Search This Blog


Sunday, 23 October 2016

Strengthening deeper learning through virtual teams in e-learning: A synthesis of determinants and best practices | Makani | International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education


Strengthening Deeper Learning through Virtual Teams in e-Learning: A Synthesis of Determinants and Best Practices

Joyline Makani, Martine Durier-Copp, Deborah Kiceniuk, and Alieda Blandford
VOL. 32, No. 2 2016


Globally, e-learning is gaining popularity as its potential
contributions to economic and social development are recognised.
However, its full potential has not been realised, as most e-learning
practices merely replicate traditional existing teaching methods and
have not fully exploited the interactive and social components of peer
learning. Recently, there has been an increased focus on deeper learning
in higher educational settings, in particular, a focus on the skills
and knowledge that reinforce each other and together promote deeper
learning (Chow, 2010). In other words research shows that to be
successful all students must have access to educational opportunities
that foster deeper learning. Virtual teams (VT) are said to foster
"deeper" learning, but have not been empirically studied in the academic
sphere, and little is known about their effectiveness as a learning
mechanism in e-learning. In this paper the findings of a systemic review
and interpretive synthesis of the body of literature on e-learning and
VT are presented. The objective of the study was to identify the core
skills and knowledge from research that reinforce each other and
together promote deeper learning. The results from this study will
strengthen e-learning program planning and delivery within higher
education centres that are already engaged in e-learning, as well as
convey important best practices for learning centres at the beginning
stages of e-learning development.  Presented is an e-learning framework,
which may serve as the foundation of future empirical studies in


À l'échelle mondiale, l'apprentissage en ligne gagne en popularité
puisque ses contributions éventuelles au développement économique et
social sont reconnues. Cependant, son plein potentiel n'a pas été
réalisé, car la plupart des pratiques d'apprentissage en ligne ne font
que simplement reproduire les méthodes d'enseignement traditionnelles
existantes et n’ont pas pleinement exploité les composantes interactives
et sociales de l'apprentissage par les pairs. Récemment, il y a eu une
focalisation accrue sur l’apprentissage plus approfondi dans des milieux
d'enseignement supérieur, en particulier, l'accent sur les compétences
et les connaissances qui se renforcent mutuellement et, ensemble,
favorisent un apprentissage plus approfondi (Chow, 2010). Autrement dit,
la recherche montre que pour réussir, tous les étudiants doivent avoir
accès à des possibilités éducatives qui favorisent un apprentissage plus
approfondi. Les équipes virtuelles (EV) sont dites de favoriser
l'apprentissage « plus approfondi », mais elles n'ont pas été
empiriquement étudiées dans la sphère académique, et on en sait peu sur
leur efficacité en tant que mécanisme d'apprentissage en apprentissage
en ligne. Dans cet article, les résultats d'une revue systématique et
d’une synthèse interprétative de la littérature sur l'apprentissage en
ligne et les équipes virtuelles sont présentés. L'objectif de l'étude
était d'identifier les compétences de base et les connaissances issues
de la recherche qui se renforcent mutuellement et, ensemble, favorisent
un apprentissage plus approfondi. Les résultats de cette étude
permettront de renforcer la planification de programme et la livraison
d’apprentissage en ligne dans les centres d'enseignement supérieur qui
sont déjà impliqués dans l'apprentissage en ligne, ainsi que de
transmettre d'importantes meilleures pratiques pour les centres
d'apprentissage qui en sont aux premiers stades du développement de
l'apprentissage en ligne. On présente un cadre de référence
d'apprentissage en ligne, qui peut servir de base à de futures études
empiriques en apprentissage en ligne.


E-learning has transformed traditional ways of learning in higher education. It is defined as:

An approach to teaching and learning, representing all or part of
the educational model applied, that is based on the use of electronic
media and devices as tools for improving access to training,
communication and interaction and facilitates the adoption of new ways
of understanding and developing learning. (Sangrà, Vlachopoulos, &
Cabrera, 2012, p. 152)

Notably, e-learning encompasses some key characteristics of both
distance learning and online learning and underscores the integration of
“pedagogy, instructional technology and the Internet in teaching and
learning environments” (Carter & Salyers, 2015). Globally,
e-learning is gaining popularity as its potential contributions to
economic and social development are recognised. In Canada, e-learning’s
provision of the needed flexibility (i.e., any time, any place) is
recognized as a fundamental vehicle for fostering a lifelong learning
society (Canadian Council on Learning, 2009). According to the Contact
North 2012 report, it is estimated that between 875,000 and 950,000
registered online students at colleges and universities in Canada take a
purely online course at any one time.  In the US, in 2012, over 6.7
million students were taking at least one online course, an increase of
570,000 students over the number reported in the previous year (Allen
& Seaman, 2013).

However recent reports have revealed some countries are not
performing to expectations in their e-learning endeavours. For example
Canada is reported as trailing behind the efforts of other countries in
e-learning, with Canadian post-secondary institutions lagging behind
those in many other countries in incorporating online components into
their programs, and e-learning in workplace training is not yet a
standard feature (Canadian Council on Learning, 2009). The same report,
however, highlighted the importance of e-learning to Canadian social and
economic development and called for a coherent framework to shape
e-learning’s development in Canada, noting, among other things, the need
for concerted efforts to fill gaps in research and harness the
potential of technology to meet the needs of learners (ibid.).
This is aptly stated, as there appears to be a scarcity of research on
e-learning in Canada (Salyers, Carter, Carter, Myers, & Barrett,
2014; Kaznowska, Rogers, & Usher, 2011). A stronger understanding of
online learning is therefore essential for the future success of
education and training.

From the outset, e-learning has been hailed as offering the
“potential to enable student centred learning through the realisation of
constructivist teaching principles” (Edwards & Bone, 2012, p. 2).
However, this potential has not been realized since most studies
describe current activities in e-learning as mostly replicating or
transferring traditional existing teaching and learning approaches into
e-learning environments (Salmon, 2005). In Canada one of the major
barriers to the development of e-learning is noted as “the poor design
and quality of some early stage online courses and the low level of
student engagement these engendered” (Contact North, 2012, p. 17). In
other words, educators are striving to conceptualize how teaching and
learning can be enacted in e-learning settings whereby data,
information, knowledge, and the capacity to socially shape such data,
information and knowledge tends to define the learning experiences of
many students (Edwards & Bone, 2012). Moreover, there has been an
increased focus on deeper learning in higher educational settings, in
particular, a focus on the skills and knowledge that reinforce each
other and together promote deeper learning (Chow, 2010). Deeper
learning, as presented by the Hewlett Foundation, prepares students to
master core academic content, think critically and solve complex
problems, work collaboratively, communicate effectively, have an
academic mindset, and learn through self-direction. Nevertheless, to be
successful all students must have access to educational opportunities
that foster deeper learning.  As a result there is a growing need for a
stronger understanding of e-learning that encompasses the examination of
ways in which e-learning promotes deeper learning.

In addition, there is growing practical evidence that one of the key
factors for e-learning success is an understanding of the social
component of learning, i.e., the importance of person-to-person, and
group/team, interactions within the e-learning framework. Social aspects
of peer learning are considered to build student motivation, enhance
social connections and increase student access to feedback about their
learning (Morrison, 2006). Not surprisingly, therefore, most workplace
training and graduate teaching in e-learning environments utilize group
work. Group or team work, according to precepts of adult education,
fosters deeper learning, in a co-production of knowledge model, and also
provides skills that professional programme students require in the
workplace, where teams are the norm today and team work a required skill

Virtual teams are one such example of a form of a workplace team with
potential implications for e-learning. Virtual teams are groups of
people committed to a common purpose or goal that are separated
geographically, that use a variety of communication technologies that
allow them to transcend the limits of time and distance, in order to
work together (Ale, Ahmed, & Taha,  2009; Green & Roberts, 2010;
Martins, Gilson, & Maynard, 2004). Aside from their ability to
allow highly skilled but geographically dispersed individuals to work
together, past reviews have highlighted studies that claimed other
benefits of virtual teams. For example, these benefits may include:
increased team cohesion and a greater sense of responsibility among team
members (Ale et al., 2009); increased participation among members and
reduction in the effects of status inequalities (Martins et al., 2004)
and greater opportunity for students to acquire an international
perspective through their learning (Green & Roberts, 2010).

There is a growing body of knowledge on how to develop effective
virtual teams in the professional context (Faizuniah & Chan, 2014;
Parke & Campbell, 2014; Berry, 2011).  As well, there is some
discussion in academic circles of possible relationships between
e-learning and virtual teams (Erez et al., 2013; Shea, Sherer, Quilling,
& Blewett 2011). As Hunt, Smith, & Chen, (2010) observed,
academicians need to challenge students to engage, and one way to
accomplish this is by using active collaborative teaching scenarios.
However, virtual teams have not been extensively empirically studied in
the academic sphere, and little is known about their effectiveness as a
learning mechanism in e-learning. The key question is whether virtual
teams used in the e-learning space are effective in producing better
student learning outcomes? It is useful therefore to consider what
lessons can be learned from the literature on virtual teams which can be
applied and used within e-learning environments to promote deeper
learning. In order to draw these conclusions, there is a need for an
in-depth meta-review of findings in the literature on virtual teams
concerning the impact/results from virtual teamwork, which can be useful
or transferred to general e-learning. This study therefore reviewed and
synthesised the findings in the literature on virtual teams and
e-learning published within the past decade. The objective was to
identify core skills and knowledge from the virtual team and e-learning
research that reinforce each other and together promote deeper learning;
also proposed is an e-learning framework, which may serve as the
foundation of future empirical studies in e-learning, and may contribute
to enhanced pedagogical design. The results from this study will
strengthen e-learning program planning and delivery within higher
education centres that are already engaged in e-learning, as well as
convey important best practices for learning centres at the beginning
stages of e-learning development.

This paper is organized as follows. First, we present an overview of our
knowledge synthesis methods, which includes a systematic search of the
literature and an interpretive synthesis of existing research. We then
present an analysis and discussion of our findings and our proposed
e-learning framework. The final section indicates the limitations of our
research and provides recommendations.


Our review was underscored by rigor and transparency (Mays, Pope,
& Popay, 2005) to enable the study to be replicated by others. We
conducted a systematic search and review of the literature to identify
the key determinants of effective learning in an e-learning educational
delivery model, effective virtual teams, and the additional impact of an
e-learning framework that incorporates a virtual teamwork component
within the program model. One of the key advantages of a systematic over
a narrative literature review is that it allows for the synthesis of
the research in a systematic, transparent, and reproducible manner.  In
other words, adopting a systematic review methodology helped in
counteracting bias by making explicit the values and assumptions
underpinning our review process. In addition, comparative and thematic
synthesis methods, rather than quantitative analysis, were selected to
uncover contextual issues identified in the studies and provide
educators and policy-makers with a reliable basis to formulate program
model frameworks and take evidence-informed action. We adapted an
interpretive review method, an approach that provides a useful structure
within which to conduct a synthesis of the literature. Notably, the
goal of the synthesis was not to produce an aggregation of data, but
theory grounded in the studies included in the review (Dixon-Woods, et
al., 2006).  

Study Questions

It was not possible nor desirable for us to specify in advance the precise review question, a priori definitions,
or categories under which the data will be summarised. The precise
formulation of review questions in advance of the synthesis, as
Dixon-Woods et al, (2006) noted, is successful in instances “where the
phenomenon of interest, the populations, interventions, and outcomes are
all well specified – i.e. if the aim of the review is aggregative”. For
our study the aim was to allow the definition of the phenomenon of
virtual teams and e-learning to emerge from our analysis of the
literature (Jensen & Allen, 1996). However, it should be noted that,
although at the outset we did not have a specific hypothesis that we
were going to explore, three general questions were used to frame our
project. These project review questions, which could best be described
as “tentative, fuzzy and contested” (Greenhalgh et al., 2005),
were: What drives effective e-learning? What makes virtual teams
effective? What lessons can be learned from the literature on virtual
teams which can be applied and used within e-learning environments? We
then employed a highly iterative approach to specify our review
questions, i.e., we modified the questions in response to search results
and findings from retrieved items. The multidisciplinary nature of our
research team was of great benefit to this process of refining the
questions, as it allowed a range of perspectives to be incorporated into
the process. 

Study Eligibility

Our focus was to include many different forms of evidence with the
aim of generating a comprehensive framework, thus we conducted an
interpretive synthesis (Sandelowski et al., 1997) of all types
of evidence relevant to our understanding of the mechanisms that
underlie effective e-learning and virtual team environments, and for
whom virtual teams work and in what circumstances. However, we limited
the date range to the past 10 years in adherence to the grant funding
call to focus on the state of research knowledge emerging over the past
decade. Because we sought to include only the most recent decade of
published evidence in our report, we therefore excluded studies
published prior to 2005. Non-English language materials were also
excluded because of the cost and time involved in material translation.
Thus, potential relevant studies might have been missed due to our
exclusion criteria.

Study Identification

As stated above, our research focus was to be as comprehensive as
possible in identifying studies relevant to our understanding of the
criteria that underlie effective e-learning and virtual team
environments, and for whom virtual teams work and in what circumstances.  We
therefore used purposive sampling initially to include only those
studies published within the past ten years that investigate (e-learning
OR virtual teams) AND (success* OR effective* OR best practice*) in
multidisciplinary environments. To achieve this we adopted a number of
strategies, including searching for relevant evidence in electronic
databases; reference chaining; searching grey literature websites; and
contacts with experts. During the month of May 2015 two librarians (the
co-investigator and the research assistant) developed and ran
combinations of search strategies in electronic databases: ERIC,
ABI/Inform, Business Source Complete, Web of Science, Academic Search
Premier, Science Direct, and Research Library. Appendix A presents the
combinations of search terms used in the study. We also checked the
reference list of studies retrieved from databases to ensure that we had
included all the relevant studies fitting our search criteria. In
addition, since there are numerous official reports, studies, theses,
dissertations and working papers on these topics we included relevant
materials retrieved through searching gray literature sources, including
the Canadian Research Index, ProQuest Dissertation & Theses, and
Google Scholar. Further, in May 2015 we created a research project
website. We utilized expertise within the team of policy makers and
educators participating on our website to identify relevant literature.
Our website received 435 unique visitors (740 page views) during the
months of July and August 2015. Pingbacks and referrals came from other
blogs, and social media sites, including Twitter, Facebook, Reddit,
Scoop.It, LinkedIn, and Google. Social media and website participants
suggested articles that could be included in our literature sample. We
organized the articles in RefWorks.

Study Selection

Our research team drafted a mechanism to help us eliminate studies
that were not relevant to our research. We tested the draft relevancy
criteria on a subset of fifty abstracts and discussed the differences in
interpretation among the researchers. A high level of agreement was
reached by the team of researchers (kappa = 0.80). The researchers
discussed the discrepancies and settled on final inclusion/exclusion
criteria. More importantly, the final inclusion/exclusion criteria that
we applied to all citations to determine their relevance was developed post hoc (Arkesey & O’Marlley, 2005) as researchers became more familiar with the literature. The exclusion criteria included:

  • not condition of interest (E-Learning and Virtual Teams)
  • not outcomes of interest (best practices, success factors, effectiveness)
  • published prior to 2005
  • not written in English.
All titles and abstracts of potential articles were screened by the
researchers independently and in duplicate for inclusion. The
researchers applied the inclusion and exclusion criteria to all the
retrieved citations by reading the abstracts. At this stage, the
full-text of the article was retrieved and read only in situations where
the relevance of a study was unclear from the abstract. We resolved any
conflicts by consensus. Our aim was to prioritise papers that appeared
to be relevant, rather than particular study types or research that met
specific methodological standards.

Data Extraction

We conducted a bibliometric analysis to describe the structure and
dynamics of the research literature. We developed a data classification
form to assist in systematically identifying characteristics of each
article.  We classified articles based on the following classification

  • Web of Science subject area (based on journal content specific fields of study, e.g., Business, Education, Health)
  • Number of times cited
  • Year of publication
  • Journal and journal impact factor
  • Geographic focus (i.e., did the paper have a Canadian, North American, or global/general focus?)
  • Article Focus (i.e., was ELearning and VT a major focus of the paper?)
  • Article type (Empirical or non-empirical)
  • Study method (e.g., quantitative, qualitative, literature review, policy/management development)
  • Sector (e.g., higher education, business/professional training).
A fundamental issue in reviewing qualitative and quantitative
research is the appraisal of study quality (Mays et al., 2005). Our
research team gave the articles a quality rating using two quality
rating matrices, one for empirical and one for non-empirical articles,
developed by the researchers. We used a 15-point scale for empirical
articles that included assessment of the quality of the literature
review, research questions and design, population and sampling, data
collection and capture, and analysis and results reporting (see Appendix
B). We also used a 15-point scale for non-empirical articles (see
Appendix C). Two members of the research team first rated a subset of
the articles (n = 20). A high level of agreement was reached (kappa =
0.82). The two members discussed the discrepancies and a consensus was
reached in all the cases. One member of the research team then rated the
remainder of the articles. In an effort to limit the pool of articles
to those deemed of higher quality, the research team agreed from the
outset to include only those articles that had an overall score higher
than 10/15. We thus, focussed our initial study synthesis on 110 highly
rated studies. As shown in Figure 1 most of the studies relevant to our
study were published in highly cited journals as indicated by impact
factor. For our study journal impact refers to impact factor as
calculated and published in the Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Reports and relevance was calculated by measuring the number of times that journal populated in our literature sample.

Fig 1
Figure 1: Study most relevant and impactful journals.
Further we identified and reviewed a number of relevant reports and
dissertations from the grey literature. It should be noted that we did
not formally rate the grey literature reports. Nevertheless, we reviewed
the reports for information that we perceived was a novel addition to
the knowledge presented in the peer-reviewed literature and would
greatly contribute to our e-learning framework as a whole.   

Analysis and Synthesis

Data handling and analysis was facilitated through the use of
Dedoose, an online qualitative analysis software that facilitates
coding, sorting, and displaying data. The complete texts of all included
studies were loaded into Dedoose and analysed following the basic
premises of Glaser and Strauss (1967)’s grounded theory and Miles and
Huberman (1994)’s data  reduction methods, methods we deem well suited
to our focussing, reinterpretation and analysis of the evidence,
primarily text-based forms of evidence (Pope at al., 2007).  The data
synthesis was conducted in several overlapping stages. In the first
stage the research assistant and the first author read the selected
studies and noted key ideas following the marginal coding process
according to Miles and Huberman (1994). In the second stage, the
researchers employed a constant comparison method to group and organize
the marginal codes conceptually, resulting in a hierarchical organized
codebook of codes and sub-codes that emerged from the data itself. The
study texts were line-by-line coded, a process that enabled the
researchers to undertake the translation of concepts from one study to
another. The use of Dedoose added to the transparency of our data
analysis.  We used Dedoose to assess inter-coder reliability. A random
selection of a third of the lines coded was assessed and a few
discrepancies were noted, mostly the discrepancies involved omissions.
All discrepancies were discussed by the researchers and a consensus
approach was used to assign the final codes. Importantly, we constantly
compared the theoretical structures we were developing against the data
in the papers. Although onerous, line-by-line coding provided key
advantages to our research, i.e., it revealed gaps and puzzles,
identified core themes, illuminated theoretical components and uncovered
potential sources of bias (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Line-by-line
coding of the texts resulted in 601 excerpts abstracted into 133
preliminary codes and subcodes. As relationships became apparent,
preliminary codes were refined and integrated into groups representing
emerging thematic areas of effective e-learning and virtual teams. As
patterns of relationships emerged the groups of thematic areas were
refined and synthesized into domains of deeper learning in e-learning.
Data saturation was reached when domain codes were densely distributed
across the literature.


Overall Structure

Our systematic search of nine key databases yielded 12,802 studies in
English. Of these, 11,225 were removed on the basis of our exclusion
criteria (2,383 were duplicates, 1,051 were published before 2005, and
7,791 were deemed irrelevant by consensus) (see Figure 2). In other
words, of the 12,802 studies originally identified, 1,577 were selected
as potential relevant studies. On the basis of examining the abstracts
and full text of all these 1,577 articles during the classification
process we further eliminated 720 articles.  Our final sample included
857 studies. Of the 857 studies selected for inclusion in the synthesis,
500 were classified as empirical studies, 275 as non-empirical (e.g.,
editorials) and 22 as dissertations. Study characteristics including
first author, year, focus and subject area are detailed in Table 1 in
Appendix D, which includes a bibliography of the highly rated studies
included in our initial study synthesis.

Fig 2
Figure. 2: Literature Search Workflow.
Both e-learning and virtual teams’ investigations are published in
research journals in the following scholarly disciplines (not an
exhaustive list): education, IT, business and economics, library and
information science, communication, health, medicine, math and
statistics, pharmacy, and political science. Therefore, any claim that
either e-learning or virtual teams is a research issue confined to a
single discipline, (e.g., education or business respectively)
understates the importance of both. They are both ubiquitous topics;
topics that transcend disciplinary boundaries. 45 percent (n = 386) of
the papers in our sample appeared in education periodicals, and 22.3 (n =
191) percent appeared in business and economics periodicals (including
management, accounting, strategy, production, organizational behavior
and management information systems). Publications in IT/Computer Science
periodicals were third most frequent (148 papers, 17.3 percent). The
remaining papers appeared in periodicals in social science (3.3
percent), library and information science (2.6 percent), health science
(2.1 percent), communication (2 percent), medicine and pharmacy (1.8
percent), general interest (1 percent), math and science (1 percent),
engineering (0.6 percent), political science (0.5 percent), hospitality,
leisure sport and tourism (0.4 percent) and psychology (0.2 percent).

The process of interpreting evidence in this synthesis revealed three thematic domains of deeper learning in e-learning: contextual, behavioral, and resource. In addition, two learning theories were identified as underscoring the domains deeper learning: social constructivism theory (Vygotsky, 1978) and connectivism theory (Siemens, 2005). Further, a core process inherent in deeper learning promotion emerged: conversation.
Conversation emerged as the primary social process through which the
processes of deeper learning and effective e-learning was made possible
(see Figure 3). The following is a detailed description of the learning
theories and process revealed in this interpretive-synthesis and the
underlying themes.

Learning Theories

The synthesis revealed two learning theories that underscore the
domains of the core phenomenon of deeper learning in virtual teams and
e-learning. Table 2 presents a summary of the two learning theories; the
social constructivism theory (Vygotsky, 1978) and connectivism theory
(Siemens, 2005). 

Table 2. Learning Theories Underpinning Deeper Learning in e-Learning

Learning Theory
Main Components/Issues Raised
Vygotsky, 1978 Social constructivism
  1. Individuals construct knowledge based on their experiences.
  2. This theory emphasizes the collaborative nature of learning.
  3. Knowledge is constructed within a social context.
Siemens, 2005 Connectivism
  1. This theory is a product of the digital age.
  2. Learning can be achieved through networks, decision-making, collaboration, and diversity.
  3. Emphasizes the ability to connect ideas, and to find and apply knowledge when it is needed.
These two theories help explain why learners and teachers can achieve
a deeper understanding of concepts through higher levels of
communication processes. For instance, individual participants bring
their life experiences to an educational setting and those experiences
help shape how students and teachers process and interpret knowledge.
From a social constructivism perspective “learners construct knowledge
through discourse with other members of the community . . . . Learning
is produced by the team” (Savin-Baden & Major, 2004, p. 71). When
there is a collaborative environment for learning, more experiences are
shared and knowledge can be processed from different perspectives;
concepts learned by examining it from a number of different perspectives
can enhance learning.  From a connectivism theoretical basis, social
interaction within groups helps build networks, aids in decision-making,
and increases collaboration between groups that enhances the ability of
students to view concepts from diverse points of view, thereby
increasing an individual’s ability to understand and process
information.  In addition, bringing different perspectives to a learning
environment can also help in applying knowledge to a variety of
settings, and therefore can broaden that application of knowledge to
various fields.

Conversation Process

The synthesis revealed that underpinning deeper learning in virtual
teams and e-learning environments is the core phenomenon of
conversation.  Conversation is the all-embracing term that describes
socialization as well as communication processes within the learning
environment. Conversation is identified as allowing learners to
experience social presence and develop a feeling of belonging and
psychological closeness, which is crucial to the development of deeper
learning. For instance, within the e-learning literature concepts such
as collaboration, community and connectedness dominated the results
pointing to student satisfaction and success (Bolliger, Supanakorn,
& Boggs, 2010).  Among the studies included in this synthesis,
several authors cited conversation processesto describe vehicles for
effective virtual teams and e-learning. In their study, Tseng and Yeh
(2013) identified conversation process factors such as relationship
conflict and lack of communication as the most serious problems for
virtual teams’ effectiveness in collaborative learning environments.
Lin, Standing, and Liu (2008), in their triangulated study
(meta-analysis, field experiment and survey), revealed social
dimensional factors, such as developing successful social relationships,
as pre-requisite to effective task coordination in virtual teams
resulting in effective task accomplishment. Brown, and Voltz (2005)
identified a participatory design and implementation approach as the key
to effective e-learning design, “where the e-learning system is a
two-way street, allowing early and ongoing communications between
designer and users, rather than a conduit directed at the learner or
educator” (p. 8).

Notably, the synthesis revealed a change in how, through conversation
processes, “knowledge” transfer is viewed in learning environments. In
other words focus is moved from individual to social/shared learning;
from a passive to an active process; and from top-down to
learner-centered. More importantly, knowledge transfer, acquisition or
creation is not achieved by the transmission or formalization of tacit
knowledge but “through its coordination aimed at pursuing a common
objective” (Ditillo, 2004).  It is not considered as a simple transfer
of a fixed entity but as involving learners and instructors actively
inferring and constructing meaning from a process of interaction
(Hislop, 2010). In other words, learning is maximized in-context and
through interaction with others (Greenhow, Robelia & Hughes, 2009).
 Social learning strengthens the development of tacit knowledge (Tee
& Karney, 2010). Not surprising, a number of authors considered
social presence an important factor in student satisfaction and success
(Bolliger, Supanakorn, & Boggs, 2010; Swan & Shih, 2005). Shen,
Cho, Tsai, and Marra, (2013) observed students’ self-efficacy as related
to social interactions among students and between students and
instructors. According to Shen et al.:

The nature of online learning requires students to interact
actively with both instructors and classmates. Especially those students
with less experience may experience anxiety about interacting with
others and may feel social isolation if they perceive lack of support
from others. (p. 16)

Instructors are thus encouraged to create social presence and
teaching presence to foster a sense of a learning community. This may be
accomplished through: participating in discussion boards; providing
guidelines for social interaction; recognizing students' contribution to
online learning community; and, monitoring students' social interaction
processes (Shen et al., 2013). Also through engaging in conversation
students and teachers share and discuss ideas, a process that promotes
critical thinking and reflection. In addition collaborative
problem-solving promotes the externalization and internalization of
information (e.g., teaching others, or having ideas vetted and analyzed
in-context). Thus, the socialization process of learning, which can be
aptly summed up as conversation, allows for deeper learning of subject
material in online environments. Additionally, it allows for
contributions in learning that are in a way “hidden” from that found in
direct face-to-face interaction. In short, the community may contribute
in a manner that is more authentic or free from bias.

The following sections contain an overview of the three thematic
domains underlying conversation processes supporting deeper learning in
e-learning revealed in this synthesis, along with a framework that
details the three domains within an e-learning educational delivery

Domains of the Core Phenomenon of Deeper Learning in e-Learning: Conversation

The synthesis identified the core phenomenon of conversation as
described within three fundamental domains:  contextual dimensions;
behavioral dimensions; and resource dimensions (see Table 3 for

Table 3. Domains of the Core Phenomenon of Deeper Learning in e-Learning: Conversation

Contextual Dimensions Establishing or developing a
shared context, an environment where learners and instructors
effectively engage in conversations.

Social environments are integral to effective conversation.
  1. Individual (Self-efficacy, Motivation, Interest, Task focus / goal commitment, Tech familiarity, Learning preferences)
  2. Group dynamics (Structure / size, Task distribution, Group awareness, Trust, Leadership, Conflict, Interdependence)
  3. Course design (Pedagogy, Incentives, Expectations, Delivery method)
Behavioral Dimensions Enabling or facilitating dynamic practices that create empowered continuous conversations.

Strengthening networks of interpersonal relationships
  1. Individual Learner (Planning, Participation, Reflection, Persistence, Communication, Task completion)
  2. Group (Social interaction, Collaboration, Discussion and feedback, Problem solving, Decision making, Task coordination)
  3. Instructor (Communication, Intervention, Information
    management, Setting expectations, Completing and implementing
Resource Dimensions Deploying or encouraging use of  multiple tools/vehicles/supports for effective and timely conversations
  1. Technology (Tools, Media), Time, Course content / materials, Training
These domains were distilled and organized through a deductive
process from the 133 codes identified on the basis of the highest
frequency of appearance in the literature as well as, in the
researchers’ views, the fundamental drivers for effective e-learning and
virtual teams. While these three domains are certainly interrelated and
have some overlap, the following sections highlight and describe the
domains in greater depth.

Thematic Domain 1: Contextual Dimensions

Contextual dimensions are described as elements enabling the creation
of learning environments with a shared context, an environment where
learners and instructors effectively engage in conversation. This
entails the development of a learning environment that has, as observed
by Wickersham and  McGee (2008), “a learner-centric design as opposed to
content-centric, in which the learner proceeds in a lock-step fashion
through content with little or no adaptation or deviation from a
content-driven script” (p. 74). Purposefully developing a shared context
is considered a “useful approach to facilitating online learning,
creating a strong potential to support learning processes necessary for
students to cultivate tacit knowledge” (Tee & Karney, 2010, p. 1).
Notably, the learning design considers the social context, i.e., the
learner’s context of practice, ways of learning, and experience in the
world. Social environments are integral to effective conversation and
deeper learning. Importantly, to be social, learning requires feedback
and interaction between learners and instructor. Contextual dimensions
thus include the consideration of individual, group and course design
intrinsic factors, such as learning preferences, technological
familiarity and experience; task design; task complexity; goal clarity;
and delivery methods. For instance the literature brought to light that
task design is important, as is clarity of mandate. Early and focused
goal setting and preparation are important, as are team agreements and
team regulation policies. Consistently illuminated across the findings
of the study are the notions that clear team norms, timeliness of
response, and instructor attitude support team effectiveness and a
learner-centered environment leads to greater participation, teamwork,
respect, and commitment. Courses that are designed to foster
peer-interaction, encourage collaborative and socially-negotiated
learning contribute to active learning and critical reflection that is
key to deeper learning. All in all, as Johnson, Hornik, and Salas (2008)

Creating and maintaining a shared learning space within an
e-learning environment is important for enhancing learning, value, and
satisfaction for participants. In addition, simply exchanging
information may not create the shared social context necessary; instead
the evidence suggests that social presence is also important. (p. 364)

Thematic Domain 2: Behavioral Dimensions

Behavioral dimensions are described as factors that enable or
facilitate dynamic practices that create empowered continuous
conversation. The focus is on strengthening networks of interpersonal
relationships. Behavioral characteristics were identified at individual
learner, group and instructor levels. These include behavioral elements
such as self-reflection, individual accountability, commitment to task,
motivation, and sense of community, which are considered key to
establishing trust in virtual teams for example. In a virtual context,
trust is critical to the functioning of a team (Kim, Lee, & Kang,
2012). For instance, the synthesis revealed that the early collaborative
phase is the most important in virtual teams for establishing the
trusting relationship among its members. As Haines (2014) suggested:

Like face-to-face teams, virtual teams evolve over time. A sense of
belonging is important early in the formation of a virtual team, which
in turn builds commitment to the team’s goals. This in turn is linked
with trust in peers, which in turn is linked with performance, and
finally overall satisfaction with the team. (p. 217)

Trust is also identified as a mediating role in team performance in
e-learning. Self-regulation, team regulation, and the establishment of
team norms are also identified as key behavioral factors that drive
effective virtual teams and e-learning. As Kwon, Hong, and Laffey,
(2013) suggested “visualization of group activities relative to a group
norm enhances coordination of collaborative behavior” (p. 1273). In
addition, instructor roles that produce positive outcomes include:
fostering relationships and collaboration; fostering a collaborative
learning environment; and, promoting peer interaction, active learning
and critical reflection.  As such, behaviours which contribute to
establishing collaborative patterns, through channels of communication,
sharing and exchanging information, and building knowledge together, are
essential. Establishing a strong sense of community, high team
cohesion, has been shown to result in higher levels of motivation,
satisfaction among team members, in persistence, engagement and higher
order thinking.

Thematic Domain 3: Resource Dimensions

Resource dimensions are described as encompassing the deployment or
use of multiple tools/vehicles/supports enabling effective and timely
conversation. Resource elements include deployment and use of technology
as well as institutional and instructor supports such as training,
time, and content design. Learners and instructors need supporting and
effective communication technology to allow them to communicate
seamlessly. For instance research reveals that integrating social media
in learning management systems provides another way of communication
that allows users to easily share information. Social presence and
pedagogy grounded in the practices of interactivity and engagement leads
to student satisfaction and learning success (Carter & Salyer,
2015). In addition, training support is fundamental to success in
e-learning.  Training in how to use the technology and new media
vehicles allows for more effective and more rapid conversation.
Moreover, consideration should be given to the preparation and training
involved in in establishing cooperative patterns and behaviours. The
role of the instructor is therefore paramount with regard to content
design. As Toven-Lindsey, Rhoads, and Lozano (2015) observed
“intentional course design that facilitates structured peer interaction,
including discussion boards, wikis, and video conferencing, contributes
to active learning and critical reflection” (p. 3). The use of social
technologies and the designing of course materials and content that
create relationships and enable constructivist/connectivist learning are
mentioned by researchers as important aspects of e-learning success.

The Framework

Based on the synthesis of the knowledge in our sample of studies, we
developed a framework that details the three fundamental domains within
an e-learning educational delivery model (see Figure 3).

Fig 3
Figure 3: E-Learning Framework.
Underpinning the framework are the Social Constructivism and
Connectivism theories of learning. As presented in Figure 3 above, a
learning environment in which conversation drives the contextual,
behavioral and resources dimensions describing the knowledge and skills
that promote deeper learning, results in e-learning effectiveness at
individual, group and networking levels.  For example, it is evident
from the synthesis that conversation leads to effective problem-solving
competencies among students in e-learning environments and contributes
to increased positive self-evaluation on individual capabilities. In
other words students, through peer feedback and interaction between
learners and instructor, develop enhanced individual feelings of
competence. As Krause, Stark, & Mandl,  (2009) confirmed,
externalization makes students become aware of their own knowledge,
which in turn leads to greater feelings of competence. It is therefore
particularly important that, to achieve e-learning effectiveness,
e-learning instructors’ focus be expanded from enhancing individual
cognition to encouraging conversation, i.e., develop and build the
contexts, behaviors and resources that encourage conversation, knowledge
sharing and building through social interactions among students (Kwon
et al., 2013). This will result in positive outcomes for students to
successfully function in society at individual, group or network levels.
Social aspects of peer learning can contribute to student motivation,
build effective collaborative skills, enhance social connections, and
lead to increased engagement required in the workplace and lifelong
learning society.

Discussion and Conclusion

This study advances understanding of e-learning by synthesizing the
literature on effective virtual teams and e-learning practices and
proposing a framework by which a conversation driven e-learning
environment can promote deeper learning and positively influence the
learning environment and outcomes. The proposed e-learning framework
describes what is needed in developing an e-learning environment that
facilitates conversation (communication, collaboration, teamwork, and
student engagement), and promotes deeper learning, all of which
ultimately enhances the effectiveness of the learning environment and
improves individual, group and network outcomes. From this synthesis
exercise the following conclusions can therefore be drawn. The core
phenomenon that promotes deeper learning in e-learning is conversation.
In other words conversation drives the skills and knowledge that
reinforce each other and together promote deeper learning. Such
knowledge and skills are best described within the contextual,
behavioural, and resource dimensions of the e-learning environment. In
short, conversation allows learners to experience social presence and
develop a feeling of trust, belonging and psychological closeness, which
is crucial to the promotion of deeper learning. In line with social
presence, the learner-centred approach to education is identified as the
essence of ensuring students’ participation and promoting a sense of

The study findings will strengthen e-learning program planning and
delivery within educational centres that are already engaged in
e-learning, as well as convey important best practices for learning
centres at the beginning stages of e-learning development. As stated
above a stronger understanding of the determinants of effective
e-learning is therefore essential for the future success of education
and training in countries like Canada where research on e-learning is
reported as lacking and is not yet a standard feature of workplace
training. The study also has broad societal implications. It has the
potential to fuel social and economic development and innovation, and to
foster lifelong learning in our society.

Limitations and Recommendations

From this interpretive-synthesis a number of important practice
implications and areas in need of further research can be derived. 
Perhaps the most significant is related to the finding that conversation
is the basic process that promotes deeper learning in e-learning. To
support deeper learning, learning centre administrators and instructors
need to encourage maximal conversation with and among students.
Nevertheless, some study limitations need to be pointed out. It is
recognized that synthesis is an interpretive endeavour and therefore
other interpretations of the data are possible. Further, our synthesis
did not include unpublished case studies or conference presentations
which could have enriched the data. Thus, despite the study rigour and
diligent attempts that have been made to gain insight and knowledge
about the fundamental knowledge and skills drawn from the virtual team
and e-learning research that reinforce each other and together promote
deeper learning, important information is still lacking. More empirical
research may be needed to substantiate the findings of this study. For
instance, empirical research is needed to support the e-learning
framework proposed in this study to evaluate its practicality and
efficacy. One study could explore, for example, individual learner
characteristics or teaching styles so as to find out if there are
specific types that are better suited to drive conversation in
e-learning environments and promote deeper learning.


Ale, E. N., Ahmed, S., & Taha, Z. (2009). Virtual teams: A literature review. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 3(3), 2653-2669.

Berry, G. R. (2011). Enhancing effectiveness on virtual teams. Journal of Business Communication, 48(2), 186-206. doi:10.1177/0021943610397270.

Bolliger, D. U., Supanakorn, S., & Boggs, C. (2010). Impact of
podcasting on student motivation in the online learning environment. Computers & Education, 55(2), 714-722.

Brown, A. R., & Voltz, B. D. (2005). Elements of effective e-learning design. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 6(1), 1-10

Canadian Council on Learning. (2009). State of E-learning in Canada.
Ottawa: Canadian Council on Learning. Retrieved February 3, 2015, from

Carter, L., & Salyers, V. (2015). A model for meaningful e-learning at Canadian universities. In J. Keengwe (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational technology integration and active learning (pp. 78-113). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference

Chow, B. (2010). The quest for deeper learning. Education Week, 30(6), 1-3

Contact North. (2012). Online learning in Canada: At a tipping point: A cross-country check-up 2012. Sudbury, Ontario, Canada, 1-30. Retrieved from this URL.

Ditillo, A. (2004). Dealing with uncertainty in knowledge-intensive
firms: The role of management control systems as knowledge integration
mechanisms. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 29(3-4), 401-421. doi:10.1016/j.aos.2003.12.001

Dixon-Woods, M., Cavers, D., Agarwal, S., Annandale, E., Arthur, A.,
Harvey, J., & ... Sutton, A. J. (2006). Conducting a critical
interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by
vulnerable groups. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 6, 35-48. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-6-35.

Edwards, S., & Bone, J. (2012). Integrating peer assisted
learning and eLearning: Using innovative pedagogies to support learning
and teaching in higher education settings. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 37(5), 1-12.

Erez, M., Lisak, A., Harush, R., Glikson, E., Nouri, R., &
Shokef, E. (2013). Going global: Developing management students'
cultural intelligence and global identity in culturally diverse virtual
teams. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 12(3), 330-355. doi:10.5465/amle.2012.0200

Faizuniah, P., & Chan, J. M. (2014). The mediating effect of
knowledge sharing on the relationship between trust and virtual team
effectiveness. Journal of Knowledge Management, 18(1), 92-106.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Pub. Co.

Green, D. D., & Roberts, G. E. (2010). Personnel implications of public sector virtual organizations. Public Personnel Management, 39(1), 47-57.

Greenhalgh, T., Robert, G., Macfarlane, F., Bate, P., Kyriakidou, O.,
& Peacock, R. (2005). Storylines of research in diffusion of
innovation: a meta-narrative approach to systematic review. Social Science Medicine, 61, 417-430

Greenhow, C., Robelia, B., & Hughes, J. E. (2009). Learning,
teaching, and scholarship in a digital age Web 2.0 and classroom
research: What path should we take now? Educational Researcher, 38(4), 246-259.

Haines, R. (2014). Group development in virtual teams: An experimental re-examination. Computers in Human Behavior, 39, 213-222.

Hislop, D. (2010). Knowledge management as an ephemeral management fashion? Journal of Knowledge Management, 14(6), 779-790. doi: 10.1108/13673271011084853

The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation (n.d.) Deeper learning. Retrieved from this URL.

Hunt, C. S., Smith, L. B., & Chen, M. (2010). Incorporating
collaborative technologies into university curricula: Lessons learned. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 22(1), 24-37.

Jensen, L. A., & Allen, M. N. (1996). Meta-synthesis of qualitative findings. Qualitative Health Research, 6(4), 553-560.

Johnson, R. D., Hornik, S., & Salas, E. (2008). An empirical
examination of factors contributing to the creation of successful
e-learning environments. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 66(5), 356-369.

Kaznowska, E., Rogers, J., and Usher, A. (2011). The state of e-learning in Canadian universities, 2011: If students are digital natives, why don’t they like e-learning? Toronto: Higher Education Strategy Associates.

Kim, C., Lee, S., & Kang, M. (2012). I became an attractive
person in the virtual world: Users’ identification with virtual
communities and avatars. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(1), 1663–1669. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.04.004

Krause, U. M., Stark, R., & Mandl, H. (2009). The effects of cooperative learning and feedback on e-learning in statistics. Learning and Instruction, 19(2), 158-170.

Kwon, K., Hong, R. Y., & Laffey, J. M. (2013). The educational
impact of metacognitive group coordination in computer-supported
collaborative learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4), 1271-1281.

Lin, C., Standing, C., & Liu, Y. C. (2008). A model to develop effective virtual teams. Decision Support Systems, 45(4), 1031-1045.

Martins, L. L., Gilson, L. L., & Maynard, M. T. (2004). Virtual teams: What do we know and where do we go from here? Journal of Management, 30(6), 805-835.

Mays, N., Pope, C., & Popay, J. (2005). Systematically reviewing
qualitative and quantitative evidence to inform management and
policy-making in the health field. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 10, S6-S20.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Morrison, K. (2006). Peer assisted study sessions.Supporting quality
learning and student engagement in economics & business. Synergy, 25, 3-7. Retrieved from

Parke, M. R., Campbell, E. M., & Bartol, K. M. (2014, January).
Setting the stage for virtual team development: Designing teams to
foster knowledge sharing. In Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol. 2014, No. 1, p. 17244). Academy of Management.

Pope, C., Mays, N., & Popay, J. (2007). Synthesizing qualitative and quantitative health evidence a guide to methods. New York, NY: McGraw Hill Education.

Salmon, G. (2005). Flying not flapping: A strategic framework for
e-learning and pedagogical innovation in higher education institutions. Research in Learning Technology, 13(3), 201–218

Salyers, V., Carter, L., Carter, A., Myers, S., & Barrett, P.
(2014). The search for meaningful e-learning at Canadian universities: A
multi-institutional research study. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(6). Retrieved from

Sandelowski, M., Docherty, S., & Emden, C. (1997). Focus on
qualitative methods qualitative metasynthesis: Issues and techniques. Research in Nursing and Health, 20, 365-372.

Sangrà, A., Vlachopoulos, D., & Cabrera, N. (2012). Building an
inclusive definition of e-learning: An approach to the conceptual
framework. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(2), 145-159.

Savin-Baden, M., & Major, C. H. (2004). Foundations of problem-based learning. Maidenhead, England: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.

Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning. 2(1), 1-8.

Shea, T. P., Sherer, P. D., Quilling, R. D., & Blewett, C. N.
(2011). Managing global virtual teams across classrooms, students and
faculty. Journal of Teaching in International Business, 22(4), 300-313. doi:10.1080/08975930.2011.653911

Shen, D., Cho, M. H., Tsai, C. L., & Marra, R. (2013). Unpacking
online learning experiences: Online learning self-efficacy and learning
satisfaction. The Internet and Higher Education, 19, 10-17.

Tee, M. Y., & Karney, D. (2010). Sharing and cultivating tacit knowledge in an online learning environment. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(4), 385-413.

Toven-Lindsey, B., Rhoads, R. A., & Lozano, J. B. (2015).
Virtually unlimited classrooms: Pedagogical practices in massive open
online courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 24, 1-12.

Tseng, H. W., & Yeh, H. T. (2013). Team members' perceptions of
online teamwork learning experiences and building teamwork trust: A
qualitative study. Computers & Education, 63, 1-9.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wickersham, L. E., & McGee, P. (2008). Perceptions of satisfaction and deeper learning in an online course. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 9(1), 73-83.

Joyline Makani, Ph.D is
the Management Librarian and Adjunct Professor at Dalhousie University.
She teaches both online and traditional classroom based courses in
the Faculty of Management. Dalhousie University. E-mail:

Martine Durier-Copp, Ph.D
is the Director of the Centre for Advanced Management Education at
Dalhousie University. She also teaches in the Master of Public
Administration (Management) program. E-mail:

Deborah Kiceniuk, Ph.D
is a Senior Educational Developer (Research) at the Centre for Learning
and Teaching and Adjunct Professor with the Division of Medical
Education at Dalhousie University. E-mail:

Alieda Blandford is a Reference Librarian at the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. E-mail:


Strengthening deeper learning through virtual teams in e-learning: A synthesis of determinants and best practices | Makani | International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education

Thursday, 6 October 2016

IEEE Xplore Document - Understanding Architectural Knowledge Sharing in AGSD Teams: An Empirical Study


Understanding Architectural Knowledge Sharing in AGSD Teams: An Empirical Study

the use of agile methodologies (AM) in Global Software Development
(GSD) -- known as AGSD -- is increasingly common. However, AM and GSD
are not completely compatible. On the one hand, in AM people
interactions (face-to-face) are preferred over document-based
communications to share knowledge. On the other hand, in GSD knowledge
sharing is conducted through documents to minimize the effect of the
inherent four distances (physical, temporal, language and cultural).
This means that tacit knowledge is preferred in AM and explicit
knowledge is preferred in GSD. These differences between AM and GSD
affect many aspects of software development, for instance: Architectural
Knowledge Management. According to the literature, in AGSD it is
preferred to convey Architectural Knowledge (AK) by frequent
interactions across sites through unstructured and textual electronic
media (UTEM) (chats, emails, forums, etc.), that is, AK is articulated
in these media. UTEM leave a textual record of the transmitted
information, thus leaving an unstructured log of the shared AK of the
project. In this paper we present an empirical study to understand AK
articulation in UTEM in AGSD teams. Our results consist of an ontology
that represents the involved aspects in AK articulation in UTEM in AGSD
teams. Additionally, we identified eleven categories of interactions
across sites through UTEM, where requirements and coding themes are
prominent. Finally, we found that AK in UTEM is perceived as important,
regardless the interaction frequency. These results lead us to think
that a tool to structure and exploit AK in UTEM is needed in AGSD, in
order to bridge the gap between AM and GSD.
Date of Conference:
2-5 Aug. 2016
Date Added to IEEE Xplore:
29 September 2016

ISBN Information:

Print ISSN: 2329-6313

IEEE Xplore Document - Understanding Architectural Knowledge Sharing in AGSD Teams: An Empirical Study

A conceptual model to improve performance in virtual teams | Dube | SA Journal of Information Management


Original Research

A conceptual model to improve performance in virtual teams

Shopee Dube, Carl Marnewick
SA Journal of Information Management; Vol 18, No 1 (2016), 10 pages. doi: 10.4102/sajim.v18i1.674

Submitted: 01 March 2015

Published:  28 September 2016


Background: The vast improvement in
communication technologies and sophisticated project management tools,
methods and techniques has allowed geographically and culturally diverse
groups to operate and function in a virtual environment. To succeed in
this virtual environment where time and space are becoming increasingly
irrelevant, organisations must define new ways of implementing
initiatives. This virtual environment phenomenon has brought about the
formation of virtual project teams that allow organisations to harness
the skills and knowhow of the best resources, irrespective of their

Objectives: The aim of this article was
to investigate performance criteria and develop a conceptual model
which can be applied to enhance the success of virtual project teams.
There are no clear guidelines of the performance criteria in managing
virtual project teams.

Method: A qualitative
research methodology was used in this article. The purpose of content
analysis was to explore the literature to understand the concept of
performance in virtual project teams and to summarise the findings of
the literature reviewed.

Results: The research
identified a set of performance criteria for the virtual project teams
as follows: leadership, trust, communication, team cooperation,
reliability, motivation, comfort and social interaction. These were used
to conceptualise the model.

Conclusion: The
conceptual model can be used in a holistic way to determine the overall
performance of the virtual project team, but each factor can be analysed
individually to determine the impact on the overall performance. The
knowledge of performance criteria for virtual project teams could aid
project managers in enhancing the success of these teams and taking a
different approach to better manage and coordinate them.

Full Text:

 |  HTML
 |  EPUB
 |  XML
 |  PDF

Author affiliations

Shopee Dube,
Department of Applied Information System, University of Johannesburg, South Africa

Carl Marnewick,
Department of Applied Information System, University of Johannesburg, South Africa


Total abstract views: 42

Total article views: 28


No related citations found

Comments on this article

Before posting your comment, please read our policy.

Post a Comment (Login required)

ISSN: 2078-1865 (print) | ISSN: 1560-683X (online)

Connect on: Facebook, Twitter, Google+, LinkedIn and YouTube

Subscribe to our newsletter
All articles published in this journal are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license, unless otherwise stated.

Website design & content: ©2016 AOSIS (Pty) Ltd. All Rights Reserved. No Unauthorised Duplication Allowed.

AOSIS Publishing | Empowering Africa through access to knowledge
Postnet Suite #110, Private Bag X19, Durbanville, South Africa, 7551
Tel: 086 1000 381
Tel: +27 21 975 2602
Fax: 086 5004 974

publishing(AT) replace (AT) with @

Please read the privacy statement.

A conceptual model to improve performance in virtual teams | Dube | SA Journal of Information Management

Tuesday, 27 September 2016

SSRN Top Downloads

A Bibliometric Analysis on 'Fertility Rate' Research Trends

Shalini Nagaratnam,

Nader Ale Ebrahim and

Muzafar Shah Habibullah

Taylor's University, University of Malaya (UM) -
Research Support Unit, Centre for Research Services, Institute of
Research Management and Monitoring (IPPP)University of Malaya (UM) -
Department of Engineering Design and Manufacture and Universiti Putra

Date posted to database: 1 Aug 2016

Last Revised: 1 Aug 2016

SSRN Top Downloads

International Journal of Management, Accounting and Economy


International Journal of Management, Accounting and Economics
Hits: 331 Times

Downloads: 325 Times
Volume 2, No. 11, November 2015 Pages: 1379 - 1392
Clarifying the Role of Cooperation Networks in New Product Development (NPD)
Habibollah Salarzehi, Maryam Rashki, Mino Heydari
Corresponding author:
The significant role of small and medium enterprises in the economy of
developing countries has led researchers to search for ways to create
efficiency and advantages for the firms in the process of economic and
industrial development. Thus, new product development has always been
important for managers and business owners. Given the limited funding
for research and development in small and medium businesses, maintaining
a competitive advantage and new product development of the network has
been offered as solutions. Therefore, in this paper, it is tried to
explain cooperation networks and their advantages in new product
development of small and medium firms with a descriptive method and
study the research carried out.
New product development (NPD), SMEs, Cooperation Networks.
Full Text (PDF)

International Journal of Management, Accounting and Economy

Sunday, 25 September 2016

Success Factors as Critical That Shape Agile Software Development Project Success | Nguyen | International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research (IJSBAR)


Success Factors as Critical That Shape Agile Software Development Project Success

Dan Schilling Nguyen


This study has implications for positive social change because
organizations that understand the critical factors may be able to
improve project management strategies and cost benefits leading to
higher efficiency, profitability, and productivity thus benefiting
management, employees, and customers.

Information technology (IT)
project success depends on having a project manager with effective
decision-making, leadership, and project management skills. Project
success also depends on completing the project in a given budget, time,
and scope. However, there is a limited understanding of the lived
experiences of agile managers and the following success factors:
engineering, management, organization, and stakeholders. The purpose of
this phenomenological study was to understand these lived experiences of
10 agile software development team project managers or leaders at
global workplaces based in the United States. The research questions
were focused on the effect of these success factors on agile software
development project success. In accordance with nonrandom purposeful
sampling strategies, a snowball technique was used to find more
participants. An open-ended, e-mail questionnaire was created and sent
to participants to collect data. The data were coded to discern themes
or patterns. According to study results, agile software development team
employs automate builds, continuous integration, and design patterns
help reduce technical debt; good collaboration and communication skills
are core to project success; product owner helps maximize business value
delivered by team and priority and engage stakeholders; and sponsors
help fund the project and other resources.


Agile Software Development Teams; Success Factors.


A Guide to the SCRUM BODY OF KNOWLEDGE (SBOKTM GUIDE)- 2013 Edition. @2013 SCRUMstudyTM, a brand of VMEdu, Inc.

Ahuja, J. (2010). A study of virtuality impact on team
performance. The IUP Journal of Management Research, 9(5), 27-56.
Retrieved from

Ambler, S. W. (2007). Defining success: There are lessons to
be learned when defining IT project success. Dr. Dobbs Journal, 32(12),
60–62. Retrieved from

Addison, T., & Vallabh, S. (2002). Controlling software
project risks – an empirical study of methods used by experienced
project managers. Proceedings of SAICSIT, (2002), 128-140. Retrieved

Alnuaimi, O. A., Robert, L. P., & Maruping, L. M. (2010).
Team size, dispersion, and social in technology-supported teams: A
perspective on the theory of moral disengagement. Journal of Management
Information Systems, 27, 203-230. doi:10.2753/MIS0742-1222270109

Aloini, D., Dulmin, R., & Mininno, V. (2011). Risk
management in ERP project. Information Systems, 37(2012), 183–199.

Agarwal, N., & Rathod, U. (2006). Defining ‘success’ for
software projects: An exploratory revelation. International Journal of
Project Management, 24(4), 358–370. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2005.11.009

Ambler, S. W. (2007). Defining success: There are lessons to
be learned when defining IT project success. Dr. Dobbs Journal, 32(12),
60–62. Retrieved from

Amurgis, W. (2007). Paving the way for an intranet revolution
at AEP. Strategic Communication Management, 11(3), 8-102. Retrieved from

Anantatmula, V. S. (2010). Impact of cultural differences on
knowledge management in global projects. The Journal of Information and
Knowledge Management Systems, 40(3/4), 239-253.

Ang, S., & Inkpen, A. (2008). Cultural intelligence and
offshore outsourcing success: A framework of firm-level intercultural
capability. Decision Sciences, 39(3), 337-358.

Baglione, S. L. (2008). The influence of internal ethics and values and external

perceptions of values and needs on profitability: An empirical study of U.S.

executives. Review of Business Research, 8(5), 89-95.
Retrieved from

Bannerman, P. L. (2008). Risk and risk management in software
projects: A reassessment. The Journal of Systems and Software, 81(2008),
2118–2133. doi:10.1016/j.jss.2008.03.059

Barclay, D. W., & Smith, J. B. (1997). The effects of
organizational differences and trust on the effectiveness of selling
partner relationship. Journal of Marketing, 61(1997), 3-21. Retrieved

Bass, B., & Avolio, B. (1993). Transformational leadership
and organizational culture. Public Administration Quarterly, 17,
112-121. doi:10.1080/01900699408524907

Beers, P. J., Boshuizen, H. P. A., Kirschner, P. A., &
Gijselaers, W. H. (2005). Computer support for knowledge construction in
collaborative learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 21,
623-643. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2004.10.036

Benbya, H., & McKelvey, B. (2006). Toward a complexity
theory of information systems development. Information Technology &
People, 19, 12-34. doi:10.1108/09593840610649952

Berg, B. L. (2006). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Berry, G. R. (2011). Enhancing effectiveness on virtual teams.
Journal of Business Communication, 48(2) 186-206.

Bielski, L. (2005). What makes a good leader? American Bankers Association, 97(12), 21-24. Retrieved from

Boehm, B. W. (1989). Software risk management tutorial. Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society.

Boban, M., Pozgaj, Z., & Sertic, H. (2007). Effective
information systems development as a key to successful enterprise.
Management, 12, 65-86. Retrieved from

Bolin, A. U. (2012). Salvaging value from project failure. Performance Improvement, 51(5), 12. doi:10.1002/pfi.21262

Brandt, V., England, W., & Ward, S. (2011). Virtual teams.
Research-Technology Management, 54(6) 62-63. Retrieved from

Branson, L., Bin, F. S., Sung, C. H., & He, F. (2011). The
influence of team functional processes on investment team performance.
International Journal of Business, Marketing, and Decision Sciences,
4(1), 56-65. doi:10.1207/S15327043HUP1701_2

Breslin, M., & Buchanan, R. (2008). On the case study
method of research and teaching in design. Design Issues, 24(1), 36-40.
Retrieved from

Bretherton, P., & Chaston, I. (2005). Resource dependency
and SME strategy: An empirical study. Journal of Small Business and
Enterprise Development, 12(2), 274–289. doi:10.1108/14626000510594656

Brett, J., Behfar, K., & Melymuka, K. (2006). Managing
multicultural teams. Computerworld, 40(47), 36. Retrieved from

Brown, F. W., & Moshavi, D. (2005). Transformational
leadership and emotional intelligence: A potential pathway for an
increased understanding of interpersonal influence. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 26, 867-871. doi:10.1002/job.334

Bryman, A. (2007). Barriers to integrating quantitative and
qualitative research. Journal of Methods Research, 1, 8-22.

Buyl, T., Boone, C., Hendriks, W., & Matthyssens, P.
(2011). Top management team functional diversity and firm performance:
The moderating role of CEO characteristics. Journal of Management
Studies, 48(1), 151-176. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00932.x

Callen, D. (2008). How intercultural competence drives success
in global virtual teams: Leveraging global virtual teams through
intercultural curiosity, sensitivity, and respect. Retrieved from

Calloway, J., & Awadzi, W. (2008). Trust, communication,
and leadership challenges in virtual teams. Consortium Journal of
Hospitality & Tourism, 12(2), 25-32. doi:10.1008/s10726-006-9055-8

Carte, T. A., Chidambaram, L., & Becker, A. (2006).
Emergent leadership in selfmanaged virtual teams. Group Decision and
Negotiation, 15(4), 323. doi:10.1007/s10726-006-9045-7

Casey, V. (2010). Developing trust in virtual software
development teams. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic
Commerce Research, 5(2), 41-58. doi:10.4067/S0718-18762010000200004

Cerpa, N., & Verner, J. (2009). Why did your project
fail?. Communications of the ACM, 52(12), 130–134.

Chang, H. H., Chuang, S. S., & Chao, S. H. (2011).
Determinants of cultural adaptation, communication quality, and trust in
virtual teams’ performance. Total Quality Management, 22(3), 305–329.

Charette, R. N. (1989). Software engineering risk analysis and management. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Charette, R. N., 1996. The mechanics of managing IT risk.
Journal of Information Technology, 11(4),

Chen, C. C., Wu, J., Ma, M., & Knight, M. B. (2011).
Enhancing virtual learning team performance: A leadership perspective.
Human Systems Management, 30(4), 215. doi:10.4018/978-1-60566-958-8

Chen, H. L. (2011). Predictors of project performance and the
likelihood of project success. Journal of International Management
Studies, 6(2), 1-10. Retrieved from

Chew, J., & Chan, C. (2008). Human resource practices,
organizational commitment and intention to stay. International Journal
of Manpower, 29(6), 503–522. doi:10.1108/01437720810904194

Chulkov, D. (2009). De-escalation of commitment in MIS
projects: The implications of three economic theories. Review of
Business Research, 9(1), 48–55. Retrieved from

Clark, D., & Gibb, J. (2006). Virtual team learning: An
introductory study team exercise. Journal of Management Education,
30(6), 765-787. doi:10.1177/1052562906287969

Coast, J., & Horrocks, S. (2007). Developing attributes
and levels for discrete choice experiments using qualitative methods.
Journal of Health Services Research and Policy, 12(1), 25-30. Retrieved

Colfax, R. S., Santos, A. T., & Diego, J. (2009). Virtual
leadership: A green possibility in critical times but can it work?
Journal of International Business Research, 8, 133-139. Retrieved from

Colquitt, J., & Piccolo, R. (2006). Transformational
leadership and job behaviors: The mediating role of core job
characteristics. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 327-340.

Conger, J. (1999). Charismatic and transformational leadership
in organizations: An insider’s perspective on these developing streams
of research. Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 145-69.

Cooper, D. R., & Schindler, P. S. (2003). Business research methods (8th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill Irwin.

Copeland, M. (2006). The mighty micro-multinational. Business,
7(6), 106-114. Retrieved from

Coughlan, J., Lycett, M., & Macredie, R.D. (2003).
Communication issues in requirements elicitation: A content analysis of
stakeholder experiences. Information and Software Technology, 45(2003),
525–537. Retrieved from

Cramton, C. D. (2001). The mutual knowledge problem and its
consequences for dispersed collaboration. Organization Science, 12,
346-371. doi:10.1287/orsc.12.3.346.10098

Crow, G., Wiles, R., Heath, S., & Charles, V. (2006).
Research ethics and data quality: The implications of informed consent.
International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 9(2), 83-95.
Retrieved from

Dani, S., Burns, N., Backhouse, C., & Kochhar, A. (2006).
The implications of organizational culture and trust in the working of
virtual teams. International Journal of Networking and Virtual
Organizations, 220, 951-960. doi:10.1243/09544054JEM415

Davidson, J., & Jacobs, C. (2012). The implications of
qualitative research software for doctoral work. Qualitative Research
Journal, 15(3), 72- 80. doi:10.2835794579434

Davis, D. (2005). New projects: Beware of false economies.
Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Oliveira, S.B, Valle, R.,
& Mahler, C.F. (2010).A comparative analysis of CMMI software
project management by Brazilian, Indian and Chinese companies. Software
Quality Journal, 18(2), 177–194. doi:10.1007/s11219-009-9087-6.

DeRosa D, & Lepsinger R (2010). Virtual team success. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Dibbern, J., Winkler, J., & Heinzl, A.
(2008). Explaining variations in client extra costs between software
projects offshored to India. MIS Quarterly, 32(2), 333–366. Retrieved

Dionne, S. D., Yammarino, F. J., Atwater, L. E., &
Spangler, W. D. (2004). Transformational leadership and team
performance. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 17, 177-193.

Doh, J. (2005). Offshore outsourcing: Implications for
international business and strategic management theory and practice.
Journal of Management Studies, 42(3), 695–704.

Drouault, S. C. (2006). Participatory budgeting: A developing
country process? A comparative analysis of the experiences of PB in
Brazil, France, and Spain. Retrieved from

Eberly, M. B., Holley, E. C., Johnson, M. D., & Mitchell,
T. B. (2011). Beyond internal and external: A dyadic theory of
relational attributions. Academy of Management Review, 36(4), 731–753.

N., Ahmed, S., & Taha, Z. (2009). Virtual teams: A literature
review. Australian Journal of Basic & Applied Sciences, 3(3),
2653-2669. Retrieved from

Eissa, G., Fox, C., Webster, B. D., & Kim, J. (2012). A
framework for leader effectiveness in virtual teams. Journal of
Leadership, Accountability and Ethics, 9(2), 12-21. Retrieved from

Elloy, D. F. (2008). The relationship between self-leadership
behaviors and organization variables in a self-managed work team
environment. Management Research News, 31, 801-809.

Emam, K., & Koru, A. (2008). A replicated survey of IT
software project failures. IEEE Software, 25(5), 84–90.

Eom, M. (2009). Cross-cultural virtual team and its key
antecedents to success. The Journal of Applied Business and Economics,
10(1), 1-14. Retrieved from

Espinosa, J. A., DeLone, W., & Lee, G. (2006). Global
boundaries, task processes and IS project success: A field study.
Information Technology & People, 19(4), 345-370.

Fink, R. C., James, W. L., & Hatten, K. J. (2010).
Customer perceptions of dependencies in customer–supplier relationships.
Journal of Strategic Marketing, 19(1), 73–89.

Fisher, E. (2005). Facing the challenges of outcomes
measurement: The role of transformational leadership. Administration in
Social Work, 29(4), 35-49. doi:10.1300/J147v29n04_03

Florin, I., & Minodora, U. (2009). The shift to IT
governance—A global approach. Annals of the University of Oradea,
Economic Science Series, 18(4), 954–958. Retrieved from

Fowler, F. (2008). Survey research methods (4th ed.). London, England: Sage.

Frye, C. M., Bennett, R., & Caldwell, S. (2006). Team
emotional intelligence and team interpersonal process effectiveness.
Mid-American Journal of Business, 21, 49-56.

Gaan, N. (2012). Collaborative tools and virtual team
effectiveness: an inductively derived approach in India’s software
sector. Decision, 39(1), 6-27. Retrieved from’s-soft

Gay, L., Mills, G., & Airasian, P. (2006). Educational
research: Competencies for analysis and application (8th ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Gerhard, T. (2008). Bias: Considerations for research
practice. American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy, 65(15), 2159–2169.
doi 10.2146/ajhp070369

Gilb, T. (2010). What's wrong with requirements specification?
An analysis of the fundamental failings of conventional thinking about
software requirements, and some suggestions for getting it right.
Journal of Software Engineering & Applications, 3(9), 827–838.
Retrieved from

Gil, N., & Tether, B. S. (2010). Project risk management
and design flexibility: Analyzing a case and conditions of
complementarity. Research Policy, 40(2011), 415–428.

Ginsburg, J. P. (2009). Determining the personality
characteristics that identify a successful global virtual team members
(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertation and Theses
database. (UMI No. 3394314)

Goman, C. K. (2012). Virtual teams. Sales & Service
Excellence, 12(7), 6. Retrieved from

Gonzalez, R., Gasco, J., & Llopis, J. (2008). Information
systems outsourcing reasons and risks: An empirical study. Engineering
& Technology, 31, 382–393. Retrieved from

Gratton, L., & Erickson, T. J. (2007). Eight ways to build
collaborative teams. Harvard Business Review, 85(11), 100-109.
Retrieved from

Guba, E. G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness
of naturalistic inquiries. Educational Communication and Technology
Journal, 29 (1981), 75–91. doi:10.1007/BF02766777

Guindon, G., Lavis, J., Boupha, B., Guang, S., Sidibe, M., & Turdaliyeva, B. (2010).

Bridging the gaps among research, policy, and practice in ten
low- and middle income countries: Development and testing of
questionnaire for health-care providers. Health Research Policy &
Systems, 8-81. doi:10.1186/1478-4505-8-3

Harris. D. (2014). Why we Should Rethink the Agile Manifesto:
Projects Still Fail. Retrieved

Havelka, D., & Rajkumar, T. (2006). Using the troubled
project recovery framework: Problem recognition and decision to recover.
e-Service Journal, 5(1), 43–73. Retrieved from

Heath, C., Svensson, M. S., Hindmarsh, J., Luff, P., & Vom Lehn, D. (2002).

Configuring awareness: Computer supported cooperative work.
Journal of Collaborative Computing, 11, 317-347.

Herath, T., & Kishore, R. (2009). Offshore outsourcing:
Risks, challenges, and potential solutions. Information Systems
Management, 26(4), 312–326. doi:10.1080/10580530903245549

Hessels, J., & Terjesen, S. (2010). Resource dependency
and institutional theory perspectives on direct and indirect export
choices. Small Business Economics, 34(2), 203–220. doi:1941130911

Hirschy, M. J. (2011). Virtual team leadership: A case study
in Christian Higher Education. Christian Higher Education, 10, 97–111.

Hofstede, G. (1993). Cultural constraints in management theories. The Executive, 7(1),


Holden, R. (2009). People or systems? Professional Safety,
54(12), 34–41. Retrieved from

Huang, H. (2006). Cross-cultural issues in global information
systems development. Emerging Trends and Challenges in Information
Technology Management, 1(2), 930-931. Retrieved from

Hunsaker, P. L., & Hunsaker, J. S. (2008). Virtual teams: a
leader's guide. Team Performance Management, 14(1/2), 86-101.

Hutcheson, P. G. (2006). Creating a development culture
through mentoring. Employment Relations Today, 33(2), 25-33.

Hutchison, A., Johnston, L., & Breckon J. (2010). Using QSR-NVivo to facilitate the

development of grounded theory project: An account of worked example.

International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 13, 283-302.


Iivari, N. (2011). Participatory design in OSS development:
Interpretive case studies in company and community OSS development
contexts. Behaviour & Information Technology, 30(3), 309-323.
Retrieved from

Iivari, N. (2008). Constructing the users in open source
software development: An interpretive case study of user participation.
Information Technology & People, 22(2), 132–156.

Jacques, P. H., Garger, J., Brown, C. A., & Deale, C. S.
(2009). Personality and virtual reality team candidates: The roles of
personality traits, technology anxiety and trust as predictors of
perceptions of virtual reality teams. Journal of Business and
Management, 15, 143-158. Retrieved from

Jani, A. (2010). Escalation of commitment in troubled IT
projects: Influence of project risk factors and self-efficacy on the
perception of risk and the commitment to a failing project.
International Journal of Project Management, 29(2011), 934–945.

Jani, A. (2011). Escalation of commitment in troubled IT
projects: Influence of project risk factors and self-efficacy on the
perception of risk and the commitment to a failing project.
International Journal of Project Management, 29(7), 934.

Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Leidner, D. E. (1999). Communication
and Trust in Global Virtual Teams. Organization Science, 10(6), 791-815.

Johnson, R., Veltri, N., & Hornik, S. (2008). Attributions
of responsibility toward computing technology: The role of interface
social cues and user gender. International Journal of Human-Computer
Interaction, 24(6), 595–612. doi:10.1080/10447310802205784

Johnson, J. (2005). The virtual workplace: The price is right. Network World, 22(36), 1. Retrieved from

Jung, D., & Sosik, J. (2006). Who are the spellbinders?
Identifying personal attributes of charismatic leaders. Journal of
Leadership and Organizational Studies, 12(4), 12-26.

Kahai, S., Fjermestad, J., Zhang, S., & Avolio, B. J.
(2007). Leadership in virtual teams: Past, present, and future.
International Journal of E-Collaboration, 3, 1–8. Retrieved from

Kankanhalli, A., Tan, B., & Kwok-Kee, W. (2007). Conflict
and performance in global virtual teams. Journal of Management
Information Systems, 23(3), 237-274. doi:10.2753/MIS0742-1222230309.

Kauppila, O., Rajala, R., & Jyrämä, A. (2011). Knowledge
sharing through virtual teams across borders and boundaries. Management
Learning, 42(4), 395–418. doi:10.1177/1350507610389685.

Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (1994). The wisdom of
teams: creating the high performance organization. New York, NY: Harper

Kendra, K., & Taplin, L. (2004). Project success: A
cultural framework. Project Management Journal, 35(1), 30–45. Retrieved

Ke, W., & Wei, K. K. (2005). Organization culture and
leadership in ERP implementation. Decision Support Systems, 45(2),
208–218. doi:10.1016/j.dss.2007.02.002

Kerzner, H. (2006). Project management: A systems approach to
planning, scheduling, and controlling (9th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John-Wiley
& Sons.

Kimble, C. (2011). Building effective virtual teams: How to
overcome the problems of trust and identity in virtual teams. Global
Business and Organizational Excellence, 30(2), 6-15.

King, W. (2008). An IS offshore outsourcing framework:
Emerging knowledge requirements for IS professionals. Journal of
Information Technology Case & Application Research, 10(4), 7–31.
Retrieved from

Kleinman, C. (2004). The relationship between managerial
leadership behaviors and staff nurse retention. Hospital Topics, 82(4),
2-9. doi:10.3200/HTPS.82.4.2-9

Knapik, M. (2006). The qualitative research interview: Participants’ responsive

participation in knowledge making. International Journal of Qualitative

Methods, 5(3), 1-13. Retrieved from

Kocheria, S., & Korrapati, R. (2010). A qualitative study
on determining managerial styles for software development life cycle
stages. Proceedings of the Academy of Information and Management
Sciences, 14, 54-57. Retrieved from

Korrapati, R., & Rapaka, S. (2009). Successful leadership
styles in software projects in offshore centers in India. Allied
Academies International Conference: Proceedings of the Academy of
Information & Management Sciences (AIMS), 13(2), 56–59. Retrieved

Knapik, M. (2006). The qualitative research interview: Participants’ responsive

participation in knowledge making. International Journal of
Qualitative Methods, 5(3), 1-13. Retrieved from

Kristensen, N., & Westergaard-Nielsen, N. (2007). A
large-scale validation study of measurement errors in longitudinal
survey data. Journal of Economic and Social Measurement, 32(2), 65-92.
Retrieved from

Kropp, M.(2015). Agile Success Factors - A qualitative study about what makes agile projects

successful. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.3593.2320

Krosigk, V. B. (2007). A holistic exploration of leadership
development. South African Journal of Business Management, 38(2), 25-30.
Retrieved from

Kvedaravišienė, G., & Boguslauskas, V. (2010).
Underestimated importance of cultural differences in outsourcing
arrangements. Engineering Economics, 21(2), 187-196. Retrieved from

Lai, F., Zhao, X., & Wang, Q. (2006). The impact of
information technology on the competitive advantages of logistics firms
in China. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 106(9), 193–201.

Leinonen, P., Jarvela, S., & Lipponen, L. (2003):
Individual students’ interpretations of their contribution to the
computer-mediated discussions. Journal of Interactive Learning Research,
14, 99-122. Retrieved from

Li, T. S., & Lin, L. C. (2011). A unified model for the implementation of both CMMI and

[sigma]. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence,
22(4), 407-437. Retrieved from

Lin, C., & Tseng, H. (2006). Identifying the pivotal role
of participation strategies and information technology application for
supply chain excellence. Industrial Management + Data Systems, 106(5),
739–756. doi:1073434211

Lovallo, D., & Kahneman, D. (2003), How optimism
undermines executive’s decisions, Harvard Business Review, 5, 1-10.
Retrieved from

Lucas, B. (2006). A formula for motivating people to learn.
People Management, 12(13), 1-3. Retrieved from

Mahaney, R. C., & Lederer, A.L. (2011). An agency theory
explanation of project success. The Journal of Computer Information
Systems, 51(4), 102-113.

Malhotra, A., Majchrzak, A., & Rosen, R. (2007). Leading
virtual teams. Academy of Management Perspectives, 2, 60-70.

Mancini, D. J. (2010). Building organizational trust in virtual teams. Journal of

Behavioral Studies in Business, 2, 1-5. Retrieved from

March, J. G., & Shapira, Z. (1987). Managerial
perspectives on risk and risk taking. Management Science, 33(11),
1404–1418. Retrieved from

Marcinowicz, L., Chlabicz, S., & Grebowski, R. (2007).
Open-ended questions in surveys of patients’ satisfaction with family
doctors. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy, 12(2), 86-89.
Retrieved from

Marrewijk, A. V. (2010). Situational construction of
Dutch—Indian cultural differences in global IT projects. Scandinavian
Journal of Management, 26, 368-380. doi:10.1016/j.scaman.2010.09.004

McCluskey, S., & Topping, A. E. (2011). Increasing
response rates to lifestyle surveys: A pragmatic evidence review.
Perspectives in Public Health, 131(2), 89-93.

McGehee, P., & Andrew, S. (2009, January). Using resource
dependency theory to explain informal ties in emergency management
networks. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southern
Political Science Association, Hotel Intercontinental, New Orleans, LA.
Retrieved from

Mehta, A. (2009). Examining the role of personal, social
exchange, and contextual fit variables in employee work outcomes under
continuous change: A field investigation. (Doctoral Dissertation).
University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls, IA.

Michaels, P. (2007). Calculating the cost of failed software
projects. Retrieved from

Miller, M. (2006). Transforming leadership: What does love
have to do with it? Transformation, 23(2), 94-106. Retrieved from

Misra, R. (2004). Global IT outsourcing: Metrics for success
of all parties. Journal of Information Technology Cases &
Applications, 6(3), 21–34. Retrieved from

Mockaitis, A. L., Rose, E. L., & Zettinig, P. (2012). The
power of individual cultural values in global virtual teams.
International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 12(2), 193–210.

Mortari, L. (2008). The ethic of delicacy in phenomenological
research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and
Well-Being, 3(1), 3-17. Retrieved from

Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Moutinho, L., Rita, P., & Li. S. (2006). Strategic
diagnostics and management decision making: A hybrid knowledge based
approach. Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance & Management,
14(3), 129-155. doi:10.1002/isaf.281

Moynihan, D., & Pandey, S. (2008). The ties that bind:
Social networks, person organization value fit, and turnover intention.
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(2), 205–227.

Nair, H. C. (2011). External factors based on work location
that influence information technology project success. Retrieved from
ProQuest Dissertation and Theses database.

Nangoli, S., Namagembe, S., Ntayi, J.M., Ngoma, M. (2012).
Towards building project-stakeholder commitment. World Journal of
Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development, 8(4), 233-245.

Ndofor, H. A., Sirmon, D. G., & He, X. (2011). Firm
resources, competitive actions and performance: Investigating a mediated
model with evidence from the in-vitro diagnostics industry. Strategic
Management Journal, 32, 640-657. doi:10.1002/smj.901

Neuman, W. L. (2003). Social research methods (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, CA: Prentice Hall.

Nishii, L., Lepak, D., & Schneider, B. (2008). Employee
attributions of the ―why of HR practices: Their effects on employee
attitudes and behaviors and customer satisfaction. Personnel Psychology,
61(3), 503–545. doi:1548764341

Nixon, P., Harrington, M., & Parker, D. (2012). Leadership
performance is significant to project success or failure: a critical
analysis. International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management, 61(2), 204-216. doi:10.1108/17410401211194699

Obloj, T., & Capron, L. (2011). Research notes and
commentaries role of resource gap and value appropriation: effect of
reputation gap on price premium in online auctions. Strategic Management
Journal, 32, 447–456. doi:10.1002/smj.902

Ocker, R. J., Huang, H., Fich, R. B., & Hiltz, S.R.
(2009). Leadership dynamics in partially distributed teams: An
exploratory study of the effects of configuration and distance. Group
DecisNegot, 20, 273–292. doi:10.1007/s10726-009-9180-z

Oghojafor, B. E., & Oghojafor, O. O. (2012). Attribution
theory and strategic decisions on organizational success factors.
Journal of Management and Strategy, 3(1), 32-39. doi:10.5430/jms.v3n1p32

Ooi, K., Lin, B., Tan, B., & Chong, A. Y., (2011). Are TQM
practices supporting customer satisfaction and service quality? Journal
of Services Marketing, 25/6 (2011), 410–419.

Outlay, C. (2007). Resizing the IS function after outsourcing:
Examining psychological contracts, violations, and outcomes (Doctoral
Dissertation). University of Illinois, Chicago, IL.

Oza, N., & Hall, T. (2005). Difficulties in managing
offshore software outsourcing relationships: An empirical analysis of 18
high maturity Indian software companies. Journal of Information
Technology Case and Application Research, 7(3), 25–41. Retrieved from;jsessionid=03BA48A50E485BE722621C08C

Pacheco, C., & Garcia, I. (2012). A systematic literature
review of stakeholder identification methods in requirements
elicitation. The Journal of Systems and Software, 85(2012), 2171–
2181.Retrieved from

Pan, G., Pan, S., & Newman, M. (2007). Information systems
project post-mortems: Insights from an attribution perspective. Journal
of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(14),
2255–2268. Retrieved from

Pathak, R. C. (2005). Flexibility--thinking shift for
organizational excellence. Global Journal of Flexible Systems
Management, 6(3/4), 59-69. Retrieved from

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and analysis methods (3rd Ed.). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Peters, L., & Karren, R. J. (2009). An examination of the
roles of trust and functional diversity on virtual team performance
ratings. Group & Organization Management, 34, 479.

Peterson, C. (2000). The future of optimism. American Psychologist, 55(1), 44-55.

Retrieved from

Plano Clark, V. L., & Creswell, J. W. (2008). The mixed methods reader. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Pokharel, S. (2011). Stakeholders’ roles in virtual project
environment: A case study. J. Eng. Technol. Manage, 28(2011), 201–214.
Retrieved from

Prati, L. M., Douglas, C., Ferris, G. R., Ammeter, A. P.,
& Buckley, M. R. (2003). Emotional intelligence, leadership,
effectiveness, and team outcomes. The International Journal of
Organizational Analysis, 11, 21-40. doi:10.1108/eb028961

Quisenberry, W. L. (2011). Common characteristics and
attributes of self-managed virtual teams. Retrieved from ProQuest
Dissertation and Theses database.

Rapisarda, B. A. (2002). The impact of emotional intelligence
on work team cohesiveness and performance. The International Journal of
Organizational Analysis, 10, 363-378. doi:10.1108/eb028958

Reed, A.H., & Knight, L.V. (2010). Project risk
differences between virtual and co-located teams. Journal of Computer
Information Systems, 51(1), 19-30. Retrieved from

Remus, U., & Wiener, M. (2009). Critical success factors
for managing offshore software development projects. Journal of Global
Information Technology Management, 12(1), 6–29. Retrieved from

Richardson, I., Casey, V., McCaffery, F., Burton, J., &
Beecham, S. (2012). A Process Framework for Global Software Engineering
Teams. Information and Software Technology, 54(2012), 1175–1191.

Roh, B. E. (2011). Organizational structural factors leading
to financially successful mergers and acquisitions: A phenomenological
case study. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertation and Theses database.

Rozell, E. J., & Scroggins, W. A. (2010). How much is too
much? The role of emotional intelligence in self-managed work team
satisfaction and group processes. Team Performance Management, 16,
33-49. doi:10.1108/13527591011028915

Roy, R. H. (2012). Digital mastery: The skills needed for
effective virtual leadership. International J. of E-Collaboration, 3,
56. doi:10.4018/jec.2012070104

Rozman, T., Horvat, & R. V., Rozman, A. (2008). Modeling the standard compliant

software processes in the university environment. Business
Process Management Journal, 14(1), 53-63.Retrieved from

Rusu, L., & Rusu, V. (2010). Online project management for
dynamic e-collaboration. Informatica Economica, 14, 182-190. Retrieved

Sachdeva, D., Mittal, R., & Solanki, R. (2009). HR
practice scenario in Indian KPOs. Global Business & Management
Research, 1(2), 43–59. Retrieved from

Sadri, G., & Condia, J. (2012). Managing the virtual
world. Industrial Management, 54(1), 21-25. Retrieved from

Salem, O., & Mohanty, S. (2008). Project management
practices and information technology research. Journal of Construction
Engineering & Management, 134(7), 501–508.

Sarigiannids, L., & Chatzoglou, P. D. (2011). Software
development project risk management: A new conceptual framework. JSEA,
4, 293-305. doi:10.4236/jsea.2011.45032

Sarker, S., Ahuja, M., Sarker, S., & Kirkeby, S. (2011).
The role of communication and trust in global virtual teams: A social
network perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems, 28(1),
273-309. doi:10.2753/MIS0742-1222280109

Schenkel, M. T., & Garrison, G. (2009). Exploring the
roles of social capital and team efficacy in virtual entrepreneurial
team performance. Management Research News, 32, 525-538.

Schlenkrich, L., & Upfold, C. (2009). A guideline for
virtual team managers: The key to effective social interaction and
communication. Electronic Journal of Information Systems Evaluation,
12(1), 109-118. Retrieved from

Schilling, J. (2006). On the pragmatics of qualitative
assessment: Designing the process for content analysis. European Journal
of Psychological Assessment, 22(1), 2837. Retrieved from

Sekiguchi, T. (2004). Person-organization fit and person-job
fit in employee selection: A review of the literature. Retrieved from

Sharma, D., Stone, M., & Ekinci, Y. (2009). IT governance
and project management: A qualitative study. Journal of Database
Marketing & Customer Strategy Management, 16(1), 29–50.

Shenhar, A., & Dvir, D. (2007). Project management
research—The challenge and opportunity. Project Management Journal,
38(2), 93–99. doi:10.1109/EMR.2008.4534315

Shepherd, D. A., Patzelt, H., & Wolfe, M. (2011). Moving forward from project failure:

negative emotions, effective commitment, and learning from the
experience. Academy of Management Journal, 54(6), 1229–1259.

Sherrod, M. M. (2006). Using multiple methods in qualitative
research design. Journal of Theory Construction and Testing, 10(1),
22-25. Retrieved from

Shih, Y. (2006). The effect of computer self-efficacy on
enterprise resource planning usage. Behavior & Information
Technology, 25, 407-411. doi:10.1080/01449290500168103

Shuffler, M.L., Wiese, C.W., Salas, E., & Burke, S.
(2010). Leading one another across time and space: Exploring shared
leadership functions in virtual teams. Revista de PsicologíadelTrabajo y
de las Organizaciones, 26(1) 3-17. doi:10.5093/tr2010v26n1a1

Siebdrat, F., Hoegl, M., & Hoegl, E. (2009). How to manage
virtual teams. MIT Sloan Management Review, 50(4), 62-68. Retrieved

Silva, N., Hutcheson, J., & Wahl, G.D. (2010).
Organizational strategy and employee outcomes: A person–organization fit
perspective. The Journal of Psychology, 144(2), 145–161. Retrieved from

Simon, M. (2006). Recipes for success: Dissertation & scholarly research. Dubuque, IA:


Simons, S. M., & Rowland, K. N. (2011). Diversity and its
impact on organizational performance: The influence of diversity
constructions on expectations and outcomes. J. Technology Management
Innovation, 6(3), 73-82. Retrieved from

Singleton, R., & Straits, B. (2005). Approaches to social research (4th ed.). New York,

NY: Oxford University Press.

Sivo, S. A., Saunders, C., Qing, C., & Jiang, J. J.
(2006). How low should you go? Low response rates and the validity of
inference in IS questionnaire research. Journal of the Association for
Information Systems, 7(6), 351-413. Retrieved from

Smith, D. C., Bruyns, M., & Evans, S. (2010). A project
manager’s optimism and stress management and IT project success.
International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 4(1), 10-27.

Smite, D., & Wohlin, C. (2011). A whisper of evidence in
global software engineering. IEEE Software, 28(4), 15-18. Retrieved from

Sorter, A. O., Connors, S. P., & Rudge, L. (2008). Use of a coding manual when

providing a meta-interpretation of internal-validity
mechanisms and demographic data used in qualitative research. Journal of
Ethnographic and Qualitative Research, 2(4), 269-280. Retrieved from

Spinelli, R. (2006). The applicability of bass’s model of
transformational and laissez faire leadership in the hospital
environment. Hospital Topics, 84(2), 11-18. doi:10.3200/HTPS.84.2.11-19

Spreitzer, G., Pettula, K., & Xin, K. (2005). Traditional
matters: Examination of the effectiveness of transformational leadership
in the United States and Taiwan. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
26, 205-227. doi:10.1002/job.315

Standing, C., Guilfoyle, A., Lin, C., & Love, P. (2006).
The attribution of success and failure in IT projects. Industrial
Management + Data Systems, 106(8), 1148–1165.

Standish Group. (2009). New Standish Group report shows more
project failing and less successful projects. Retrieved from /chaos_2009.php

Standish Group. (2010). CHAOS manifesto: The laws of CHAOS and
the CHAOS 100 best PM practices. Retrieved from

Straker, D. (2008). Attribution theory. Retrieved from

Strang, K. D. (2011). Leadership substitutes and personality
impact on time and quality in virtual new product development projects.
Project Management Journal, 42(1), 73-90. doi:10.1002/pmj.20208

Straub, D., Weill, P., & Schwaig, K. (2008). Strategic
dependence on the IT resource and outsourcing: A test of the strategic
control model. Information Systems Frontiers, 10(2), 195–210.

Strickler, J. (2006). What motivates people? The Journal for
Quality and Participation, 29, 26-28. Retrieved from

Sutarjo, A. (2011). Ten ways of managing person-organization
fit (P-O Fit) effectively: A literature study. International Journal of
Business and Social Science, 2(21), 226-233. Retrieved from

Thomas, D. M., & Bostrom, R. P. (2010). Vital signs for
virtual teams: An empirically developed trigger model for technology
adaption interventions. MIS Quarterly, 34, 115-142. Retrieved from

Turban, E., Leidner, D., McLean, E., & Wetherbe, J.
(2008). Information technology for management: Transforming
organizations in the digital economy (6th ed.). San Francisco, CA:

Turel, O., & Zhang, Y. (2010). Does virtual team
composition matter? Trait and problem-solving configuration effects on
team performance. Behaviour & Information Technology, 29(4),
363-375. doi:10.1080/01449291003752922

Trochim, W. M. K., & Donnelly, J. P. (2007). The research methods knowledge base (3rd ed.). Mason, OH: Thompson.

Unwiler, R., & Frolick, M. N. (2008). The IT value
hierarchy: Using Maslow’s hierarchy of needs as a metaphor for gauging
the maturity level of information technology use within competitive
organizations. Information Systems Management, 25, 83-88.

Vignovic, J. A., & Thompson, L. F. (2010).
Computer-mediated cross-cultural collaboration: Attributing
communication errors to the person versus the situation. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 93, 265-276. doi:10.1037/a0018628.

Wagner, R., & Harter, J. K. (2007, November 8). The
seventh element of great managing. Gallup Management Journal Online,
1-7. Retrieved from

Wahyuni, D. (2012). The research design maze: Understanding paradigms, methods and

methodologies. Journal of Applied Management Accounting Research, 10, 69-80.

Retrieved from

Weiling, K., & Ping, Z. (2009). Motivations in open source
software communities: The mediating role of effort intensity and goal
commitment. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 13(4), 39–66.

Weimann, P., Hinz, C., Scott, E., & Pollock, M. (2010).
Changing the communication culture of distributed teams in a world where
communication is neither perfect nor complete. Electronic Journal
Information Systems Evaluation, 13, 187-196. Retrieved from

Wisnieski, J., & Soni, R. (2004). Strategic alliance
choice: Usefulness of proposed theories. Journal of Applied Management
and Entrepreneurship, 9(3), 74–90. doi: 1178660761

Wysocki, R. K. (2007a). Effective project management (4th ed.). Indianapolis, IN: Wiley Publishing.

Wysocki, R.K. (2007a). Effective project management—
traditional, adaptive, extreme. Journal of Information Systems Control,
5, 1-2. Retrieved from

Yang, L. (2012).Implementation of project strategy to improve
new product development performance. International Journal of Project
Management, 30(7), 760. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2011.11.005.

Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Zivick, J. (2012). Mapping global virtual team leadership
actions to organizational roles. The Business Review, 19(2), 18-25.
Retrieved from:

Full Text:


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Success Factors as Critical That Shape Agile Software Development Project Success | Nguyen | International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research (IJSBAR)