Books to be included in World University Rankings analysis for first time
Books to be included in World University Rankings analysis for first time | Times Higher Education (THE)
Monday, 5 September 2016
Books to be included in World University Rankings analysis for first time | Times Higher Education (THE)
Books to be included in World University Rankings analysis for first time | Times Higher Education (THE)
SciLit | Articles
Display of results 1 to 27
Restricted Access
Published: 1 January 2012
SSRN Electronic Journal; doi:10.2139/ssrn.2236626
The publisher has not yet granted permission to display this abstract.
Open Access
Published: 7 June 2012
Scientific Research and Essays, Volume 7; doi:10.5897/sre10.1005
Restricted Access
Published: 1 January 2015
SSRN Electronic Journal; doi:10.2139/ssrn.2588206
Restricted Access
Published: 10 May 2014
by
10.14661
10.14661
Electron Physician, Volume 6; doi:10.14661/2014.814-815
Restricted Access
Published: 10 January 2014
Journal of Scientific Research and Reports, Volume 3, pp 1319-1338; doi:10.9734/jsrr/2014/8627
Restricted Access
Published: 1 January 2010
SSRN Electronic Journal; doi:10.2139/ssrn.1729097
The publisher has not yet granted permission to display this abstract.
Restricted Access
Published: 1 January 2010
SSRN Electronic Journal; doi:10.2139/ssrn.1729060
The publisher has not yet granted permission to display this abstract.
Restricted Access
Published: 1 January 2008
SSRN Electronic Journal; doi:10.2139/ssrn.1739020
The publisher has not yet granted permission to display this abstract.
Restricted Access
Literature, Principle and the Basics of Network Value Creation in R&D: The Relationship with Economy
Published: 1 January 2008
SSRN Electronic Journal; doi:10.2139/ssrn.1739048
The publisher has not yet granted permission to display this abstract.
Restricted Access
Published: 1 January 2015
Journal of Aging and Physical Activity; doi:10.1123/japa.2015-0188
The publisher has not yet granted permission to display this abstract.
Restricted Access
Published: 1 January 2015
International Journal of Management Science and Business
Administration, Volume 1, pp 6-16;
doi:10.18775/ijmsba.1849-5664-5419.2014.13.1001
Administration, Volume 1, pp 6-16;
doi:10.18775/ijmsba.1849-5664-5419.2014.13.1001
Restricted Access
Published: 1 January 2012
Advanced Materials Research, Volume 433, pp 1653-1659; doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/amr.433-440.1653
Restricted Access
Published: 1 December 2015
Revista de Gestão e Secretariado, Volume 6, pp 152-174; doi:10.7769/gesec.v6i3.486
Open Access
Published: 1 January 2012
American Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Volume 5, pp 9-14; doi:10.3844/ajeassp.2012.9.14
Open Access
Published: 20 March 2014
International Education Studies, Volume 7; doi:10.5539/ies.v7n4p120
Restricted Access
Published: 9 September 2015
by Springer
Scientometrics, Volume 105, pp 759-771; doi:10.1007/s11192-015-1730-3
The publisher has not yet granted permission to display this abstract.
Restricted Access
Published: 28 April 2015
Asian Social Science, Volume 11; doi:10.5539/ass.v11n13p130
Restricted Access
Published: 1 October 2011
Applied Mechanics and Materials, Volume 110, pp 258-266; doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/amm.110-116.258
Open Access
Published: 27 April 2013
Asian Social Science, Volume 9; doi:10.5539/ass.v9n5p176
Open Access
Published: 27 April 2013
Asian Social Science, Volume 9; doi:10.5539/ass.v9n5p18
Open Access
Published: 11 October 2013
International Education Studies, Volume 6; doi:10.5539/ies.v6n11p93
Open Access
Published: 17 June 2014
International Education Studies, Volume 7; doi:10.5539/ies.v7n7p52
Open Access
Published: 2 August 2014
Modern Applied Science, Volume 8; doi:10.5539/mas.v8n5p63
Open Access
Published: 17 February 2014
Modern Applied Science, Volume 8; doi:10.5539/mas.v8n2p160
Open Access
Published: 2 August 2014
Modern Applied Science, Volume 8; doi:10.5539/mas.v8n5p169
Restricted Access
Published: 30 May 2015
Asian Social Science, Volume 11; doi:10.5539/ass.v11n16p338
SciLit | Articles
Who is using altmetrics tools? – The Altmetrics Conference – September 28-29, 2016
Source: http://altmetricsconference.com/who-is-using-altmetrics-tools/
This is a guest post contributed by Bianca Kramer and Jeroen Bosman, Utrecht University Library, The Netherlands.
Over the past six years, since the publication of the Altmetrics manifesto,
altmetrics have matured and greatly expanded. Applications are
available to gather and display altmetrics data on articles and books
alike, either from freestanding companies or from large publishing
houses. But to what extent are researchers actually using altmetrics
tools, and how does this relate to their use of more traditional
citation-based metrics tools?
Our recent global survey on research tool usage
provides some answers to these questions. For 17 different research
activities, the survey gathered information on which tools are used
across disciplines, research roles, career stages and countries. During
last year’s 2:AM altmetrics conference, we presented some preliminary findings
based on the almost 5,000 responses we had received at the time. Now,
the final results are available, from a total of 20,663 responses. All
data are available through Zenodo and can be explored using our interactive dashboard.
In this blogpost, we’ll discuss some findings from our survey as they
relate to the use of altmetrics and more traditional metrics tools.
Specifically, the survey asked what tools respondents used for measuring
impact, with seven preselected options to tick, and an additional ‘(and
also) others’ option which prompted respondents to manually enter any
tools not among the preselected ones.
Figure 1 – survey question on tools for measuring impact
Altmetrics – the librarians’ gap
Looking at the results for the preset options, it is apparent that
for researchers, the impact factor (through JCR) and the large citation
databases (Web of Science and Scopus) are still used most often for
determining impact, with ‘pure’ altmetrics tools such as Altmetric and
Impactstory scoring much lower (Figure 2). Librarians (who were asked
which tools they recommend, not just use themselves) demonstrate a
higher awareness than researchers for all tools. This difference is
particularly striking for Altmetric: librarians recommend this tool
about as much as the large citation based tools, while actual use by
researchers is much lower.
Librarians might both be well aware of the criticisms of traditional
metrics tools (especially citation metrics at the journal level, i..e
the impact factor) and are in a good position to explore alternatives
due to their knowledge of the information landscape. On the other hand,
the stakes for librarians are lower as they are not the ones that are
dependent on metrics-based criteria for funding and evaluation. Does the
gap between the what researchers use and what librarians recommend mean
that librarians are out of touch with what researchers deem important?
Or is there still a long way to go in making researchers aware of
altmetrics tools?
Figure 2 – Percentage of researchers and librarians using/recommending metrics tools
The generation effect
Is there a difference in the use of traditional metrics vs.
altmetrics for researchers in various career stages? When we look at the
use of the impact factor and Altmetric as two examples, we see that
while use of the impact factor increases the further researchers
progress in their career, postdocs are the group that most often use
Altmetric.
Figure 3 – Percentage of researchers in various career stages using IF and Altmetric
The increase in the use of the impact factor as a metric for impact
likely reflects the growing (perceived) importance of the publication
record as one’s career progresses. Indeed, for PhD students we see a
sharp increase in the use of the impact factor once they have published
their first paper (Figure 4). Despite many documentations of its caveats
and drawbacks (e.g. here[WP Jeroen] and here[paper on distribution]),
use of the impact factor is still so ingrained in the research process
(especially in formal assessment and funding, despite widespread
undersigning of DORA) that for now, it remains the dominant measure of impact across generations of researchers.
For altmetrics, exemplified here by the use of Altmetric, the picture
is different. The use of Altmetric peaks at the postdoc level, which
may reflect a combination of willingness to explore new avenues and
tools, and the need to demonstrate immediate impact of (recent)
publications on the road to acquiring a faculty position. Interestingly,
the use of Altmetric drops again for faculty. This could either be due
to a ‘legacy’ effect of older faculty using altmetrics far less than
younger faculty, thus suppressing average usage, or it could be that
faculty overall (including recently appointed faculty) uses altmetrics
less than postdocs. Again, looking at date of first publication
clarifies this (Fig 4): the use of Altmetric is low overall for all
generations of faculty. This means that also early faculty use Altmetric
less than postdocs.
One possible explanation could be that while the use of altmetrics is
perceived useful during the transition from postdoc to faculty level,
the tenure-track process focuses more heavily on traditional metrics,
thus discouraging young faculty from using altmetrics. This is just a
hypothesis, however, and we cannot rule out other explanations for our
data. For example, we have not yet explored possible differences in
distribution of respondents across disciplines and/or countries, which
could also play a role.
Figure 4 – Percentage of researchers in various career stages using IF and Altmetric,
broken down by year of first publication. Only groups with over 100 respondents are included in this figure.
The disciplinary difference
We did look at the overall share of altmetrics tools across different
disciplines. For this, we included all preset options as well as the
top 10 of ‘other tools’ that were mentioned by researchers, which for
this question included Google Scholar, SCImago journal rank (both
counted as traditional, citation-based tools), ResearchGate and Academia
(both counted as altmetrics tools because they include metrics beyond
citations). The percentage of altmetrics tools among all metrics tools
mentioned by researchers ranges from 10-11% for Physical Sciences and
Engineering & Technology to 19% for Life Sciences (Figure 5).
Figure 5 – Share of altmetrics tools among all metrics tools (preset
options and top 10 ‘others’) for different disciplines (researchers
only, n=number of respondents)
The high share of altmetrics tools in Life Sciences might be a
reflection of the importance of published articles (for which altmetrics
are readily available) in this field, combined with perhaps a
propensity for experimentation among researchers. It may surprise that
it is not Arts & Humanities that scores lowest, but rather Physical
Sciences and Engineering & Technology. All three disciplines have
research output (books and monographs for the former, and preprints and
conference papers in the latter two) that is less suited to traditional
citation-based metrics research. Arts & Humanities scholars seem to
have embraced the possibilities of altmetrics to a larger extent than
researchers in the “hard sciences”, who may view altmetrics as
imprecise or irrelevant, or have not yet encountered them much on the
platforms they engage in (e.g. IEEE, ArXiV). In general, the current
expansion of altmetrics across other forms of scholarly output, like
data and code, could increase uptake in many disciplines over the coming
years.
One development to consider is the increasing incorporation of
altmetrics in environments that traditionally would show only
citation-based metrics (e.g. in Scopus and on journal websites) . While
this complicates future analyses of use of altmetrics tools, it makes it
easier for researchers of all stripes to become familiar with
altmetrics – even researchers that so far have proven to be less
inclined to use specific tools for this purpose. Increased awareness and
use of altmetrics by researchers, combined with a broadening of
assessment and funding criteria beyond citation-based metrics, will
hopefully result in a more comprehensive and inclusive concept of
‘research impact’ across academia.
Bianca Kramer (@MsPhelps) and Jeroen Bosman (@jeroenbosman)
Utrecht University Library, The Netherlands
Who is using altmetrics tools? – The Altmetrics Conference – September 28-29, 2016
Who is using altmetrics tools?
This is a guest post contributed by Bianca Kramer and Jeroen Bosman, Utrecht University Library, The Netherlands.
Over the past six years, since the publication of the Altmetrics manifesto,
altmetrics have matured and greatly expanded. Applications are
available to gather and display altmetrics data on articles and books
alike, either from freestanding companies or from large publishing
houses. But to what extent are researchers actually using altmetrics
tools, and how does this relate to their use of more traditional
citation-based metrics tools?
Our recent global survey on research tool usage
provides some answers to these questions. For 17 different research
activities, the survey gathered information on which tools are used
across disciplines, research roles, career stages and countries. During
last year’s 2:AM altmetrics conference, we presented some preliminary findings
based on the almost 5,000 responses we had received at the time. Now,
the final results are available, from a total of 20,663 responses. All
data are available through Zenodo and can be explored using our interactive dashboard.
In this blogpost, we’ll discuss some findings from our survey as they
relate to the use of altmetrics and more traditional metrics tools.
Specifically, the survey asked what tools respondents used for measuring
impact, with seven preselected options to tick, and an additional ‘(and
also) others’ option which prompted respondents to manually enter any
tools not among the preselected ones.
Figure 1 – survey question on tools for measuring impact
Altmetrics – the librarians’ gap
Looking at the results for the preset options, it is apparent that
for researchers, the impact factor (through JCR) and the large citation
databases (Web of Science and Scopus) are still used most often for
determining impact, with ‘pure’ altmetrics tools such as Altmetric and
Impactstory scoring much lower (Figure 2). Librarians (who were asked
which tools they recommend, not just use themselves) demonstrate a
higher awareness than researchers for all tools. This difference is
particularly striking for Altmetric: librarians recommend this tool
about as much as the large citation based tools, while actual use by
researchers is much lower.
Librarians might both be well aware of the criticisms of traditional
metrics tools (especially citation metrics at the journal level, i..e
the impact factor) and are in a good position to explore alternatives
due to their knowledge of the information landscape. On the other hand,
the stakes for librarians are lower as they are not the ones that are
dependent on metrics-based criteria for funding and evaluation. Does the
gap between the what researchers use and what librarians recommend mean
that librarians are out of touch with what researchers deem important?
Or is there still a long way to go in making researchers aware of
altmetrics tools?
Figure 2 – Percentage of researchers and librarians using/recommending metrics tools
The generation effect
Is there a difference in the use of traditional metrics vs.
altmetrics for researchers in various career stages? When we look at the
use of the impact factor and Altmetric as two examples, we see that
while use of the impact factor increases the further researchers
progress in their career, postdocs are the group that most often use
Altmetric.
Figure 3 – Percentage of researchers in various career stages using IF and Altmetric
The increase in the use of the impact factor as a metric for impact
likely reflects the growing (perceived) importance of the publication
record as one’s career progresses. Indeed, for PhD students we see a
sharp increase in the use of the impact factor once they have published
their first paper (Figure 4). Despite many documentations of its caveats
and drawbacks (e.g. here[WP Jeroen] and here[paper on distribution]),
use of the impact factor is still so ingrained in the research process
(especially in formal assessment and funding, despite widespread
undersigning of DORA) that for now, it remains the dominant measure of impact across generations of researchers.
For altmetrics, exemplified here by the use of Altmetric, the picture
is different. The use of Altmetric peaks at the postdoc level, which
may reflect a combination of willingness to explore new avenues and
tools, and the need to demonstrate immediate impact of (recent)
publications on the road to acquiring a faculty position. Interestingly,
the use of Altmetric drops again for faculty. This could either be due
to a ‘legacy’ effect of older faculty using altmetrics far less than
younger faculty, thus suppressing average usage, or it could be that
faculty overall (including recently appointed faculty) uses altmetrics
less than postdocs. Again, looking at date of first publication
clarifies this (Fig 4): the use of Altmetric is low overall for all
generations of faculty. This means that also early faculty use Altmetric
less than postdocs.
One possible explanation could be that while the use of altmetrics is
perceived useful during the transition from postdoc to faculty level,
the tenure-track process focuses more heavily on traditional metrics,
thus discouraging young faculty from using altmetrics. This is just a
hypothesis, however, and we cannot rule out other explanations for our
data. For example, we have not yet explored possible differences in
distribution of respondents across disciplines and/or countries, which
could also play a role.
Figure 4 – Percentage of researchers in various career stages using IF and Altmetric,
broken down by year of first publication. Only groups with over 100 respondents are included in this figure.
The disciplinary difference
We did look at the overall share of altmetrics tools across different
disciplines. For this, we included all preset options as well as the
top 10 of ‘other tools’ that were mentioned by researchers, which for
this question included Google Scholar, SCImago journal rank (both
counted as traditional, citation-based tools), ResearchGate and Academia
(both counted as altmetrics tools because they include metrics beyond
citations). The percentage of altmetrics tools among all metrics tools
mentioned by researchers ranges from 10-11% for Physical Sciences and
Engineering & Technology to 19% for Life Sciences (Figure 5).
Figure 5 – Share of altmetrics tools among all metrics tools (preset
options and top 10 ‘others’) for different disciplines (researchers
only, n=number of respondents)
The high share of altmetrics tools in Life Sciences might be a
reflection of the importance of published articles (for which altmetrics
are readily available) in this field, combined with perhaps a
propensity for experimentation among researchers. It may surprise that
it is not Arts & Humanities that scores lowest, but rather Physical
Sciences and Engineering & Technology. All three disciplines have
research output (books and monographs for the former, and preprints and
conference papers in the latter two) that is less suited to traditional
citation-based metrics research. Arts & Humanities scholars seem to
have embraced the possibilities of altmetrics to a larger extent than
researchers in the “hard sciences”, who may view altmetrics as
imprecise or irrelevant, or have not yet encountered them much on the
platforms they engage in (e.g. IEEE, ArXiV). In general, the current
expansion of altmetrics across other forms of scholarly output, like
data and code, could increase uptake in many disciplines over the coming
years.
One development to consider is the increasing incorporation of
altmetrics in environments that traditionally would show only
citation-based metrics (e.g. in Scopus and on journal websites) . While
this complicates future analyses of use of altmetrics tools, it makes it
easier for researchers of all stripes to become familiar with
altmetrics – even researchers that so far have proven to be less
inclined to use specific tools for this purpose. Increased awareness and
use of altmetrics by researchers, combined with a broadening of
assessment and funding criteria beyond citation-based metrics, will
hopefully result in a more comprehensive and inclusive concept of
‘research impact’ across academia.
Bianca Kramer (@MsPhelps) and Jeroen Bosman (@jeroenbosman)
Utrecht University Library, The Netherlands
Who is using altmetrics tools? – The Altmetrics Conference – September 28-29, 2016
Saturday, 3 September 2016
APJCP
Source: http://apjcpcontrol.net/paper_file/issue_abs/Volume17_No7/3139-3145%202.12%20Reyhaneh%20Farghadani.pdf
VOLUME 17, 2016 Issue Number 7
, 3139-3145
APJCP
VOLUME 17, 2016 Issue Number 7
, 3139-3145
DownLoad : 3139-3145 2.12 Reyhaneh Farghadani.pdf |
|
| RESEARCH ARTICLE | |
35-Year Research History of Cytotoxicity and Cancer: a Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis |
|
| Reyhaneh Farghadani et al | |
AbstractCancer is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide, characterized by irregular cell growth. Cytotoxicity or killing tumor cells that divide rapidly is the basic function of chemotherapeutic drugs. However, these agents can damage normal dividing cells, leading to adverse effects in the body. In view of great advances in cancer therapy, which are increasingly reported each year, we quantitatively and qualitatively evaluated the papers published between 1981 and December 2015, with a closer look at the highly cited papers (HCPs), for a better understanding of literature related to cytotoxicity in cancer therapy. Online documents in the Web of Science (WOS) database were analyzed based on the publication year, the number of times they were cited, research area, source, language, document type, countries, organizationenhanced and funding agencies. A total of 3,473 publications relevant to the target key words were found in the WOS database over 35 years and 86% of them (n=2,993) were published between 20002015. These papers had been cited 54,330 times without self citation from 1981 to 2015. Of the 3,473 publications, 17 (3,557citations) were the most frequently cited ones between 2005 and 2015. The topmost HCP was about generating a comprehensive preclinical database (CCLE) with 825 (23.2%) citations. One third of the remaining HCPs had focused on drug discovery through improving conventional therapeutic agents such as metformin and ginseng. Another 33% of the HCPs concerned engineered nanoparticles (NPs) such as polyamidoamine (PAMAM) dendritic polymers, PTX/SPIOloaded PLGAs and cell derived NPs to increase drug effectiveness and decrease drug toxicity in cancer therapy. The remaining HCPs reported novel factors such as miR205, Nrf2 and p27 suggesting their interference with development of cancer in targeted cancer therapy. In conclusion, analysis of 35year publications and HCPs on cytotoxicity in cancer in the present report provides opportunities for a better understanding the extent of topics published and may help future research in this area. |
|
| Key Words: Cancer - anticancer treatments - cytotoxicity - highly cited papers - cancer therapy | |
APJCP
Friday, 2 September 2016
The effects of psychological safety, team efficacy, and transactive memory system development on team learning behavior in virtual work teams
Source: http://conservancy.umn.edu/handle/11299/181755
View/
Title
Authors
Issue Date
2016-05Type
Abstract
Description
Suggested Citation
Content distributed via the University of Minnesota's Digital
Conservancy may be subject to additional license and use restrictions
applied by the depositor.
The effects of psychological safety, team efficacy, and transactive memory system development on team learning behavior in virtual work teams
The effects of psychological safety, team efficacy, and
transactive memory system development on team learning behavior in
virtual work teams
transactive memory system development on team learning behavior in
virtual work teams
Knapp, Randall (2016)
View/
Title
The effects of psychological safety, team efficacy, and transactive
memory system development on team learning behavior in virtual work
teams
memory system development on team learning behavior in virtual work
teams
Authors
Issue Date
2016-05Type
Thesis or Dissertation
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to provide an analysis of the
relationship between psychological safety, team efficacy, transactive
memory system (TMS) development, and learning behaviors of virtual
teams. Background for this study was provided by four existing
theoretical models of team learning. This study utilized correlation
analysis and multiple regression analysis methods to help establish that
there is a relationship between psychological safety, team efficacy,
TMS, and virtual team learning behaviors. A population that consisted of
a variety of teams made up of members of a leading North American
plastic pipe trade association were given an electronic survey.
Responses from 124 individuals representing 47 individual member
companies and 23 distinct teams were gathered. The constructs measured
in the survey are conceptually meaningful at the team level. Data were
gathered from individual team members to assess team-level variables
that were aggregated at that level. The results of the study indicate
that the team interpersonal beliefs of psychological safety and team
efficacy were positively associated with team learning behaviors. In
addition, TMS was found to be positively associated with team learning
behavior, and was moderately correlated to psychological safety and team
efficacy. The main research hypothesis of this study was that the
relationship between team psychological safety, team efficacy, and team
learning behaviors are moderated by TMS. The hypothesized model that
placed TMS as a moderator did show a slight increase in the variation
explained in virtual team learning behaviors versus the model with no
moderating effect included. This result may indicate a potential
moderating effect of TMS, but is not strong enough to make an
unequivocal statement. However, the study found a high degree of
correlation between TMS and virtual team learning behaviors, which may
indicate that TMS plays an important role in team learning. This study
provided quantitative data and analysis of the interpersonal factors
driving team learning behavior, and the development of TMS for virtual
teams in an organizational setting. It is believed that information
specific to the relationship between the team-level constructs will
allow HRD practitioners and researchers to further develop learning in
this critical organizational form.
relationship between psychological safety, team efficacy, transactive
memory system (TMS) development, and learning behaviors of virtual
teams. Background for this study was provided by four existing
theoretical models of team learning. This study utilized correlation
analysis and multiple regression analysis methods to help establish that
there is a relationship between psychological safety, team efficacy,
TMS, and virtual team learning behaviors. A population that consisted of
a variety of teams made up of members of a leading North American
plastic pipe trade association were given an electronic survey.
Responses from 124 individuals representing 47 individual member
companies and 23 distinct teams were gathered. The constructs measured
in the survey are conceptually meaningful at the team level. Data were
gathered from individual team members to assess team-level variables
that were aggregated at that level. The results of the study indicate
that the team interpersonal beliefs of psychological safety and team
efficacy were positively associated with team learning behaviors. In
addition, TMS was found to be positively associated with team learning
behavior, and was moderately correlated to psychological safety and team
efficacy. The main research hypothesis of this study was that the
relationship between team psychological safety, team efficacy, and team
learning behaviors are moderated by TMS. The hypothesized model that
placed TMS as a moderator did show a slight increase in the variation
explained in virtual team learning behaviors versus the model with no
moderating effect included. This result may indicate a potential
moderating effect of TMS, but is not strong enough to make an
unequivocal statement. However, the study found a high degree of
correlation between TMS and virtual team learning behaviors, which may
indicate that TMS plays an important role in team learning. This study
provided quantitative data and analysis of the interpersonal factors
driving team learning behavior, and the development of TMS for virtual
teams in an organizational setting. It is believed that information
specific to the relationship between the team-level constructs will
allow HRD practitioners and researchers to further develop learning in
this critical organizational form.
Description
University of Minnesota Ph.D. dissertation. May 2016. Major:
Organizational Leadership, Policy, and Development. Advisor: Alexandre
Ardichvili. 1 computer file (PDF); vi, 107 pages.
Organizational Leadership, Policy, and Development. Advisor: Alexandre
Ardichvili. 1 computer file (PDF); vi, 107 pages.
Suggested Citation
Knapp, Randall.
(2016).
The effects of psychological safety, team efficacy,
and transactive memory system development on team learning behavior in
virtual work teams.
Retrieved from the University of Minnesota Digital Conservancy,
http://hdl.handle.net/11299/181755.
(2016).
The effects of psychological safety, team efficacy,
and transactive memory system development on team learning behavior in
virtual work teams.
Retrieved from the University of Minnesota Digital Conservancy,
http://hdl.handle.net/11299/181755.
Content distributed via the University of Minnesota's Digital
Conservancy may be subject to additional license and use restrictions
applied by the depositor.
The effects of psychological safety, team efficacy, and transactive memory system development on team learning behavior in virtual work teams
Planejamento De Adoção De Tecnologias De Informação Móveis Em Equipe Multilocalizada De Projeto
Código: 155
Tipo: Relato Técnico |
|
| Área: Gestão de Projetos | |
| Tema: SI/TI em apoio a Gestão de Projetos e Projetos Virtuais | |
Abrir Arquivo  |
|
| Planejamento de Adoção de Tecnologias de Informação Móveis em Equipe Multilocalizada de Projeto | |
O presente relato descreve o processo de planejamento de adoção de tecnologias de informação móveis (TIMs) em uma empresa do setor de comércio varejista de materiais para casa e construção, à luz de um modelo teórico existente na literatura. O projeto foi motivado pela demanda de implantação de uma nova loja, distante mais de 500 quilômetros da matriz. Com isso, o uso de TIMs seria imprescindível para execução deste novo projeto. Como método, foi utilizado estudo de caso, por meio de abordagem qualitativa, resultando na prescrição dos recursos necessários, dos impactos esperados nos envolvidos e na organização, bem como, do ganho financeiro esperado com a adoção de TIMs. Mas, mesmo o planejamento elaborado tendo descrito os benefícios esperados com a adoção de TIMs no projeto, a proposta foi recebida com cautela pelo corpo de executivos da empresa estudada. Foram apontadas algumas necessidades observadas na execução prática que poderiam ser reafirmadas ou contrapostas em estudos futuros, principalmente no que tange o alinhamento estratégico. | |
IV SINGEP
Effect of Social Media on Trust in Virtual Project Teams of Construction Sector in Middle East - Springer
Source: http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-319-45234-0_38
Chapter
Volume 9844 of the series Lecture Notes in Computer Science
pp 419-429
Date:
Middle East
Construction sector
Virtual teams
Trust
Performance
Social media
Effect of Social Media on Trust in Virtual Project Teams of Construction Sector in Middle East - Springer
Volume 9844 of the series Lecture Notes in Computer Science
pp 419-429
Date:
Effect of Social Media on Trust in Virtual Project Teams of Construction Sector in Middle East
Abstract
Social media has
greatly affected the way the virtual teams in construction sector of UAE
collaborate and share information among each other. The social media is
needed to support synchronicity, a shared pattern of coordinated
behavior among individuals as they work together. Research shows that,
although computer-supported collaborative work has increased, many
distributed virtual teams are facing a number of issues in managing and
controlling the teams which leads to distrust among the team members.
Trust among virtual team members is considered to be one of the primary
concerns that affect the performance of virtual teams in Construction
Sector. This paper is a result of literature review of around 150 papers
which dealt with positive and negative effect of social media
interactions on trust among virtual team members. Through Literature
review, it was found that conflict and cohesion within the team members
greatly affects the role of communication on trust among virtual project
team members.
greatly affected the way the virtual teams in construction sector of UAE
collaborate and share information among each other. The social media is
needed to support synchronicity, a shared pattern of coordinated
behavior among individuals as they work together. Research shows that,
although computer-supported collaborative work has increased, many
distributed virtual teams are facing a number of issues in managing and
controlling the teams which leads to distrust among the team members.
Trust among virtual team members is considered to be one of the primary
concerns that affect the performance of virtual teams in Construction
Sector. This paper is a result of literature review of around 150 papers
which dealt with positive and negative effect of social media
interactions on trust among virtual team members. Through Literature
review, it was found that conflict and cohesion within the team members
greatly affects the role of communication on trust among virtual project
team members.
Keywords
Collaborative toolsMiddle East
Construction sector
Virtual teams
Trust
Performance
Social media
Effect of Social Media on Trust in Virtual Project Teams of Construction Sector in Middle East - Springer
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)