exploring virtual team-working effectiveness in the construction sector

www.elsevier.com/locate/intcom

Interacting with Computers 19 (2007) 96–112

Exploring virtual team-working effectiveness in the construction sector

Yacine Rezgui *

Informatics Research Institute, University of Salford, Maxwell 5th Floor, The Crescent, M5 4WT Salford, UK

Received 7 August 2005; received in revised form 11 June 2006; accepted 8 July 2006Available online 28 August 2006

Abstract

In defining a virtual team-working solution as with any new organisational form, success relies not merely on the introduction andadoption of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs), but also on critically analysing the underlying social and organisa-tional aspects. The paper investigates the effectiveness of virtual teams, and any other suitable form of virtual collaboration, in the Con-struction sector and explores the factors that influence their successful adoption. The positivist strand adopted in the research emphasisesa particular approach that promotes software application hosting through a dedicated application service provider, as opposed to thetraditional software-licensing model. The research identifies important socio-organisational challenges inherent to the project-based nat-ure of Construction, including issues related to technology adoption, team identification, trust, and motivation. Action research tech-niques have been employed to conduct the research involving two Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SME) from France and Finland.� 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Virtual team; Virtual enterprise; Web-services; Socio-organisational issues; Virtual project management; Construction industry

1. Introduction

Organisations are currently facing important andunprecedented challenges in an ever dynamic, constantlychanging and complex environment. New business modelshave emerged where value added alliances, and virtualbusiness modes and operations, empowered by latestadvancement in ICTs are becoming key ingredients to suc-cess (Jarvenpaa and Ives, 1994; Carmel and Agarwal, 2001;McDonough et al., 2001; Rezgui and Wilson, 2005). It iswidely acknowledged that the technological infrastructurenecessary to support virtual business operations is nowreadily available (Constant et al., 1996; Powell et al.,2004; Camarninha-Matos et al., 2005).

Traditional research in the area has mainly concentratedon comparison between traditional and virtual businessoperations, including virtual and traditional teams, andhas focused on the implication of virtual teams’ inabilityto meet face-to-face, and their reliance on electronic com-

0953-5438/$ - see front matter � 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.intcom.2006.07.002

* Tel.: +44 161 295 5292; fax: +44 161 745 8169.E-mail address: [email protected]: http://www.isi.salford.ac.uk/staff/yr/

munication media (Powell et al., 2004). More specifically,much existing research has largely focused on a particulartype of team: short-term student teams (Jarvenpaa andLeidner, 1999; Warkentin and Beranek, 1999; Tan et al.,2000; Crampton, 2001; Sarker et al., 2001) and assumesthat a group or a team is engaged in only one task (Easleyet al., 2003), which often leads to distortions such as activ-ities not directly related to tasks being considered a sign ofinefficiency. Also, virtual teams’ research to date has notquestioned the applicability of traditional team processviews to the virtual environment, and has provided littleformalization of working procedures and managerial struc-tures. Rather, research has for the most part studied howthese self-directed teams have addressed team coordinationproblems. The literature has approached the communica-tion and coordination challenges faced by virtual teamsby taking the strong assumption that, even while drawinggeographically and time-dispersed members, they will oper-ate according to traditional models. However, new techno-logies often provide the opportunity to relax oldassumptions regarding how work is, or should be, per-formed (Powell et al., 2004). Therefore, research into fac-tors that facilitate virtual team adoption and use in

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.isi.salford.ac.uk/staff/yr/

Y. Rezgui / Interacting with Computers 19 (2007) 96–112 97

various segments of industry, taking into account adaptedworking procedures and managerial structures, is lackingand is urgently needed to develop a holistic understandingof the subject.

The Construction industry is one of the sectors that hasa strong potential to benefit from advances in ICTs and theadoption of new business modes of operation (Rezgui,2001). Within its framework of geographical dispersion,the construction industry is characterised by various chal-lenges in terms of working practices (Rezgui, 2001), includ-ing: (a) non-co-location of individuals and teamscollaborating on projects; (b) project-oriented nature ofthe industry with a tendency for actors to be involved inseveral projects at the same time; (c) multi-disciplinaryand mobile-working practices; (d) temporary and oftenshort-term nature of business relationships. In this context,established ICTs have the potential to radically change theprocess of building design and construction, and respondbetter to the needs of the sector.

The paper is based on research carried out within thecontext of the OSMOS project, funded by the EuropeanUnion under the ‘‘Information Society and Technology’’Framework 5 programme. It aims at specifying and vali-dating the technological and organisational environmentsupporting virtual collaboration of teams on projects inthe dynamic networks of the construction industry. Afteran overview of related work from the literature, and adescription of the methodology and research instrumentsused to conduct the research, the paper presents the resultsfrom the field work that provide an understanding of thetechnological, organisational, and socio-cultural environ-ment of team working in the sector. This is followed by adescription of the proposed concept and underlying modelto support virtual team working. A validation of the modelis then presented, followed by a discussion of the results,and concluding remarks.

2. Related work

The research involves human computer interaction(HCI) issues related to virtual project management in Con-struction. Initial work on HCI has adopted a ‘‘human fac-tors’’ approach where individuals are reduced to beinganother system component with certain characteristics(such as limited attention span, faulty memory, etc.) thatneed to be factored into the design equation for the overallhuman–machine system (Bannon, 1991; Kuutti, 1995). TheHCI community has then realized that this form of analysisof the human in his interaction with a system de-empha-sises important issues in work design, including individualmotivation, membership in a team or community of users,and the importance of the setting in determining humanaction (Bannon, 1991). HCI has evolved over the yearsby viewing the user more complexly, as a human in a socialsystem in which the computer plays an increasingly impor-tant role (Karat and Karat, 2003). The need for a multi-dis-ciplinary approach has been acknowledged to provide

better ‘‘contextuality’’ involving the users and their con-structive relation with ‘‘systems’’ (Kuutti, 1995; Karatand Karat, 2003). Moreover, HCI necessitates the develop-ment of a general systems model so as to place the work ina wider context (Diaper and Sanger, 2006). The paperextends and contributes to HCI research by adopting aholistic perspective where human, organisational, and tech-nical issues are blended successfully, to provide better con-textuality and insight into the ‘‘team working’’ problemsituation. An overview of the areas of interest to theresearch is given below.

2.1. Virtual teams and related concepts

Amongst the different definitions of the concept of ateam (Powell et al., 2004), the following from Cohen andBailey (1997) is one of the most widely accepted: ‘‘A teamis a collection of individuals who are independent in theirtasks, who share responsibility for outcomes, who seethemselves and who are seen by others as an intact socialentity embedded in one or more larger social systems,and who manage their relationships across organisationalboundaries’’. Furthermore, what defines a team is: (a) itsunity of purpose, (b) its identity as a social structure, and(c) its members’ shared responsibility for outcomes (Powellet al., 2004). The distinctive characteristics of virtual teamsinclude the fact that they are geographically, organisation-ally, and/or time, dispersed collections of individuals whorely primarily on ICTs to accomplish one or more organi-sational tasks (Jarveena and Leidner, 1999). They tend tobe assembled to respond to specific business needs or cus-tomer demands (Chase, 1999; Lipnack and Stamps, 2000).

The formation of virtual teams in the Construction sec-tor has been influenced not only by the inherent character-istics of the sector, as noted in Section 1, but also by anincreasing sophistication and complexity of design andconstruction processes triggered by the need to addresshigher building performance and quality standards, as wellas the continuous introduction of new techniques andmaterials. These require multi-disciplinary teams with spec-ialised expertise involving often non-collocated actors.Therefore, the support for the formation of ad hoc virtualteams becomes essential.

There exist varying degrees of virtuality (Zigurs, 2003)and various forms of virtual teams (Cascio and Shurygailo,2003). Moreover, a number of concepts related to virtualteams have been reported in the literature, including: Virtu-al Enterprise (VE), virtual corporation, and virtual organi-sation. While virtual organisation and virtual corporationtend to refer to the same concept (Camarninha-Matoset al., 2005), Goranson (1999) draws important differencesbetween the virtual enterprise and virtual organisation (orcorporation), noting that the term ‘corporation’ suggeststhat there is an inherent vision of corporate identity. Enter-prise conveys the meaning that the shared focus is the pro-ject at hand. Corporation implies a conventionalorganisation whose control is centralized. Hence, the

98 Y. Rezgui / Interacting with Computers 19 (2007) 96–112

virtual enterprise is unified by its mission and distributedgoals, not its control system (Goranson, 1999).

2.2. Collaborative systems

As virtual teams rely on ICTs to support their opera-tions (Jarveena and Leidner, 1999), collaborative technolo-gies play a predominant role in enabling them. CSCW(Computer Support for Cooperative Work) and CMC(Computer Mediated Communication) have offered vari-ous solutions to teamwork research. In fact, several modelsand theories for collaborative work, including in the fieldof CSCW, have been devised, including coordination theo-ry (Malone and Crowston, 1990), activity theory (Kuutti,1991), task manager model (Kreifelts et al., 1993), action/interaction theory (Fitzpatrick et al., 1995) and object-ori-ented activity support model (Teege, 1996). One of the keylimitations of existing models is the adoption of a view-cen-tric as opposed to a holistic approach in analysing the var-ious components forming the underlying collaborativesolution. In that respect, the proposed research proposesadapted working procedures and managerial structures,enabled by the collaborative system, which factor in (a)technology maturity and software provision models, (b)organisational and process settings, and (c) social, includ-ing socio-emotional, considerations adapted to the needsof a specific sector (the Construction industry).

2.3. Technology adoption and diffusion

While it has been argued that collaborative systems areeffective in supporting teamwork (Majchrzak et al., 2000;Fjermestad and Hiitz, 2001), and are being widely adoptedin the workplace (Easley et al., 2003), little is known abouttheir adoption and diffusion (Nunamaker, 1997).

A number of studies have been reported in the literaturedescribing various theories and models related to informa-tion technology adoption, diffusion, and innovation intothe workplace, as reported in (Zmud, 2000; Gallivan,2001). Some of these theories describe transition processesand mechanisms, including Rogers’s stage model of inno-vations in organisations (Rogers, 1995); whereas othersdefine causality among factors to predict successful transi-tion of a technology, including Davis’s Technology Adop-tion Model (TAM), (Davis, 1989, 1993). TAM argues thatend-user acceptance and use of information systems inno-vations is influenced by their beliefs regarding the technol-ogy. In particular, it proposes that perceived usefulness andperceived ease of use influence the use of information sys-tems innovations and that this effect is mediated throughbehavioural intentions to use (Davis, 1989). The modelhighlights the critical role of extrinsic motivation and, inparticular, expectations of task-related performance gainsin end-users’ adoption and use of IS innovations (Davis,1989). However, this model – with its original emphasison the design of system characteristics – does not accountfor social influence in the adoption and utilization of new

information systems (Davis, 1989). Furthermore, It hasbeen reported that when TAM is applied to collaborativesystems, it is often observed that the belief structures (per-ceived ease of-use and perceived usefulness) are not stable,and that the influence of these belief structures act in com-bination with the effect of social influences to determine theuse of the system (Easley et al., 2003).

3. Methodology

The research adopts a positivist stance that factors in theunderstanding of (a) technology introduction, adaptation,and adoption; (b) organisational structures in both tradi-tional and virtual settings; and (c) social systems, to explorenovel approaches to virtual team operation and manage-ment. The research addresses the two following researchquestions:

• Are Virtual Teams the right organisational form thatcan provide the right levels of flexibility, responsiveness,and effectiveness to organisations in the sector?

• What are the factors that influence successful migrationto, and adoption of, virtual teamwork solutions in thesector?

Action Research principles have been employed to con-duct the research. This qualitative research method is uniquein the way it associates research and practice through changeand reflection (Avison et al., 1999). By adhering to the prin-ciples of Action Research, an incremental and iterativeapproach has been adopted to address the followingresearch objectives triggered from the research questions:

• Understand the current ICT-related practices in organi-sations and on projects in the sector and capture per-ceived limitations.

• Specify the technological and organisational environ-ment supporting inter/intra-company virtual collabora-tion of teams on projects.

• Validate the environment through a proof of conceptdemonstrator system deployed in real organisationalcontexts.

Three iterations were conducted over a period of 27months. Each iteration includes the following phases, asillustrated in Fig. 1: feasibility and project preparation,model core business processes and understand practice,analyse problem situation and capture requirements, specifysolution, implement solution, deploy solution, trial andevaluate solution, lessons learned and follow-on actions.The requirement capture stage (Phases 1, 2, and 3) providesa comprehensive view of the intra/inter-company businessactivities and the methods of information handling. Thisstage helped also capture the underlying socio-organisa-tional environment of team working in Construction. Byabstracting from these models a generic model was designedto determine the high-level process activities sustaining the

Fig. 1. OSMOS methodology.


proposed solution. At a lower level the Unified ModellingLanguage (UML) was employed to detail (via Use Cases)the ways in which the developed system (referred to hereaf-ter as the OSMOS system) can be used at a business leveland to derive the required functionality of the system (Phases4 and 5). The ensuing Use Cases were the bridging linkbetween the requirement capture and the system specifica-tion. With the Use Cases defined, sequence diagrams andclass diagrams were employed to specify the internal systemdesign, and provide the foundation (including models andAPIs) to develop the OSMOS system (Phases 5 and 6).The principal means of testing and evaluating the OSMOSapproach has been provided through field trials simulatingwork in a construction VE (Phases 7 and 8).

Two case studies have been used representing Construc-tion organisations in France and Finland (Derbi andGranlund, with 160 and 190 employees, respectively). Fourinstruments have been employed to conduct the research.These are summarized in Table 1, and further detailed inthe following section.

The three first instruments were used to gather the nec-essary data required to address objectives 1 and 2. Objec-tive 3 was addressed by using the Unified Process and theUML notation to specify, implement, and evaluate(through instrument 4) the proof of concept demonstrator.It is worth noting no particular instrument has been usedto represent socio-organisational information, given itsmulti-faceted dimension. Instead, this information hasbeen captured and interpreted through the combined useof the above instruments (Table 1), which provided a

wealth of qualitative, quantitative and process-related dataand information. Problems of construct validity have beenaddressed by the use of the variety of sources of informa-tion illustrated in Table 1. The development of converginglines of inquiry in this manner is known as ‘‘triangulation’’,and is generally considered as a process of using multipleperceptions to clarify meaning and verifying the validityof an interpretation (Stake, 2000). As an example of this,instruments 1, 2, and 3 provided precious qualitative andquantitative information that helped build an initial under-standing of the problems, limitations, and requirements ofthe industry in terms of ICT, and specify the initial solu-tion. Iterative pattern coding (Miles and Huberman,1994) has been used to identify emergent themes, patterns,or explanation suggested by qualitative information gath-ered from the selected instruments. The quantitative analy-sis (questionnaires) helped corroborate the qualitativeissues that emerged from the research.

4. Data collection

The first iteration was dedicated to collecting and ana-lysing the data that resulted from the three first instrumentsillustrated in Table 1, and further detailed in the followingsub-sections.

4.1. Instrument 1: process description template

The process analysis led initially to the development ofmodels using IDEF0 functional modelling (NIST, 1993)

Table 1Summary of the research instruments

Instrument type Purpose Respondent/participant profile Respondent/participant number

DERBI Granlund

Instrument 1:process template

• Map intra/inter-company tasks andprocesses

• Capture information managementpractices

• Describe ICT used to support businessprocesses

• Construction discipline leaders• Designers/engineers

6 8

Instrument 2:questionnaire

• Develop a profile of the participatingorganisations

• Understand the process/ICT level ofmaturity of employees

• Determine skills and training needs andcurrent provision

• Analyse current teamwork practice andeffectiveness

• Assess perception/awareness/prepared-ness to change

• Capture individual information andknowledge management practices

• Distributed to all members of the depart-ments/business units involved in theresearch.

30 29

Instrument 3:interview

• Capture strategic positioning of eachorganisation

• Understand technological and organisa-tional capabilities

• Decision makers• Managers at various levels of the

organisation

6 6

Instrument 4:evaluation forms

• Validate the proposed change and overallapproach

• Actors involved and directly affected bythe change

10 12


describing the intra- and inter-business processes of select-ed departments/business units. The IDEF0 functionalmodelling technique is used as its non-temporal representa-tion of decisions, actions and activities, and the relationbetween them, strongly supports the detailing of activitiesin terms of process overview, workflow management, inter-action analysis, and resource allocation. This was augment-ed with the use of a dedicated template (Fig. 2) to providecapture of further information related to each process/functional activity. This was used to describe (a) intra/in-ter-company tasks and processes, (b) information manage-ment practices, and (c) associated and supporting ICTs.The first two elements (a and b) provided a consistent viewacross the two end-user organisations of how they interact/collaborate and manage information based on the phasesof the construction lifecycle in which they most commonlyoperate. The last element (c) aimed at analysing the cur-rently used software applications in order to establish theirlevel of process support and integration. The researchersspent some time within each organisation, immersed intheir work environment, helping the end-users map theirprocesses and populate the proposed template.

4.2. Instrument 2: questionnaire

The principal aim of the questionnaire was to create aprofile of the industrial organisations in terms of all of theareas that would be impacted by the introduction of adigital solution. The questionnaire was structured into

six sections: General Information (this relates to the indi-vidual and his/her organisation); Information Technology(including use of ICT, skills and training needs); Team-work (including composition and effectiveness of teams,communications methods); Business Environment (includ-ing organisation culture and structure, and decision-mak-ing process); Business Processes and OrganisationalChange (including understanding of corporate businessprocesses, awareness and perception of change); Knowl-edge Management (including information storage andsharing methods, and IPR/legal aspects). It is importantin surveys of this nature to ensure that a representativesample of the available population is taken, to providereliable analysis results. Such a sample has been drawnin a way that means every member of the population(company staff) has a statistically equal chance of beingselected.

4.3. Instrument 3: interviews

The aim of the interviews was to analyse the strategicpositioning of each organisation and its technologicaland organisational capabilities and competencies. Thechoice of interviewees was based on seniority and yearsof experience. Interviews of between 45 min and 1-hduration were conducted with 12 senior staff across thetwo end-user organisations. More detailed descriptions ofthe methods/instruments used within the research are giventhroughout the paper as appropriate.

Fig. 2. Process description template.


5. Reporting on current practices and perceived limitations

The analyses of the detailed models produced by popu-lating the process template (Instrument 1) highlightedinteractions and processes that were common to bothend-user companies, as well as those that were specific toeach. Conversely, the analysis of the questionnaire results(59 questionnaires were returned completed with a returnrate of 77%) combined with the qualitative informationgathered through the interviews provided a basis for theunderstanding of teamwork-related problems, limitations,and requirements of the industry. The interview tapes werefully transcribed into word processor form. Iterative pat-tern coding (Miles and Huberman, 1994) has been usedto analyse the data. It involves iterative readings of ques-tionnaire transcripts while searching for recognizable datapatterns. Data units identified as belonging to emergingdata patterns are then aggregated into thematic groups.Each group is given an initial code that describes it. Initialcodes are called ‘‘pattern codes’’ (Miles and Huberman,1994). These initial pattern codes are refined through aniterative reading and analysis process and resulted into ninepattern codes: technology adoption, knowledge sharing,mobile practices, training, team working, team memberidentity, motivation, trust, and social cohesion (as elabo-rated below).

The questionnaire results indicate an overall goodawareness of the respondents in relation to the challenges

faced by their organisation. They have identified severalmain factors critical to their (organisation) future growthand success. These have been categorised into four mainareas listed in order of identified importance: Production(factors including costs, market knowledge and productdevelopment), Human Resources (factors such as knowl-edge sharing, training, and human resource management,including motivation and competence), Organisation/Pro-cess (factors including teamwork, political decisions andcustomer relations), and Technology (factors includingtechnology adoption: perceived limitations and futureneeds). In relation to the last category, a majority of therespondents highlighted the limitations of their current sys-tems in supporting collaborative working, as these do notintegrate seamlessly with the engineering applications usedon a daily-basis, and provide therefore limited support tothe practice. They have expressed concerns about the inva-sive nature of ICT and the need to adapt to continuoustechnology introduction on projects. This corroboratesthe interviewees’ analysis on this issue: they have indicatedthat ICT require constant adaptation and re-configurationfor new use and deployment, while offering limited growthpath and scalability. In fact, gathered data suggest thatteam members on projects are affected more by the newnessof the technology being used than by the newness of theteam structure itself. The interviewees have pointed outthat these problems of technology adoption can have anegative effect on individual satisfaction with the team


experience and performance, as also reported in the litera-ture (Kayworth and Leidner, 2000; Van Ryssen and HayesGodar, 2000). Conversely, when team members are able todeal with technology related challenges, high trust develops(Jarvenpaa and Leidner, 1999).

The prevailing model for software provision is licensing.However, the licensed software is rarely exploited to its fullpotential, as end-users tend to use a limited number ofavailable functionality. This, in fact, creates a perceptionof complexity and can act as a barrier to software adop-tion. The respondents’ perceived complexity of ICT is alsoargued by the fact that software often requires ad hoc inte-gration to enable seamless collaboration between individu-als and teams on projects. This is repeated on each project,as partners tend to bring and use their own software.

Data and information redundancy are a real issue asinformation tends to be owned and managed across indi-viduals, teams, and projects with no particular agreed pol-icy. This leads to severe information inconsistency andregulatory compliance problems, resulting in dramaticfinancial implications (the problem of defects in Construc-tion has been mentioned several times). Many intervieweeshave highlighted the need for a shared project knowledgebase. This, as noted in the literature (Crampton, 2001;Suchan and Hayzak, 2001), improves communication andcohesion amongst the members of a team, and promotesshared language and mental models across teams.

A majority of respondents reported that they tend to betied to a physical location (mainly their office) to do theirjobs. For instance, the information available in the formof written specifications and drawings produced duringthe design stage is required by contractors to constructthe building facility. However, access to this informationfrom the Construction site tends to be limited due to thelack of availability of software/hardware resources andnetwork facilities. Therefore, software is usually accessedfrom the office, and in very few instances on site. Supportand maintenance is provided through many points of ser-vice representing the different ICT technology licensees.

A large majority of respondents have indicated the needfor more adapted training. While specialised softwaretraining is available, respondents have highlighted the needfor continuous training and learning so as to improve theirlevel of ICT awareness and maturity. Gathered data sug-gest that adapted training can foster cohesiveness, trust,team work, commitment to team goals, individual satisfac-tion, and higher perceived decision quality, as also high-lighted in the literature (Warkentin and Beranek, 1999;Kaiser et al., 2000; Tan et al., 2000; Van Ryssen and HayesGodar, 2000). However, respondents did also report thatshort time scales, due to simultaneous involvement in pro-jects, creates additional pressure, and leaves little time fortraining.

In terms of team setting, while gathered data suggestthat the process involved in setting up a teamwork solutionis complex and time-consuming, this team-building exerciseis overall perceived as essential in order to establish a clear

team structure and shared norms, as confirmed in relatedliterature (Sarker et al., 2001; Suchan and Hayzak, 2001).Early face-to-face meetings during the team’s launch phasetend to improve the team’s project definition (Ramesh andDennis, 2002), to foster socialization, trust, and respectamong team members (Maznevski and Chudoba, 2001;Suchan and Hayzak, 2001), and to enhance the effective-ness of subsequent electronic communications (Powellet al., 2004).

Several interviewees have reported the issue of clash ofcultures on projects (due to their multi-national and multi-cultural dimension), and have expressed a need for thegoals of the project to be shared and embraced collectively.In fact, differences in organisational affiliations can reduceshared understanding of context and can inhibit a team’sability to develop a shared sense of identity (Espinosaet al., 2003). An important number of respondents (76%)expressed concerns about the bureaucratic and hierarchicalculture in their organisation, which is in several instancesreproduced in teams. Issues related to motivation, trustand team cohesion have been raised. High motivation lev-els and job satisfaction are critical success factors in anyorganisational environment and even more important ina virtual environment. It was suggested that ‘participatory’type of culture, with a flat structure, open communicationchannels, and participation and involvement in decision-making, enhances sharing of information and facilitatesteam cohesion, which in turn promotes trust. These areindeed important problems faced by virtual teams (Alexan-der, 2000; Kezsbom, 2000; Lipnack and Stamps, 2000; Sol-omon, 2001). This, as reported in Kayworth and Leidner(2000) contributes to improve employees’ overall satisfac-tion and job effectiveness. Indeed, people work togetherbecause they trust one another and successful virtual teamspay special attention to building trust throughout their life-cycle (Lipnack and Stamps, 2000). Interviewees pointedout that people generally tend to trust people rather thancompanies and that trust ultimately emerges where com-municated information is reliable, people stand by theirpromises, and outcomes equal or exceed expectations.Teams with trust converge more easily (Sarker et al.,2001), organise their work more quickly, and managethemselves better (Lipnack and Stamps, 2000).

6. The proposed OSMOS approach

While virtual teams are widely accepted as the naturaland logical way forward to support collaboration withinand across organisations and projects, the research sug-gests that these would not be exploited to their full poten-tial if not integrated into a more general framework: theone that regulates a construction project. In fact, the Con-struction industry has adopted the modus operandi of a VE(Virtual Enterprise) for decades. What it has not achieved,however (due in part to its conservative and somewhattechnophobic nature) is effectively operating as a VE. Inorder to work effectively and to overcome many of its


problems, the construction VE requires not only technolo-gy that will digitally enable it, but also the right referenceand regulatory environment to ensure that virtual teamswithin a VE collaborate synergistically towards its mainpurpose and goals: delivering a building.

The positivist strand adopted for the research empha-sises a particular approach that promotes application host-ing through service federation as opposed to the traditional‘‘purchase/build/self-manage’’ applications. Key techno-logical differences between the traditional and proposedOSMOS approaches are illustrated in Table 2. From anend-user perspective, the proposed approach promotes aparadigm shift whereby members of the virtual team areempowered by: (a) shifting end-users’ interest from tech-nology management to business process improvement:technology becomes less complex and invasive (managedin the background) and relegated to a role of support tothe practice; (b) providing end-users on projects equalaccess to a wide range of engineering applications andteamwork functionality that currently can only be affordedby a minority of large organisations (the industry is domi-nated by SME operating in a survival mode); (c) increasingend-users’ general awareness and ICT maturity by beingexposed to a wide range of functionality facilitated byadapted help-desk support and on-line training facilities;(d) supporting mobile practices (essential in the sector) byfreeing end-users from physical location constraints: desk-top applications and knowledge can be accessed anytime,anywhere; (e) end-users can compose software functional-ity into re-invented assemblies that best support the com-plexity and changing nature of business processes.

The following three key ‘‘roles’’ have emerged from thespecification of the OSMOS solution:

• OSMOS Service Provider (Role A). The companiesadopting this role are primarily concerned with hostingthe OSMOS core infrastructure and providing VE solu-tions on-demand. This enables construction organisa-tions and end-users to fully concentrate on theirbusiness processes and no longer worry about softwarelicences, deployment, configuration, maintenance,upgrades, and also to some extent the provision of soft-

Table 2Traditional versus OSMOS approach

Traditional approach

Hardware infrastructure is owned/leased fi

Licensing is the prevailing model for software provision fi

Collaboration between teams is at best achieved via ad hocsoftware integration

fi

Business processes centred around Software applications fi

Desktop is the computer fiMany points of service and support fiData/Information redundancy fi

ware training and a dedicated help-desk. Also, the com-plexity of the software can be hidden from the end-userwho will only be given access to functionality directlyneeded to perform a given task. End-users can fully con-centrate on their business processes, resulting in a higherjob satisfaction and increase in performance and pro-ductivity (Jarvenpaa and Leidner, 1999; Van Ryssenand Hayes Godar, 2000).

• OSMOS Third-Party Service Providers (Role B): Thesecompanies provide services for use in a VE. Teams onprojects would be given access to a wide range of spec-ialised software applications that best support theirtasks and business processes, through a unique contactpoint: Role A (OSMOS Service Provider). The latterwould provide access to the selected services at a com-petitive price and provide a value-added service by free-ing end-users from software maintenance related tasksas discussed above. Conversely, end-users will be giventhe ideal environment to conduct their tasks that freesthem from time and location constraints (the ubiquitousnature of the services makes it possible for them to beinvoked anytime and anywhere, including from remoteconstruction sites).

• OSMOS Clients (Role C): These companies use, andtake part in VEs that are supported and enabledthrough the OSMOS platform. While one companywould configure and administer the VE (as describedin the following section), others would make use of thecore and TPS services made available to the project.

The following section describes a generic VE referencemodel for the Construction sector to control the formationand management of virtual teams and individuals, whileproviding the right framework to digitally support theConstruction VE. This addresses the second objective ofthe research, and contributes to answering the researchquestions formulated earlier in the paper.

7. The generic virtual enterprise reference model

The combined results of the analyses provided the basisfor the development of the Generic Virtual Enterprise

Proposed approach

Service Infrastructure is maintained by a dedicated ApplicationService ProviderNew business model based on service rental or on a pay-per-usebasisHigher-order services: change of focus from application integrationto service inter-workingWeb Services are building blocks servicing (electronic) businessprocessesNetwork interface is the computerSingle point of contact for service and supportData/Information integrity


Reference Model (GVERM). This was developed incre-mentally in close collaboration with the end-users. Themodel was discussed extensively within each organisationinvolving multi-disciplinary practitioners ranging fromdesigners to project managers.

The highest level of the GVERM (Fig. 3) represents theoverall activities of a company wishing to act as a VE Ser-vice provider (Role A), and manage the OSMOS platformto run complete VE Projects from initial client require-ments to the end of the contract. The provision of the tech-nological solution has been decoupled from themanagement of the VE Project (Fig. 3). While the formeris governed by technological considerations, the latteraddresses the organisational (including, legal) and socio-cultural aspects underlying a VE. As noted earlier, the con-struction project lifecycle is highly fragmented, structuredinto discrete stages involving stakeholders with little visibil-ity of the whole process. The main consequence is a lack ofcohesion between the various teams of a project, and a lackof information flow across the lifecycle and the supplychain.

Therefore, ‘‘Provide and Maintain VE Services’’ involvesthe provision and management of the services availablethrough the OSMOS platform, as detailed in Fig. 4, while‘‘Provide and Maintain VE Project’’ involves the provisionand management of a VE Project using the OSMOS plat-form (Fig. 5). Inputs to this activity include the managedVE Services, and the project requirements. The latter areformulated in the client’s brief produced at the inceptionof a construction project. In fact, clients initiate the brief,which prescribes to a high level of details quantitativeand qualitative aspects of the project. A strong tendencyto adhere to the Brief follows on, with an approach gov-erned by quality, time and cost. The current legal and con-tractual environment applicable in the project host countrycontrols the activity. This takes the form of clearly identi-fied legal and contractual documents that govern the pro-ject. Outputs from the activity include the product (orservice) produced as a result of the VE Project, plus infor-

Provide andMaintain VE

Services 1

A 1

Managed

VE Service Provider

Market Forces

ClientRequirements

VE ProjectRequirements

Third PartyServices

OST

Fig. 3. Manage and use

mation from the project (including records of events as wellas the project archives). The activity decomposes to otheractivities detailed in Fig. 5.

‘‘Provide and Maintain VE Services’’ consists of fouractivities that are carried out to ensure the provision andmaintenance of VE Services: ‘‘Register VE Service’’involves the actions required to register those services madeavailable to the OSMOS VE Service Provider by Third-Party Service Provider companies; ‘‘Provide VE Services’’allows the VE Service Provider to offer Third-Party Servic-es to Clients via the OSMOS platform; ‘‘Maintain VE Ser-

vices’’ involves the ability to add, upgrade, and/or removeservices as required, and as available; ‘‘Remove VE Servic-

es’’ allows the VE Service Provider to remove services fromthe OSMOS platform.

Project management is traditionally supported using alinear model of collaboration involving (a) partner selec-tion, (b) project manager team building, (c) stakeholderteam building, (d) project implementation, and (e) projectcompletion, including celebrating success (Gray and Lar-son, 2000). The Xerox model (Fisher and Fisher, 2001)emphasises the team building dimension of a project andproposes a number of steps to prepare the members fortheir tasks, including: (a) communicate the vision, (b)develop a mission statement, (c) define goals, (d) developnorms, (e) develop roles, (f) develop meeting processes,(g) develop communication processes, and (h) developwork processes. However, these models are not adaptedto the nature of virtual teams as they do not distinguish vir-tual teams from traditional ones in the proposed steps, andassume face-to-face modes of interaction and collabora-tion. Virtual project management requires a more flexibleand incremental model that takes into account factors suchas time, space and culture (Fisher and Fisher, 2001; Masseyet al., 2003). This is the case of construction, which involvesseveral virtual teams with overlapping and often disjointlifecycles. Therefore, ‘‘Provide and Maintain VE Project’’consists of six activities that are carried out in a flexibleand incremental manner to ensure the operations and

Provide andMaintain VE

Project 2

A 2

VE Services

Legal Environment

MOS ools

Product

Information

OSMOS platform.

Make Contractual Agreement

1 Set up VE Project

Workspace2

Configure VE Project

3 Operate VE

Project4 End VE

Project and Dismantle

Infrastructure5

Archive Project

and End Contract

6

Client Requirements

A24

A23

Legal Requirements

VE Project Management Committee

Contractual Agreement

VE Service Provider OSMOS

Tools

VE Project Specifications

Initialised VE Project

Configured VE Project

Registered VE Project

Administrator

VE Project

VE Project Information

Product

Archive

VE Project Requirements

Third Party Services

Fig. 5. Provide and maintain VE project.

Register VE Services

1

Provide VE Services

2

Remove VE Services

4

Maintain VEServices

3

Market ForcesLegal Environment


Record ofRemovedService

Managed VEServices

VE Service Provider

OSMOS Tools

Third Party Service

Provider Tools

Third Party Service Provider

Fig. 4. Provide and maintain VE services.


maintenance of a VE Project. The first activity (‘‘Make

Contractual Agreement’’) involves the actions required inthe formation of a contractual agreement between the cli-ent and the VE service provider relating to the terms andconditions of the supplied VE. The Contractual Agreementforms a control over the other five activities in this node.The next activity (Set up VE Project Workspace) allowsthe VE Service Provider to allot the necessary servers, com-puter resources, logging facilities, required VE and Third-Party Services, etc., to a VE Project once a ContractualAgreement has been made. Within the activity a VE Project

Administrator will be registered and the VE Project will beinitialised with the services selected for its operation. Ideally,the project manager or consultant acting on behalf of theclient fulfills the project administrator role. Once set-up,the VE project workspace is configured (as described inFig. 6), and the VE enters into a mode of operation allow-ing all registered actors to access and use services. A VEproject workspace refers to an online web environmentinvolving a cohesive community of authorized actors, unitedfor a business or practice purpose: the constructionproject. The concept of ‘‘actor’’ refers to a person or an

Configure AssignedServices

1

Identify Actors

2 Agree Management Protocols and Procedures

3Define Roles

4Asssign Roles

5Launch

VE Project

6


VE Project Administrator

OSMOS Tools

Configured VEProjectVE Project

Requirements

Initialised VE Project



Project Actors

Available Service Methods

Configured Project

Services

Agreed VEProcedures

Assigned Roles

Potential Actors


Fig. 6. Configure VE project.


organisation performing one or several tasks or activities,through an assigned role, within the context of a construc-tion project. OSMOS enables to attract the best workersand engineers, and globally dispersed talents, regardlessof their physical location. However, these actors shouldexhibit a number of attributes necessary in a virtual con-text. These include the ability to (a) work with limitedsupervision and feedback, (b) work with reduced socialinteraction, (c) have good organisational and time manage-ment skills, (d) be self-motivated, (e) demonstrate goodperformance, and (f) be able to concentrate and performif away from a worksite. These attributes can only beacquired through virtual working experience and adaptedtraining, as well as a good preparation and developmentof the team at the inception stage of a project. The OSMOSapproach encourages the organisation of a kick-off meetingat the inception stage of the project involving all or part ofthe members of the VE, under the control of the projectadministrator, so that to address issues such as trust andteam cohesion, which are achieved in an ordinary projectusing face-to-face continuous interactions.

Services are geared towards supporting and implement-ing business processes. Shared workspaces can be definedat different levels of granularity; these can range fromsupporting collaboration within a complex constructionproject, to nurturing a small team. This reflects the organi-sation of construction projects, which consist of a groupingof virtual teams (specialised by discipline), bound by con-tractual agreements that collaborate at different timeframesof the project lifecycle. They, therefore, require adaptedcontrols so that to increase their effectiveness at an individ-ual, team and project level. Once the VE project has servedits purpose, it may be terminated and the associated infra-structure dismantled. Resulting project information isarchived according to the contractual agreements, and

the contract is ended. At the completion stage, actors willshift into new job roles. Their involvement in the VE isnow visible to those around them, particularly projectmanagers. This can be used for the formation of new VEteams.

Configuring the VE Project (Fig. 6) involves adapting theassigned services to the needs of the VE project users. The lat-ter are identified under the control of the Project Manage-ment Committee and the terms of the ContractualAgreement, and is performed by the VE Project Administra-tor using the OSMOS Tools. The Management Protocolsand Procedures are then agreed. These represent the actionsrequired to decide and agree upon the modus operandi of theVE Project (e.g., code of behaviour, responsibilities, courseof action, agreement regarding intellectual property rights(IPR) for work resulting from the VE Project, etc.). This con-cerns the client and every single legal entity composing theVE. One of the aspects that are addressed is the legal admis-sibility of electronic signatures. In fact, official documents(such as correspondence, drawings, specifications, and rawdata) are traditionally submitted solely on paper althoughproduced electronically. Legal admissibility is exclusivelyrestricted to the use of a hand-written signature on a paperhardcopy. The use of ICT improves the document exchangeprocess, but often has no legal validity. It is essential thatOSMOS supports a project and its transactions in a legallyadmissible manner. Also, a number of protocols in the VEare defined such as the obligation to respond to messagesand queries within a given time frame, and ways of interpret-ing the meaning of silence or non-reply. These are importantaspects to foster trust in a virtual setting. These aspects areaddressed in the above contractual agreements. The activityis both controlled and performed by the Project Manage-ment Committee. Roles required within the VE are thendefined and assigned to actors registered in the VE, with

ManageActors

1

ManageRoles

2

Manage Access Rights

3

Use Services

4

Manage VE Project

Services5


VE Project Administrator

OSMOS Tools

VE Project

Configured VE Project

Legal Requirements


VE Project

Fig. 7. Operate VE project.


prescribed access rights and responsibilities. The VE projectis then launched.

Operating a VE Project (Fig. 7) involves managingactors and their assigned roles. This involves managingAccess Rights to support the specific information needs ofregistered Actors through controlled access to third-partyservices. It has been shown that perceived informationequity fosters healthy work relationships and helps developtrust (Connaughton and Daly, 2004). In this context,access to shared information is essential and is organisedvia dedicated elementary or composite services, invokedby actors through their assigned role(s). The latter are man-aged within ‘‘Manage VE Project Services’’ which comprisesall the activities the VE Project Administrator needs to beable to perform to ensure the Assigned Services for thespecific VE Project are available to the Actors of thatproject, thus enabling continuation of the operational VEProject.

8. Concept validation

This stage aims at (a) validating the processes involvedin setting-up, operating and ending a Construction VE(GVERM); (b) validating the suggested underlying roles,and the proposed service ‘‘plug-and-play’’ approach result-ing in a federated service platform. An evaluation form(Instrument 4 in Table 1) was used in each of the end-userorganisations. This is developed in the form of a question-naire structured into the following categories: usability,integration, training, job effectiveness, organisation effec-tiveness, business benefits (that may be gained throughthe introduction of the approach), and culture. A spacewas also provided for any other additional comments therespondents might wish to make.

8.1. Field trial description

Business units involving employees with varying levelsof ICT maturity and capability have been selected to carryout the evaluation tasks. In the French field trial (Derbi),seven professionals were involved in the evaluation of thetools and processes in relation to Roles A, B and C.Detailed guidelines have been provided to them to set-upand manage a construction VE in accordance with processeswithin the GVERM. This involved professionals experi-enced in the management and use of electronic platformssupporting virtual teams for roles A and B; and profession-als with a construction and project management back-ground with some basic knowledge of ICT to fulfil roleC. In the Finnish field trial a new VE was set up. Granl-und’s proprietary web enabled FM software ‘RythiWeb’was used as a third-party service. Three organisations rep-resenting a Building Owner, a Maintenance Company, anda Facility Consultant were created as members of the VE.Employees were then registered to each organisation andgiven usernames and passwords. A new project was creat-ed, and the three organisations within the VE, includingtheir registered members, were assigned to it. Six differentproject roles were created in the VE and subsequentlyassigned to the various actors, thereby controlling the ser-vices to which the employees have access within the project.Various activities were performed related to the adminis-trative side of the VE as well as the use of RythiWeb asa third-party service.

8.2. Field trial results

The employees involved in the field trials have followedstrictly the processes prescribed in the GVERM (Section 7).


The results of the field trials are summarized in Table 3.The latter is structured into seven categories (usability,integration, training, job effectiveness, organisation effec-tiveness, business benefits, and culture) and explainedbelow.

In terms of ‘‘Usability’’ of the OSMOS system, respon-dents from both organisations have acknowledged the val-ue of having a ubiquitous access (anytime, anywhere) totheir software applications. This addresses one of the limi-tations expressed earlier in the research related to the lackof support to mobile practices.

All respondents have highly valued the OSMOS con-cept of federating in-house and commercial softwareapplications into an integrated solution tailored to theneeds of individuals and groups on projects (as illustrat-ed in Figs. 3–5). These are accessed on a role basis, thus

Table 3Evaluation results

Criterion DERBI

Usability • Need to adapt the OSMOS user interface tand design of existing in-house software ap

• Overall good response times when invokin

Integration • Open and scalable solutions involving in-hware applications and third-party servicesto better serve the needs of teams on proje

• Ease of integration and provision of newactors and teams on projects

• Maintenance, including upgrade, of softwcomplex and easier than before

• Improved levels of control access and secu

Training • Training required, preferably under atraining programme

Job effectiveness • Improved support to team working• Gains in quality of work• Reasonable efficiency gains

Organisation effectiveness • Faster set-up of project teams• Improved project management• Improved coordination of tasks• Good information management – simpler

access• Good improvements to inter-company

cations• Improved support for multiple projects• Increased competitiveness

Business benefits • Ability to attract more clients• Increased client satisfaction• Improved team working

Culture • Concerns in relation to trust amongst vimembers

• Team members’ identification issues• Motivation of individuals when collaborati

ly was raised• Weak team cohesion due to a potential re

face-to-face interactions.

providing improved levels of access control and securitywhile hiding the complexity of the services by onlyexposing end-users to functionality directly relevant tothe business processes in which they are involved(Fig. 6). It was noted by some respondents that this isa positive factor that would promote adoption of theOSMOS solution. Several respondents from Granlundhave noted the usefulness of acquiring and adding newservices on-demand (Figs. 4 and 6). This addresses theissue of limited growth path and scalability of currentsolutions in the sector mentioned earlier in the research.Also, the respondents raised issues in relation to the nat-ure of the OSMOS roles (A, B, and C) that are worthclarifying. While these generic roles represent the under-lying concepts of the OSMOS service infrastructuredefined at the VE Service level, business roles (such as

Granlund

o the lookplications

g services

• Improved availability of services and increasedexposure

• Ubiquitous nature of services that can be invokedanytime, anywhere

ouse soft-federated

ctsservices to

are is less

rity

• Ease of integration of the corporate software applica-tions into the OSMOS platform

• Usefulness and ease of adding new services• Ease of re-use of integrated services• Improved management of IT support for individuals

and teams on projects• Improved management of the overall software infra-

structure used within the company and on projects• Overall improved security levels

structured • Light training requirement to complement existingprogrammes

• Improvements to daily work• Good efficiency gains• Highly prepared to use the tools

and faster

communi-

• Considerably faster set-up of project teams• Much better support for team cooperation and

coordination• Improved security• Good improvement in information and knowledge

sharing• Good improvements to all communications• Support for multiple projects

• Improved day-to-day operations• Ability to attract more clients• Improved satisfaction of project teams

rtual team

ng virtual-

duction of

• Measures need implementing to sustain current levelof trust

• Measures needed to ensure that individuals remainmotivated

• Need for a change management programme• Team members’ identification issues


architectural design, structural design, and quantity sur-veying) are defined at the level of the VE and are directlyassigned to Virtual Enterprise Clients (Fig. 6). The latterinteract directly via their business role with services allo-cated to the VE in which they operate in accordancewith their assigned service invocation rights.

Controlled access to information and knowledgethrough services enhances trust in technology while pro-moting a culture of knowledge sharing. The resultingOSMOS knowledge base comprising data and informationgenerated throughout the invocation of the allocated ser-vices is perceived as one of the key important features ofOSMOS.

A large majority of the respondents acknowledged theadvantage of OSMOS in improving work effectiveness.While existing in-house and commercial solutions tendto focus on communication and document-sharing func-tionality, it was noted that OSMOS offered the right sup-port for teamwork by giving the engineeringapplications, traditionally used on a standalone basis, agroup and collaborative dimension. There is a positivefeeling that the technology that supports the engineeringfunctions is now better integrated with the ‘‘Groupware’’applications that traditionally support teamwork solu-tions on projects, and better aligned with the natureand requirements of business processes and the lifecycledimension of a project.

Conversely, OSMOS was perceived as enabling fasterset-up of project teams as opposed to current complexand time-consuming team-building processes. While teambuilding is perceived as being essential for the success ofa virtual team, the respondents have welcomed theOSMOS functionality that alleviate the need for extensiveface-to-face meetings to enable the virtual teamwork solu-tion. Also, from an organisational perspective, it was notedthat the project-centric approach of OSMOS is in line withthe project-based ‘‘informal’’ structure of constructionorganisations. In fact, while the latter tend to be formallystructured into specialised departments and business unitsthat mirror the discipline-nature of the industry, there exista parallel informal horizontal structure, through projects,that cuts across all the existing organisational structures.OSMOS (Fig. 3) provides an ideal environment to managethis informal project-based structure and control the over-all operations of the organisation, thus contributing toorganisation effectiveness, as indicated in Table 3.

The potential for business benefits has been clearly artic-ulated by most respondents through improved team work-ing and day-to-day operations. They have also anticipatedthe potential positive impact in terms of client satisfaction,and therefore, the ability to increase competitiveness andattract more clients, as reported in Table 3.

In terms of culture, the respondents who were less com-fortable with the technology have raised various concerns.These include concerns about the reduction of face-to-facemeetings, as these are perceived as important in the sectorand might affect staff motivation, team cohesion, and trust

building. The same respondents have asked for specificmeasures to sustain current levels of trust on projects. Infact, in several instances the project manager has been iden-tified as a key element of success in a traditional project set-ting. Team members tend to relate and identify themselvesto their project manager. A number of respondents ques-tioned how would this work in a virtual context whereface-to-face interactions are kept minimal. This is nothelped by the project nature of the industry where workershave a tendency to be involved in multiple projects at thesame time, and having as a result to juggle with multipleroles and responsibilities, and hence, identities.

While both organisations have some form of in-housetraining aimed at currently used software applications, itwas felt that a more structured programme related directlyto the practice (i.e., business processes) would be morevaluable so as to make better use of the plethora of servicesand functionality provided through OSMOS. Also, it wassuggested that one way of ensuring that the importanceof building trust and confidence amongst members of aVE is understood is to include such issues in educationand training initiatives.

While the field trial results suggest an overall acceptanceof the OSMOS concept and its underlying three roles, therespondents have raised adoption issues in relation to theGVERM, as it will inevitably mean changes to workingpractices for organisations. Although the respondents con-vey a generally positive attitude towards change, trainingin, and awareness of, the possible need for a change man-agement programme should be seriously considered.

9. Discussion

Activities in the Construction industry are predominant-ly performed on a team basis. Referring back to the firstresearch question, team working has been reported asbeing inefficient due to various causes, including the frag-mented and dispersed nature of teams coupled with inade-quate technological support. However, the research hasalso highlighted that improvements brought by better tech-nological support to virtual teams do not deliver the fullbenefits if not addressed in the wider context of the projectat hand. Moreover, separate teams representing Construc-tion disciplines collaborate together to design, build, andmaintain a building project. They, therefore, form a virtualenterprise that involves temporary non-co-located teams.What is missing in this equation is a framework to regulatethe collection of virtual teams involved in a project so thatthey function synergistically. Hence the nature and impor-tance of the GVERM that provides a process, social, tech-nology, and contractual framework to regulate what cannow be termed as the Construction Virtual Enterprise.The latter can be defined as a grouping of virtual teamsbound by contractual agreements that collaborate at differ-ent timeframes of the project lifecycle and require adaptedcontrols so that to increase their effectiveness at an individ-ual, team and project level. The contractual agreements as


described in the GVERM include both the extent to whichinformation and knowledge are managed and shared andthe degree of control employed. However, neither businessproficiency nor working efficiency can be expected withoutthe mobilisation of the most important, most valued, buttoo often overlooked asset: the human capital of an orga-nisation. The process of activating human capital is neithereasy nor simple; help can only be expected by mastering theprocesses of internal and external communication, alteringthe organisational behaviour and the relationships, andconsidering the principles of managing changes. This opensdiscussion on the second research question.

Virtual teams rely on cooperation between dispersedstakeholders working towards a common purpose. In orderto efficiently meet this purpose, the goals of the (virtual)enterprise need to be shared and embraced collectively.Whilst network organising is enabled via new technologies,organisations remain principally human constructs. Thereis a need for the people within the networked teams toembrace change, and adopt a new culture, the sustainableadoption of which continues to be a main concern (Rezguiand Wilson, 2005). The issue of team identification hasbeen raised in the evaluation work, suggesting that distancechallenges the ties that bind teams (Scott and Fontenot,1999). Construction team members often are involved inmore than one project, or team at a time, making it difficultfor them to define their many identities. In fact, identityboundaries are present when some members of a teamare not fully dedicated to the team, either because theyare working on multiple projects with multiple teams orbecause their teams are nested within larger teams. Thiscan have powerful effects on behaviour (including, satisfac-tion, trust, and performance) as highlighted in related liter-ature (Espinosa et al., 2003). In this context, the projectcoordinator has been identified as a strong target of identi-fication. Team leadership in distributed settings is thereforecritical to team effectiveness (Connaughton and Daly,2004). Leading a virtual team not only involves the com-munication complexities, but also requires a certain shiftin the project leadership approach. Virtual project manag-ers should exhibit a number of essential attributes, includ-ing: leadership, results catalyst, facilitator, barrier burster,business analyser, coach, and living example (Fisher andFisher, 2001).

Three key aspects have emerged from the research andcan be recognized as ingredients for successful migrationfrom traditional organisational forms to virtual teamworking within the context of a Construction VE:

• Knowledge sharing: the research confirmed that facili-tating VE members access to shared, well structuredand unambiguous information and knowledge througha dedicated knowledge base, improves communicationand cohesion amongst the members of the VE.

• Trust and cohesion: trust among leaders and team mem-bers may be swift yet fragile (Jarvenpaa and Leidner,1999), and members’ identification with the team, and

leader may be challenged over distance (Connaughtonand Daly, 2004). In fact, identification is the psychologicaltie that holds virtual team members together, and is there-fore important for achieving desired outcomes (Wiesen-feld et al., 1999; Connaughton and Daly, 2004). Trust ispositively related to team members’ identification withtheir leader, in both distanced and proximate relation-ships. Equally, open communication channels, and par-ticipation and involvement in decision-making, enhancesharing of information and facilitate virtual teams cohe-sion, which in turn promotes trust. Indeed people worktogether because they trust one another and special atten-tion to building trust should be given throughout the VElifecycle. The following recommendations that emergedfrom the validation work can be formulated:

(i) Include face-to-face interactions when possible dur-ing the virtual team lifecycle and in particular dur-ing the inception stage where the vision, mission,and goals can be communicated and shared.

(ii) Give equal access to information, including projectstatus and progression.

(iii) Involve project coordinators experienced in virtualteam management.

(iv) Develop strong communication and collaborationprotocols, including code of conduct, standardsfor availability and acknowledgement.

(v) Appoint an experienced virtual enterprisecoordinator.

(vi) Select team members with aptitudes to work in avirtual setting.

• Continuous learning: As discussed above, enabling a VErequires not only the implementation of innovative tech-nologies but also new working practices, and organisa-tional structures and cultures. The potential benefits ofsuch innovation can only be realized through individualsat all levels learning and developing a considerable arrayof new capabilities. To this end it is recommended thatthe organisations wishing to deploy a VE consider theextent to which that training should be planned andimplemented, and prepare a programme/documentationfor the purpose.

10. Conclusion

The characteristics of the Construction sector suggestthat in researching, developing, and evaluating potentialvirtual teamwork solutions, the human and organisationalaspects require close attention. This means that socialand, ultimately, economical considerations have to bemade rather than concentrating the development processon the technology alone as has been traditionally the casein the sector.

A Construction project, it has been shown, can beassimilated to a virtual enterprise that spans the entire life-cycle of a project. The Construction VE hosts a number ofdiscrete virtual teams (representing various disciplines) that


operate concurrently and synergistically under a commoncontrol and management framework (the GVERM). Inthis context, the OSMOS service-hosting concept providesthe technological infrastructure to support the central busi-ness processes; allow integration of systems and interoper-ability between disparate applications; and themanagement of interactions between individuals andteams. However, the research has identified importantsocio-organisational issues inherent to the project-basednature of Construction that must be addressed and blendedsuccessfully toward the shared VE purpose. These includeissues related to team identification and trust, and moregenerally to the challenge of virtual project management.Moreover, the migration path to successful virtual teamworking is grounded in human and cultural elements thatengage all stakeholders in a manner that promotes andengenders trust. This involves an exercise in change, whichrequires new mechanisms to enable participation andcommunication.

Given current limitations of virtual team research(argued in Section 1), the paper contributes to existingknowledge by (a) clarifying and defining the nature ofteamwork that takes place on projects in the constructionsector, (b) specifying the technological, regulatory andsocio-organisational environment to support team workingeffectively; and (c) researching into factors that facilitatevirtual team adoption and use in the Construction indus-try. Also, while existing research has provided little formal-ization of working procedures and managerial structures ofvirtual teams, the paper proposes a regulated frameworkthat factors in (a) technology maturity and software provi-sion models, (b) organisational and process settings, and(c) social, including socio-emotional considerations, adaptedto the needs of a specific sector: the Construction industry.It is hoped that the research will contribute to develop aholistic understanding of the complex theme of VirtualTeams.

However, we must continue to explore how to make virtu-al enterprises, and their constituents’ virtual teams, workeffectively. In particular, the issue of team members’ identifi-cation deserves further exploration and research. Identifica-tion can have powerful effects on behaviour, includingsatisfaction, trust, and performance. It is essential to explorethese issues further, and research the impact of individuals’participation and experience across multiple teams.

The project end-users have adopted the OSMOS con-cept, and have entered into active exploitation of the pro-ject results. Granlund are using the OSMOS concept,including the proposed three roles (A, B, and C), to inte-grate a number of in-house and commercial software appli-cations used within their organisation and across theircollaborating partners to support distributed Building ser-vices design and Facility Management (http://www.granl-und.fi). Derbi have extended and enhanced thecapabilities of their in-house document management sys-tem to support virtual project management (http://www.sgti.com.fr). The resulting virtual project manage-

ment environment (SGTi) has been, and is currently, usedin major construction projects in France (http://www.sgti.fr/fr/04ref/ind_ref.html).

Acknowledgements

The author thank the anonymous reviewers for theirhelpful comments, suggestions, and recommendations thathave substantially improved the paper. The authoracknowledge the financial support of the European Com-mission under the IST programme. The author also thankthe members of staff from CSTB, VTT, Derbi, Granlundand JM for their contribution to the research.

References

Alexander, S., 2000. Virtual teams going global. InfoWorld 46 (22), 55–56.Avison, D., Lau, F., Myers, M., Nielsen, PA., 1999. Action research.

Communications of the ACM 42 (1), 94–97.Bannon, L.J., 1991. From human factors to human actors: the role of

psychology and human–computer interaction studies in system design.In: Greenbaum, J.a.M.K. (Ed.), Design at Work: Cooperative Designof Computer Systems. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp. 25–44.

Camarninha-Matos, L., Afsarmanesh, H., Ollus, M., 2005. Virtualorganizations: systems and practice. In: Camarninha-Matos, L.,Afsarmanesh, H., Ollus, M. (Eds.). Springer Science, New York.

Carmel, E., Agarwal, R., 2001. Tactical approaches for alleviatingdistance in global software development. IEEE Software, 22–29.

Cascio, W.F., Shurygailo, S., 2003. E-leadership and virtual teams.Organizational Dynamics 31 (4), 362–376.

Chase, N., 1999. Learning to lead a virtual team. Quality 38 (9), 76.Cohen, S.G., Bailey, D.E., 1997. What makes teams work: group

effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite.Journal of Management 23 (3), 239–290.

Connaughton, S.L., Daly, J.A., 2004. Identification with leader: acomparison of perceptions of identification among geographicallydispersed and co-located teams. Corporate Communications: AnInternational Journal 9 (2), 89–103.

Constant, D., Sproull, L., Kiesler, S., 1996. The kindness of strangers: theusefulness of electronic weak ties for technical advice. OrganizationScience 17 (2), 119–135.

Crampton, C., 2001. The mutual knowledge problem and its consequencesfor dispersed collaboration. Organization Science 12 (3), 346–371.

Davis, F.D., 1989. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, anduser acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly 13,319–340.

Davis, F.D., 1993. User acceptance of information technology: systemcharacteristics, user perceptions and behavioural impacts. Internation-al Journal of Man–Machine Studies 18 (3), 475–487.

Diaper, D., Sanger, C., 2006. Tasks for and tasks in human–computerinteraction. Interacting with Computers 18 (2), 117–138.

Easley, R.F., Devaraj, S., Crant, J.M., 2003. Relating collaborativetechnology use to teamwork quality and performance: an empiricalanalysis. Journal of Management of Information Systems 19 (4), 247–268.

Espinosa, J.A., Cummings, J.N., Wilson, J.M., Pearce, B.M., 2003. Teamboundary issues across multiple global firms. Journal of ManagementInformation Systems 19 (4), 157–190.

Fisher, K., Fisher, M.D., 2001. The Distance Manger: A Hands-On Guideto Managing Off-Site Employees and Virtual Teams. McGraw-Hill,New York.

Fitzpatrick, G., Tolone, W.J., Kaplan, S.M., 1995, Work, locales anddistributed social worlds. In: Proceedings of the 1995 EuropeanConference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Stockholm,Sweden, pp. 1–16.

http://www.granlund.fi

http://www.granlund.fi

http://www.sgti.com.fr

http://www.sgti.com.fr

http://www.sgti.fr/fr/04ref/ind_ref.html

http://www.sgti.fr/fr/04ref/ind_ref.html


Fjermestad, J., Hiitz, S.R., 2001. Group support systems: a descriptiveevaluation of case and field studies. Journal of Management Informa-tion Systems 17 (3), 115–119.

Gallivan, M.J., 2001. Organizational adoption and assimilation ofcomplex technological innovations: development and application ofa new framework. Database 3 (32), 51–85.

Goranson, H.T., 1999. The Agile Virtual Enterprise: Cases, Metrics,Tools. Quorum Books, Westport, CT.

Gray, C.G., Larson, E.W., 2000. Project Management: The ManagerialProcess. Irwin/McGraw Hill, New York.

Jarvenpaa, S., Ives, B., 1994. The Global Network Organization of theFuture: Information Management Opportunities and Challenges.Journal of Management Information Systems 10 (4), 25–57.

Jarvenpaa, S., Leidner, D., 1999. Communication and trust in globalvirtual teams. Organization Science 10 (6), 791–815.

Kaiser, P., Tullar, W., McKowen, D., 2000. Student team projects byinternet. Business Communication Quarterly 63 (4), 75–82.

Karat, J., Karat, C.M., 2003. The evolution of user-centered focus in thehuman–computer interaction field. IBM Systems Journal 42 (4),532–541.

Kayworth, T., Leidner, D., 2000. The global virtual manager: a prescrip-tion for success. European Management Journal 18 (2), 183–194.

Kezsbom, D., 2000. Creating teamwork in virtual teams. Cost Engineering42 (10), 33–36.

Kreifelts, T., Hinrichs, E., Woetzel, G., 1993. Sharing To-Do lists with adistributed task manager. In: Proceedings of the Third EuropeanConference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (ECSCW’93),pp. 31–46.

Kuutti, K., 1991. The concept of activity as a basic unit of analysis forCSCW research. In: Proceedings of the Second European Conferenceon Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Amsterdam, pp. 249–264.

Kuutti, K., 1995. Activity Theory as a Potential Framework for Human–Computer Interaction Research, Context and Consciousness: ActivityTheory and Human–Computer Interaction. MIT Press, Cambridge,MA, pp. 17–44.

Lipnack, J., Stamps, J., 2000. Virtual Teams: People Working AcrossBoundaries with Technology, second ed. Wiley, New York.

Massey, A.P., Montoya-Weiss, M.M., Hung, Y.T., 2003. Because timematters: temporal coordination in global virtual project teams. Journalof Management Information Systems 19 (4), 129–155.

Malone, T.W., Crowston, K., 1990. What is Coordination Theory andhow can it help design cooperative work systems? In: Proceedings ofthe ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, vol.547, Los Angeles, CA, USA, pp. 357–370.

Majchrzak, A., Rice, R.E., Malholra, A., King, N., Ba, S., 2000.Technology adaptation: the case of a computer-supported inter-organizational virtual team. MIS Quarterly 24 (4), 569–600.

Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M., 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis. AnExpanded Sourcebook. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills.

Maznevski, M., Chudoba, K., 2001. Bridging space over time: globalvirtual team dynamics and effectiveness. Organization Science 11 (5),473–492.

McDonough, E., Kahn, K., Barczak, G., 2001. An investigation of the useof global, virtual, and collocated new product development teams. TheJournal of Product Innovation Management 18 (2), 110–120.

NIST, 1993. Integration definition for function modelling. FIPS PUBS,Federal Information Processing Standards Publications, The NationalInstitute of Standards and Technology, USA.

Nunamaker Jr., J.F., 1997. Future research in group support systems:needs, some questions and possible directions. International Journal ofHuman–Computer Studies 47 (3), 357–385.

Powell, A., Piccoli, G., Ives, B., 2004. Virtual teams: a review of currentliterature and directions for future research. The Data base forAdvances in Information Systems 35 (1), 6–36.

Ramesh, V., Dennis, A., 2002. The object oriented team: lessons forvirtual teams from global software development. In: Proceedings of theThirty-Fifth Annual Hawaii International Conference on SystemSciences, Hawaii.

Rezgui, Y., 2001. Review of information and knowledge managementpractices state of the art in the construction industry. The KnowledgeEngineering Review Journal, Issue 16 (3), 241–254.

Rezgui, Y., Wilson, I., 2005. Socio-organizational issues in virtualorganizations, virtual organizations: systems and practice. In: Camarn-inha-Matos, L., Afsarmanesh, H., Ollus, M. (Eds.). Springer Science,New York.

Rogers, E.M., 1995. Diffusion of Innovations, fourth ed. Free Press, NewYork.

Sarker, S., Lau, F., Sahay, S., 2001. Using an adapted groundedtheory approach for inductive theory building about virtual teamdevelopment. Database for Advances in Information Systems 32(1), 38–56.

Scott, C.R., Fontenot, J., 1999. Multiple identifications during teammeetings: a comparison of conventional and computer-supportedinteractions. Communication Reports 12, 91–100.

Solomon, C., 2001. Managing virtual teams. Workforce 80 (6), 60–65.Stake, R.E., 2000. Case studies. In: Denzin, N.K., Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds.),

Handbook of Qualitative Research (second ed.). Thousand Oaks,Sage, pp. 435–454.

Suchan, J., Hayzak, G., 2001. The communication characteristics ofvirtual teams: a case study. IEEE Transactions on ProfessionalCommunication 44 (3), 174–186.

Tan, B., Wei, K., Huang, W., Ng, G., 2000. A dialogue technique toenhance electronic communication in virtual teams. IEEE Transac-tions on Professional Communication 43 (2), 153–165.

Teege, G., 1996. Object-oriented activity support: a model for integratedCSCW systems. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW):The Journal of Collaborative Computing 5 (1), 93–124.

Van Ryssen, S., Hayes Godar, S., 2000. Going international without goinginternational: multinational virtual teams. Journal of InternationalManagement (6), 49–60.

Warkentin, M.E., Beranek, P.M., 1999. Training to improve virtualteam communication. Information Systems Journal 9 (4), 271–289.

Wiesenfeld, B.M., Raghuram, S., Garud, R., 1999. Communicationpatterns as determinants of identification in a virtual organization.Organization Science 10 (6), 777–790.

Zigurs, I., 2003. Leadership in virtual teams: oxymoron or opportunity?Organizational Dynamics 31 (4), 339–351.

Zmud, R.W., 2000. Framing the Domains of IT Management: Projectingthe Future Through the Past. Pinnaflex, Cincinnati.

exploring virtual team-working effectiveness in the construction sector

Documents