-based project and appropriate group discussion. This highlighted the need for a
functional virtual team environment and a forum for group discussion, discussed below:
A Functional virtual team environment
“Learning is most effective when students work in groups and verbalise their thoughts,
challenge the ideas of others, and collaborate to achieve group solutions to problems.”
Johnson & Johnson (1989 p 2)
Whatever the delivery mode for the Marketing Units, a trimester long team based project, designed to
emulate an organisational project-based environment, is a requirement in both Marketing units.
Marketing Management 555 required the students to develop a marketing plan and Competitive
Marketing Strategy 660 involved the students writing a strategic marketing case. Assessment is
allocated to the initial project proposal and plan and the completed final assignment. During the
trimester students are asked to report on the progress of the projects to the class and seek feedback and
input of ideas for improvement.
Face-to-face delivery of the Marketing units emphasises small group discussion and plenary sessions
as well as class debate offering students the opportunity to learn from their peers. It also provided a
forum in which to develop their critical thinking and reasoning skills as well as their verbal
presentation skills.
To achieve a similar level of student involvement as that of a classroom, the e-Learning delivery mode
needed tools to develop and deliver the project proposal, final assignment and stimulate group
discussion, without ever meeting face-to-face.
Technology Selection
Students in the Mixed Mode units delivered in 2000-2001 highlighted in their feedback that they
would like to see more information sharing capability for their on-line team projects such as:
•
•
•
•
•
document sharing;
private team discussion;
task allocation and project scheduling;
calendar; and
on-line chat.
A project team called “CAJON” was formed, and a proposal put forward to the GSB Director to
investigate and trial appropriate technology, that met both student and lecturer requirements. The
CAJON team was made up of individuals from the following areas:
•
•
•
•
the Marketing Unit Controller;
the GSB’s IT Professional;
the e-Learning Content Manager; and an
MBA Student with experience in earlier on-line team projects.
Three alternative software solutions were investigated and Lotus QuickPlace was selected as the
product that best met the requirements definitions.
The CAJON team members used QuickPlace extensively prior to initial implementation to ensure they
were well versed in the technology and its functionality. In addition, the team customised QuickPlace
for the specific assessable activities, by including two discussion rooms and an area for the team
project.
Students were provided with comprehensive guidelines on the use of QuickPlace and made aware that
their contributions to both LearningSpace and QuickPlace were transparent i.e. all submissions were
visible to the lecturer.
Putting it into Practice – Conducting the Unit on-line
All GSB on-line units have two compulsory introduction exercises. Students are encouraged to
actively participate and provide as much information as possible in these exercises as it helps establish
common ground and provides cues to student personal motivation that Ryan and Deci (2000), point
out as playing a determining role in how people will behave as group members.
The first exercise requires students to complete a Student Personal Profile while the second seeks to
gain more understanding of what the individual student expects from the unit. Examples of student
submissions to these exercises are included below.
Student Personal Profiles
The student personal profile is completed on-line, and students are asked to provide information
including:
•
•
•
•
personal details, including a photograph;
an outline of work experience;
the current level of knowledge regarding the subject; and
information about their interests and hobbies.
Instructions provided for completing the profile emphasised the importance of content, depth and
inclusion of a “real” photo, (not the pet dog or Brad Pitt!).
Not all students provide the detail contained in this particular student’s work experience profile:
“I resigned from my job as Business Development Manager on day one of trimester.
So for the f irst few weeks I will be juggling work and study as I work through my notice
period. I am not going to be a student for long as my resignation is as a consequence
of my future employment with XYZ Limited. I will be responsible for Business and
Strategic Development of the Asia Pacific Region.
My current job was preceded by a seven- year work period with an international
offshore construction installation company. Working in this company I spent
considerable time in Norway, UK, Italy and France.
It was within three months of completing my studies as a Land Surveyor that I
panicked and thought I had made an unwise choice for a profession. No I did not want
to become a registered surveyor! Instead having majored in Geodesy, I was fortunate
enough to capture employment in Saudi Arabia. I lived there for two years, leaving
only when the Gulf war commenced.
I would summarise in stating I have had considerable exposure to the World Offshore
Oil and Gas construction industry and although I currently live and work in Australia,
more than 90% of my experience is abroad.” Student A, January 2002
Learning Expectations
To help students clarify their learning goals and provide information for the lecturer to assist in
placing students in the most appropriate team, students were asked to complete an on-line discussion
outlining their learning expectations. An example of one student’s submission follows:
“My learning expectations are two-fold. Firstly, regarding the marketing content, I
am interested in developing a more thorough understanding and appreciation of
marketing theory. I have had some exposure to marketing in a practical sense in my
work, but this has been somewhat reactive rather than proactive. It would be valuable
to me to be able to take a more reasoned approach, through having consider various
options, rather than following methods because ‘that’s the way things have always
been done here’.
The second aspect is the e-learning. I am impressed with the innovative and flexible
approach involved in learning in this manner. I expect it to be challenging to entirely
self-regulate my progress, but also appreciate the opportunity to progress at a pace
that suits me.” Student B, January 2002
Completing the Learning Expectations exercises also served the purpose of familiarising students with
the software and provided the opportunity to identify any technical challenges that required GSB IT
HelpDesk staff assistance.
Selecting Team Members
"Teams Grow. They take time to develop – and virtual teams tend to take even longer.
Ironically, they don't really have the time”. Lipnack & Stamps (2000 p 126)
The CAJON team’s previous e-Learning experience indicated that team cohesiveness would be
enhanced if team member allocation occurred after all students had “settled in” to the learning mode.
This also minimised the disruption of students’ late enrolments and withdrawals.
The lecturer clearly indicated to the students that they would be placed in teams based on their
contributions to the personal profile and the le arning expectations discussion. The team selection
process also included consideration to other issues such as remote location, and gender as outlined
below:
(a)
Maximising Software Use
Including a remotely located student in each team was one of the team selection criteria. This
encouraged all students to maximise their use of the software, as face-to-face meetings were not
possible.
(b)
The Team Mix
Where possible each team contained a mix of gender as well as both national and international
students. This met another of the GSB’s MBA learning outcomes of students being able to manage
different perspectives.
Salmon (2000) described those participating in on-line discussions as being one of the following
“swimmers, drowners or wavers”. As “swimmers”, those with e-Learning experience, were still a rare
breed at the time of the pilot, not all groups were able to have their own “lifeguard”.
Team Reality
The students were aware that their contributions to QuickPlace were transparent and the software
provided a medium to assess the individual contributions to the team, in both quality and quantity and
if requested by the team, for the lecturer to intervene. The perception of the lecturer was that those
students who demonstrated motivation and commitment to their learning saw this transparency as
positive, providing a forum for them to display the quality of their individual contribution.
Of the seven teams in the two marketing units, one team experienced some communication challenges
when part of the team met face-to-face, which continued through to their on line communication. In
week three, the lecturer was asked to facilitate a solution that resulted in negotiating a transfer of one
member to another team. The solution was made easier, and more objective, because of the lecturer’s
ability to view all students’ contributions.
Even after intervention by the lecturer and personal discussions with all team members, this team
continued to experience communication challenges. Of the remaining three team members, one failed
to attain the required passing grade and the two remaining students had significant differences of
opinion in relation to content and presentation of their final assignment. This resulted in one of the
students significantly altering the assignment to meet the assessment criteria.
In week nine of the trimester another team experienced severe disruption when, due to illness in the
family, one student had to return home overseas. This student’s access to the internet was severely
curtailed, however, the team members had established good communication previously and negotiated
a solution that was acceptable to all team members regarding the submission of their major team
assignment. The lecturer was also included in the communication and as one of the team members
said, “we just got on with it”.
In an organisational setting, there may be other options available when teams experience problems e.g.
another team member may be allocated to the project or the project life extended. These solutions are
not available to students, who are obliged to meet the required assessment deadlines with penalties
applied for late submission. The issue of student teams, unlike those in business, is the lack of
intervention and management by a senior person who is ultimately responsible for the project’s
success.
Lipnack and Stamps (2000 p 1) point out that it is cooperative goals that motivate team members.
Passing the unit and/or maintaining their average grade may be the sole motivation for some students,
and grade and learning expectations can differ markedly within the team. Dissent may arise where
common goals are not established and the first group assignment, a Project Proposal and Plan, is
designed to help the team clarify their goals and commitment.
The conclusion regarding the virtual team experience was that, whatever the communication medium,
the motivation and commitment of team members are going to be as diverse as the individual’s
communication style.
Technology Restrictions
Accessibility to Software on the Internet
Those providing e-Learning content must tailor their content and participation requirements to take
into consideration that not all students have access to broadband services. Many e-Learning students
at GSB are accessing the Internet via a 56k modem and their actual connection speed may be as low as
9600bps. This is particularly the case in Western Australia with its remote communities that have
limited telecommunications services. Slow connection speeds greatly inhibit the students’ ability to
work on-line in a fully featured environment.
QuickPlace was initially delivered using Secure Socket Layer (SSL) that enables the provision of a
secure connection over the Internet; however, it can severely affect the speed of the web site’s
operation. This level of security was not required by the GSB and was removed by the service
provider resulting in improved site response speed.
Interestingly, the students who exhibited the most negative reactions to the software and its delivery
were the more IT savvy of the group.
Application Use in Multiple Environments
A number of students accessed QuickPlace from multiple locations, their workplace often being the
preferred location as it provided faster Internet connections and an enhanced environment for the chat
facility applet and the desktop application synchronisation.
Corporate firewalls and Standard Operating Environments (SOE’s) with high security on web browser
applications, prevented several students from downloading the required applets. Some students were
granted permission to use QuickPlace and LearningSpace after the GSB Helpdesk provided the
appropriate information and instructions to the IT administrators in their workplace; however, this was
not the case for all students.
Managing the Support Requirements
The GSB IT Helpdesk staff used Salmon’s (2000) on-line learner categories i.e. swimmers, drowners
and wavers, to assess the level of technology support and information most appropriate to the students’
individual challenges.
Findings/Outcomes
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.- The more things change, the more they are
the same. Alphonse Karr, Les Guêpes, Jan. 1849
The experience of the CAJON team would assert that this is an appropriate saying to describe the
team’s experience with the implementation of Virtual Teams using QuickPlace. The similarity in
group behaviour in a virtual team and those experienced in face-to-face teams was evident, so even
though the technology changes, people’s behaviours appear not to.
The major findings of this pilot project are outlined below:
To some degree the CAJON team members anticipated many of the issues of creating a virtual team
environment based on their combined experience. Specific procedures, including flow charts, were
developed to assist the students and ease them into a new learning medium.
For some students this was still not enough and they required more hand holding to become
comfortable and effective in the on-line environment and with the specific software. Categorising
students similar to Salmon’s (2000) groups of “swimmers, drowners and wavers” may help both IT
and teaching staff anticipate learning barriers.
As in face-to-face classes the quality of input by students varied across the group, and the final grades
were on average with the face-to-face units conducted that trimester. Statistical analysis of the grades
to determine if there is any significant difference has yet to be undertaken and for reliability would
need a larger sample of students.
Students did indicate they would like to choose their own team members as they do in a face-to-face
class. This is may be possible in the future as the number of students enrolled in e-Learning units
increases and students are known to each other through participation in other e-Learning units. This
would be more in tune with the choosing of team members in a face-to-face class.
Those students with little or no project management experience and limited knowledge of available
software tools i.e. project management software, appeared to be apprehensive about using a tool such
as QuickPlace. It was also apparent to the CAJON team that some students had low levels of general
IT literacy, which increased the difficulty of forming the team dynamics and the may have limited the
overall success of the software as a tool.
This pilot highlighted some of the technical issues involved with operating in the e-Learning
environment such as speed of access and the blocking of executable components by firewalls. Even
having experienced some of these challenges student feedback suggested their on-line learning
experience was positive and several students indicated they would undertake other e-Learning units
using QuickPlace.
Overall the experience was positive for the majority of students as well as the Academic and IT staff
and was viewed by the CAJON team as successful pilot project as it met the academic and IT
objectives. The Graduate School of Business has since introduced the software into other e-Learning
units as it prepares itself and its students for Virtual Team Reality.
And yes, the CAJON team did earn their T-Shirts!!
References
(1) Ip, A. (2002) Facilitating Students’ Learning: Cooperation or Competition?
http://www.cdtl.nus.edu.sg/Ideas/iot20.htm [August 20th 2002]
(2) Johnson, D.W. and Johnson, R.T. (1989) Cooperation and Competition: Theory and Research.
Edina MN, Interaction Book Company
(3) Karr, A. (1996) The Columbia World of Quotations. Andrews, R., Biggs, M. and Seidel, M. (Eds.)
New York: Columbia University Press. www.bartleby.com/66/. [September 6th 2002].
(4) Kezsbom, D. S. (2001) Beyond “survival”: Strategies for creating innovative teams. Aace
International Transactions, Morgantown
(5) Ladyshewsky R. and Nowak, M. (2001) Post graduate business education and flexible -learning
strategies: an analysis of customer perspectives. In: New horizons in university teaching and
learning: responding to change. Kulski, M. and Herrmann, A. (Eds.). Curtin University Pgs. 97108
(6) Lipnack, J. and Stamps, J. (2000) Virtual Teams: People Working Across Boundaries with
Technology 2nd Ed. John Wiley & Sones Inc New York
(7) Makimote, T., Kazuhiko, E. and Yoneyama, M. (2001) The Cooler the Better: New Directions in
the Nomadic Age. IEEE Computer Volume 34, Issue 4 Pgs. 38 – 42
(8) Ryan, R. M. and Deci, E. L. (2000) Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist Volume 55 Pgs. 68-78
(9) Salmon, G. E. (2000) Moderating: Key to Teaching and Learning Online, Kogan Page