ArticlePDF Available

Abstract and Figures

This paper aims to present the result of a study at a major aerospace company about project contextual characteristics and their impact on project organization (e.g. team collocation). In this time of globalization, when the competition is bigger than ever, project success is a crucial goal for organizations. In order to achieve project success many decisions shall be made before the project kick-off. One of these decisions is investigated in this paper: the decision to whether co-locate or not the project team. The paper provides a literature review about team co-location, its advantages and disadvantages, virtual teams and project performance parameters. It is proposed a table to be used as a guide to determine if the projects achieve the success or not. This paper also presents a case study where 3 couples of similar system projects were analysed. In each couple, the first Product Development (PD) has occurred with a co-located team and in the second one has occurred with a virtual team (not co-located team). The project performance parameters were identified using the proposed table. Pages: 700-710
Content may be subject to copyright.
The Effects of Teams’ Co-location on Project
Performance
Marina Mendonça Natalino Zenun
a1
, Geilson Loureiro
b
and Claudiano Sales
Araujo
c
a
Instituto Tecnológico de Aeronáutica – ITA, Brazil.
b
Instituto de Pesquisas Espaciais – INPE, Brazil.
c
Empresa Brasileira de Aeronáutica S. A. – Embraer, Brazil.
Abstract: This paper aims to present an analysis between teams’ co-location and project
performance. In order to achieve product development project success many decisions shall
be made before the project kick-off. One of these decisions is to whether co-locate or not the
project team. But, what are the effects of teams co-location on project performance? The
paper provides a literature review about teams’ co-location, its advantages and
disadvantages, virtual teams and project performance parameters. A table is then proposed
to be used as a guide to determine the degree of success of projects. This paper also presents
a case study where 3 pairs of similar New Product Development (NPD) projects were
analyzed. In each pair of cases, the first NPD occurred using a co-located team and, in the
second case, a virtual team (not co-located team) was adopted. The project performance
parameters for each case were identified using the proposed table from which we concluded
that co-located teams appears to deliver better performance at least in the “internal project
efficiency” parameters. Further research involving a larger sample of cases is still necessary
to confirm these conclusions.
Keywords: Co-location, Project Teams, Virtual Teams, Project Success
1 Introduction
NPD project performance has been widely studied in the last 20 years by
researchers both from the Product Development and the Project Management
arenas. According to these authors [1, 2, 3], many factors may result in a project
failed. Within these reasons, it may be pointed a classic reason: the project is not
structured appropriately (see, for instance, [3]).
Within the broad topic “project structuring” we find the theme “project
organization approach”. Many authors [4, 5, 6] and practitioners believe that one
ideal situation for project organization is getting the team members on a physical
common area, which it is called team co-location. Some other authors, on the other
1
Corresponding Author e-mail: marina.natalino@embraer.com.br
2 M. M. N. Zenun, G. Loureiro and C. S. Araujo
hand, believe that co-location is not always a must, and that in some cases it is
completely unnecessary and even counter-productive [7, 8]. For the companies, on
the other hand, co-location always means extra-costs in the expectation of better
team results.
In this context this paper aims to present and discuss the early results of a
study at a major aerospace company which tries to shed some light on the complex
relationship between teams’ co-location and project overall performance.
In order to achieve this goal we start by providing a literature review on
project teams, describing teams’ co-location, its advantages and disadvantages, and
virtual teams (Section 2). In the third section, we propose a table with project
performance parameters to be used as a guide to determine the degree of success of
a certain project after a number of dimensions. In the fourth section, we present a
case study performed in an aerospace company showing the project performance
parameters with teams co-located and not co-located. Finally, it concludes with
limitations and future research.
2 Literature Review on Project Teams
2.1 Teams
The concept of a “team” is described as a small number of people with
complementary skills who are equally committed to a common purpose, goals, and
working approach for which they hold themselves mutually accountable. It is
important to notice that getting a group of people to work together (physically) is
not enough to make this group of people into a team”. Teams are different from
working groups. The first one promises greater performance than the last one [8].
In this paper, the word “team” means a real team not just a working group.
When the team members are co-located there is a common physical area
specifically allocated to the execution of the tasks related to the project. The team
members shall seat close together. By close, it is defined as close enough that they
can overhear each other’s telephone conversations [5].
In the other hand, the not co-located teams or virtual teams as consider in this
paper, is a team comprised of members in different locations and in same cases are
also culturally diverse.
2.2 The Advantages and Disadvantages of Co-location
The probability of communication is high with small physical separation distance
and falls off drastically when people are located more than 10 meters from one
another, as showed in the Figure 1 [9].
Relationship between Teams’ Co-location and Project Performance 3
Figure 1. Project Communication frequency versus separation distance [9]
The key point is that co-location enables the informal communication. The
water cooler metaphor is used to explain this phenomenon. The water cooler effect
represents a belief that conversations that develop in and around a water fountain,
or in a cafeteria, significantly enable knowledge transfer, which indirectly
contributes to positive work relationships [10].
When the team members are co-located, they can focus their collective energy
on creating the product. This situation can result in lasting camaraderie among
team members, resulting in a huge project challenge: The team spirit [4].
As advantages, besides communication and team spirit, the literature shows that
co-location provides an adequate environment condition for decision making,
collaboration, trust between team members, and effective interpersonal
relationships [11, 12, 13].
Co-location is regarded as one of the key ingredients in shortening development
cycles at many companies, such as Chrysler, Black & Decker, and Motorola [5].
However, team co-location means a representative project cost increase,
sometimes including the need for people re-location or even the requirement for
new infrastructure to allocate the complete team. During the development of its
ERJ 170/190 series, for instance, Embraer Aerospace had to build an entirely new
building in order to accommodate the entire product team of around 600 engineers
from various Countries. This collocation costs indeed increases drastically when
we consider that in some industries such as the aerospace; the needed specialists
are spread around the world. Some more concerns are summarized below:
Lack of a permanent office home and as a consequence, the employee will
be distant from his functional area, loosing some technological up date [5];
Functional bosses worried about losing control of theirs employees [5].
Further, based on the authors’ experience, some more concerns would be included:
The fact that moving very often represents an inconvenience and/or a
trouble for the involved people;
4 M. M. N. Zenun, G. Loureiro and C. S. Araujo
Adaptation difficulties in another place, sometimes in other countries
(cultural differences and operational difficulties, e. g.: need to move the entire
family).
2.3 Virtual Teams
Communication versus separation distance studies have been performed by authors
such as Allen [9]. At the time of his studies (1977), modern electronic systems and
solutions were not widely available as today, such as e-mail, video conferencing,
internet, intranet, web, voice mail, faxes, etc. More recently various authors have
put forward the proposal that these electronic resources are able, to different
degrees, to supersede the physical co-location and make the virtual teams possible.
Smith & Reinertsen (1998) [5], for instance, believe that the virtual co-location
tools available today can supplement physical co-location but not supersede it.
Katzenbach & Smith (2003) [8], on the other hand, assert that “electronic”
interactions can work, especially if they are supplemented from time to time by
traditional get-togethers.
However, studies from the human communication point out the enormous
importance of the human aspects which can be observed in a conversation; as body
language, intonation, etc [5]. According to these studies, face-to-face conversation
is still much richer than an electronic conversation due to the fact that available
media and technology is not able to capture and transmit these human behavior
characteristics [5, 6, 7]. It does appear that NPD projects that have more frequent
face-to-face meeting enjoy better success [14].
Many firms apply project teams spread around the world in their development
efforts. Management either believes that such spread is essential, or is not willing
to pay the high price of co-location. But, sometimes, management just is not aware
of how inefficient its dispersion makes its teams. These authors [5] mentioned an
example where there were three teams located in sites with the time differences of
about as high as 8 hours: When the first team finished its work, it was shipped
electronically to the next office, which then worked on the design for a shift. Then
the design was moved to the next office so that they actually get three times as
much effort per day as the design circles the globe. However, what really happens:
they saw firsthand how designs tend to get redesigned each time a new designer
takes over. It was three redesigns per day [5].
Literature in virtual teams states that this type of teamwork has still not
achieved the same performance as teams co-located [5, 6, 7].
3 Parameters of Project Performance
To evaluate the relationship between teams’ co-location and project performance,
this paper uses a parallel between project performance parameters proposed by
Clark et al. [15] and the key success indicators proposed by Shenhar et al. [16].
The project performance parameters proposed by Clark et al. [15] are: quality,
lead time and productivity.
Relationship between Teams’ Co-location and Project Performance 5
1 Quality: The project affects quality at two levels: the level of the design;
design quality, and the organization’s ability to produce the design; conformance
quality [15].
2 – Lead time: To achieve a high performance considering the lead time is not
just meeting schedule. Lead time is a measure of how quickly an organization can
move from concept to market. It is important to development lead time because the
time to market is shorter than ever [15].
3 – Productivity: It is considered as the level of resources required to take the
project from concept to commercial product. This includes engineers hours
worked, materials used for prototype construction, and any equipment and services
the organization may use. Productivity has a direct though relatively small effect
on unit production cost, but is also affects the number of projects an organization
can complete for a given level of resources [15].
Figure 2 shows the interaction among these 3 dimensions of project
performance.
Figure 2. Project Performance [15]
In addition, the key success indicators proposed by Shenhar et al. [16] is a set
of measurable success criteria, divided in four:
1) Project efficiency: Internal project objectives such as meeting time and
budget goals.
2) Impact on the customer: Immediate and long-term benefit to the customer.
3) Direct and business success: Direct contribution to the organization.
4) Preparing the future: Future opportunity (e.g. competitiveness or technical
advantage) [16].
The Table showed on the Figure 3 is proposed as a guide to determine if the
analyzed projects achieve the success or not. It is applied in the case studies
discussed in the following section.
6 M. M. N. Zenun, G. Loureiro and C. S. Araujo
Figure 3: Primary success categories, key success indicator, and project performance
parameters
4 Case Study
What are the effects of teams’ co-location on project performance? What are the
relationship between co-location and lead time; co-location and productivity; co-
location and quality? In order to try to answer these questions a case study was
performed in a major aerospace company. Figure 4 illustrates the relationships to
be investigated empirically through this case study.
Relationship between Teams’ Co-location and Project Performance 7
Figure 4. A framework of the possible relationship between teams’ co-location and project
performance
4.1 Case Study and Data Collection
3 pairs of similar NPD projects were chosen and analyzed. In this study we defined
“similar NPD projects” as those involving the development of systems with similar
design characteristics and identical or close number of technologies. It was also
used as selection criteria the following items: Minimum of seven different
technologies involved in the project (including manufacturing) and a minimum of
10 people involved in each project team. For each pair of projects, the first
occurred with a co-located team whereas the second was carried out by a non co-
located team.
The previous proposed table (Table 1) was used to evaluate the success project.
The project performance parameters were identified according to ranking below.
Values from 1 to 5 were attributed for each parameter.
Very low (1) About 20% do total
Low (2) About 40% do total
Medium (3) About 60% do total
High (4) About 80% do total
Very high (5) About 100% do total
The data used to attribute the values were: data from project planning, as
planned project duration and real project duration, time to market, planned budget
and real budget, data from commercial and marketing areas as customer daily
report, marketing perception, customers complains, and people interviews.
The case study results are presented in Figure 5.
8 M. M. N. Zenun, G. Loureiro and C. S. Araujo
Figure 5: Project performance parameters for the analysed projects
4.2 Data analysis and Results
In the 1st Case, the performance achieved with the co-located team is little higher
than the performance achieved with the not co-located team (4,2 and 4
respectively). The difference appears in the Internal Project Efficiency (Pre-
completion) in the parameters: how quickly is the project and completing within
budget which indicate lead time and productivity.
In the 2nd Case, the performance achieved with the co-located team is also
little higher than the performance achieved with the not co-located team (4,9 and 4
respectively). The difference appears in the Internal Project Efficiency (Pre-
completion) in the following parameters: how quickly is the project, meeting
schedule and completing within budget which indicate lead time and productivity.
In addition to this, a difference appears during the Impact of the customer phase
(Short term), when the NPD with a co-located team has achieved a performance
lower than the not co-located team, in the fulfilling customer’s needs parameter
which indicates quality.
In the 3rd case, the performance difference between the 2 projects is highest
(4,9 and 3,3). Besides the differences in the Internal Project Efficiency (Pre-
completion), there are also differences which appear in Impact of the customer
phase (Short term), Business and Direct Success (Medium term) and Preparing for
the future (Long term). These differences are showed in figure 6.
The common differences in the 3 cases, related to the NPD with co-located and
not co-located teams, are associated to the Internal Project Efficiency involving
parameters which highlight lead time and productivity, such as: project duration,
meeting schedule and completing within budget. Excepting the 3
rd
case, the
performance in quality are most the same in the NPD with co-located and not co-
located teams, in parameters which represent Impact of the customer (Short term),
Business and Direct Success (Medium term) and Preparing for the future (Long
term).
Relationship between Teams’ Co-location and Project Performance 9
Analyzing the collected data, it was also observed that the number of product’s
modifications in the NPD with not co-located teams was much higher than the
number of product’s modifications in the NPD with co-located teams. These
product’s modifications probably provoke a lead time increase, however, it seems
that they also contribute to the NPD with not co-located teams achieves the same
quality as the NPD with not co-located teams.
5 Conclusion, limitations and Future Work
This paper presents an analysis of 3 NPD-project performance, in terms of lead
time, productivity and quality. These 3 parameters were analyzed not only related
to project efficiency, but also related to the impact on the customer, direct and
business success and preparing the future, short term, medium term, and long term
respectively, according to key success indicators proposed by Shenhar et al. [16].
Study findings indicate that the NPD with co-located teams achieves a shorter
lead time and a higher productivity when compared to a NPD with not co-located
teams. There is no empirical evidence found in this study which indicates that co-
location impacts quality. However, besides co-location, others project’s factors, as
team manager, team experience among others could be influented these results.
The decision of co-location shall be made by the organizations before the
project kick-off. Besides effects of co-location on project performance, researches
should study the relationship between project contextual characteristics and their
impact on teams’ co-location. Based on effects of co-location on project
performance it should be traced a relationship between project contextual
characteristics and the decision of co-location.
6 References
[1] STANDISH GROUP, The extreme chaos report. Standish Group International, 2001.
Available at: <http://www.standishgroup.com/sample_research/>. Accessed on:
02/15/06.
[2] ANDREASEN, M. M.; HEIN, L. Integrated product development. A reprint of the
1987 edition. Institute for Product Development, IPU, 2000.
[3] McGRATH, M. E. Setting the PACE in product development – a guide to product and
cycle-time excellence. Butterworth-Heinemann, 1996.
[4] ULRICH, K. T.; EPPINGER, S. D. Product design and development. McGraw-Hill,
1995.
[5] SMITH, P. G.; REINERTSEN, D. G. Developing products in half the time: new rules,
new tools. 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons, 1998.
[6] HERBSLEB, J. D.; MOCKUS, A.; FINHOLT, T. A.; GRINTER, R. E. Distance,
dependencies, and delay in a global collaboration. Proceedings of the 2000 ACM
Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 2000, pp. 319 - 328.
[7] LEHMANN, J. Virtual meetings: not just an option anymore! Proceedings of the 2003
IEEE Managing Technologically Driven Organizations: The Human Side of Innovation
and Change, 2003, pp. 443 - 447.
10 M. M. N. Zenun, G. Loureiro and C. S. Araujo
[8] KATZENBACH, J. R.; SMITH, D. K. The wisdom of teams: creating the high
performance organization. Harvard Business School Press, 2003.
[9] ALLEN, T. J. Managing the flow of technology. Harvard Business School Press, 1977.
[10] DAVENPORT, T. H.; PRUSAK, L. Working knowledge: how organizations manage
what they know. Harvard Business School Press, 1998.
[11] KAHN, K., McDONOUGH III E., A. N. Empirical study of the relationships among
co-location, integration, performance, and satisfaction. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, Vol. 14, pp. 161 – 178, 1997.
[12] McDONOUGH III., E. F., KAHN, K. B., BARCZAK, G. An investigation of the use
of global, virtual, and collocated new product development teams. Journal of Product
Innovation Management, Vol. 18, pp. 110 – 120, 2001.
[13] LAKEMOND, N., BERGGREN, C. Co-locating NPD? The need for combining project
focus and organizational integration. Technovation, Vol. 26, pp. 807 – 819, 2006.
[14] PATTI, A. L., GILBERT, J. P., HARTMAN, S. Physical co-location and the success of
new product development projects. Engineering Management Journal, Vol. 9, No. 3,
pp. 31 – 37, 1997.
[15] CLARK, K. B.; FUJIMOTO, T. Product Development Performance: Strategy,
Organization, and Management in the World Auto Industry. Boston: Harvard Business
School Press, (1995).
[16] SHENHAR, A. J.; WIDEMAN, R. M. Optimizing Project Success by Matching
Management Style to Project Type. PMForum, 2000. Available at:
<http://www.pmforum.org/library/papers/2000/PM_Style&Scss.pdf>. Accessed on:
02/15/06.
... The literature review conducted for this paper on the phenomenon 'co-location' shows that business co-location has been studied in previous research. Even if economic theories indirectly or directly has discussed the phenomenon, the concept has most explicitly been studied from a context of cluster theories (Cooke, 2002;McKelvey et al., 2003;Stuart and Sorenson, 2003;Yeung et al., 2006;Porter et al., 2006;Robinson et al., 2007), Ecosystems/ Network theories (Lemarie´et al., 2001;Gertler and Levitte, 2005;Vanhaverbeke, 2005;Gallivan, 2008;Muegge, 2013;Romero and Molina, 2011;and Valkokari et al., 2017), Learning and Knowledge dissemination (Nonaka, 1994;Inkpen and Tsang, 2005;Simard and West, 2005;Song et al., 2007;Zenun et al., 2007;Chow and Chan, 2008;and Holste and Fields, 2010) and Corporate co-working/collaboration spaces (Bouncken et al., 2016;Ca-bral and van Winden, 2016;Cabral and van Winden, 2018;Nagy and Lindsay, 2018;Irving et al., 2019). Below, some interesting findings will be presented from these streams of research. ...
... Due to different types of knowledge, they found that effective knowledge dissemination requires a balanced investment in both co-location and information technologies to be able to deal with the heterogeneous but interdependent types of knowledge dissemination. and Song et al. (2007) investigated the importance of co-locate IT resources, while Zenun et al. (2007) investigated the effects of product development teams' co-location on project performance. Both found that the co-located teams appeared to deliver better performance at least on the efficiency parameters (productivity and lead time). ...
Full-text available
Article
Rapid technological developments make firms favor the creation of new approaches to technology management. Startups can offer large firms access to new technologies and the emphasis on corporate-startup collaboration has therefore reached a new level. Many models exist and co-location is one of these. While co-location in the context of clusters and innovation systems has been studied in previous literature, research on large firms’ co-location of startups is very limited. The purpose of this paper is to extend the existing body of knowledge on corporate-startup co-location, by investigating the broader phenomenon of business co-location and then suggest a framework and metrics to evaluate the effects of the corporate-startup co-location model. The paper originates from earlier conducted studies on corporate-startup collaboration models, in which research on corporate-startup co-location is more or less non-existent. For this paper a management literature review on the broader phenomenon of business co-location is conducted. The theoretical contributions are both the extended body of knowledge of ‘business co-location’, and a proposed multi-stakeholder framework and metrics for evaluating the effects of corporate-startup co-location.
... Besides duration, co-location (sharing physical space) can enhance the benefits of duration in that repeated interactions over time are facilitated when actors share the same offices and can easily engage in faceto-face dialogue (see Jobin, 2008;Kahn & McDonough, 1997;Zenun, Loureiro, & Araujo, 2007). All the regional offices share video conferencing infrastructure. ...
Full-text available
Article
This study explores the valued-added of USAID/Senegal's Governance for Local Development (GOLD) project's integrated approach to working with four sector projects: two in health, one in water and sanitation, and one in nutrition. The study builds on a partnership evaluation framework that identifies practices related to preconditions, factors linked with success, implementation structures and processes, contribution of collaboration to performance, and collaboration outcomes. A survey instrument developed statements of positive practices and asked respondents to agree or disagree with each one. The analysis includes exploration of differences in perception. Respondents generally expressed agreement with the statements in the survey instrument associated with the various dimensions of effective partnerships. All projects mentioned the presence of partnership champions. Problems with joint action (e.g., planning, budgeting, managing) were the most frequently cited constraints. The study confirms most of the hypotheses embedded in the evaluation framework regarding partnership's potential for creating synergies and improved outcomes and affirms the framework's usefulness as a developmental evaluation tool. Positive outcomes result from intentional efforts to build relationships, cultivate champions, and design systems and processes that support a partnership culture and contribute to each partners' success as well as the success of the partnership itself.
... In the general sense, VTs are groups of people with complementary skills who are geographically separated. With the means of online interaction in a technologymediated environment, they transcend the limits of time and distance in order to collaborate together towards a common goal (Ale, Ahmed, & Taha, 2009;Green & Roberts, 2010;Martins, Gilson, & Maynard, 2004;Zenun et al., 2007). ...
Article
El aprendizaje de inglés para fines específicos (English for Specific Purposes) ha estado ampliamente disponible a través de una variedad de herramientas en línea y plataformas de aprendizaje electrónicas. Frequentemente, los cursos de aprendizaje electrónico ofrecen una réplica electrónica de los cursos presenciales que se centran principalmente en el desarrollo del conocimiento léxico y gramatical, así como en el desarrollo de habilidades receptivas. Estudios han mostrado la importancia de los equipos virtuales (Virtual Teams) para fomentar un aprendizaje más profundo y desarrollar el pensamiento crítico del estudiante; sin embargo, pocos estudios han investigado la implementación de los equipos virtuales en el aprendizaje del inglés para fines específicos en el campo médico. El presente estudio tiene como objetivo desarrollar un enfoque conceptual para mejorar los programas de aprendizaje electrónico del inglés con fines médicos (English for Medical Purposes) centrándose principalmente en el desarrollo de las habilidades comunicativas, el pensamiento crítico, la cooperación intercultural, el aprendizaje permanente y la motivación mediante el uso de equipos virtuales. El enfoque conceptual incluye un conjunto de tareas de resolución de problemas asociados con casos médicos reales organizados completamente en un entorno completamente mediado por la tecnología. A través del aprendizaje basado en problemas (problem-based learning), se espera que los participantes y los tutores organizados en equipos virtuales alcanzarán soluciones a los casos y los problemas médicos descritos. El enfoque conceptual propuesto desarrollará el dominio del idioma extranjero para fines médicos, así como también elaborará las habilidades de trabajo en equipo, el pensamiento crítico en interacciones sociales recurrentes y la colaboración en un entorno en línea.
... In similar experiments, Birdwhistell [64] found that the ratio is 35% and 75%, but either way nonverbal communication carries a lot more information in compare to verbal communication. It is no surprise that productivity is higher when all team-members are collocated [65], for selforganizing teams doing software development it is suggested to sit in the same room in order to get the best results [6], [23], [66]. Team members with closer interaction distance are more likely to mutually communicate and achieve interconnection compared to geographically dislocated members of the team. ...
Full-text available
Article
This article aims to analyze the specific approach, from bibliographic references or bibliography to creativity or originality, for the whole procedure of modern research, emphasizing its distinctive tendencies or its characteristics in trans-, inter-, cross-and multidisciplinary research, an aspect announced from the very introductory part. After a section dedicated to the four concepts announced in an attempt to identify some similarities and also differences detailed in this article, between references and bibliography, as well as between creativity and originality, there follows a final section, whose content explores the management of sources or references and bibliography (RM), enumerating some of the freeware or paid software (RMS), so that its use can be ensured in a concrete and efficient way. A few final remarks about the future of this new type of management, specific to scientific research, conclude the article and outline several potential trends in this new narrow or niche managerial field.
Article
Celem artykułu jest porównanie efektywności zespołu projektowego IT pracującego w jednej lokalizacji z zespołem wirtualnym. Przedstawiono przegląd literatury na temat zespołów pro-jektowych kolokowanych i rozproszonych oraz parametry wydajności projektów IT, według których zostały porównane. Zaproponowano techniki usprawniające pracę zespołów rozpro-szonych pozwalające na osiągnięcie podobnej efektywności co zespoły kolokowane.
Article
Rapid technological developments make firms favor the creation of new approaches to corporate entrepreneurship and technology management. One approach, corporate-startup collaboration has reached a new level in the 21st Century and many different models currently exist as a result. However, research on how to evaluate the effects of those collaboration models is limited, and in some cases, non-existent. The purpose of this paper is to test if an analytical framework developed for measuring the results from corporate-startup co-location, also could be useful for measuring the results of other types of corporate-startup collaboration models. The framework is tested through the lens of the corporation and the collaboration unit. The empirical study includes 10 cases, representing five different corporate-startup models. The finding was that the analytical framework is useful in planning, analyzing and follow- up the results of many different corporate-startup collaboration models.
Full-text available
Article
Purpose – to develop project management terminology. Findings. This study indicates thе significant changes that occurred in working conditions in the last centuries that led to the new models' formation of employee interaction at enterprises, especially remotely, such as distributed, virtual, and dispersed project teams. Clarification of the terminology of project management indicates the meaning of the term "distributed team". This paper separated the term from several related concepts and demonstrated the benefits of integrating distributed project teams within an enterprise. Originality/Value. Paper analyzes the term, features and differences of the distributed project team from other types of remote teams. Practical implications. The terminology of remote project team can beused by project managers from a theoretical point of view. Research limitations/Future research. Future research can focus on the way to manage a distributed project team effectively. Paper type – theoretical.
Article
This study investigates the relationship between the use of physical co-location and the success of new product development projects. It is proposed that physical co-location leads to higher frequency of face-to-face meetings. The higher frequency of face-to-face meetings are proposed to lead to more successful new product development projects. Data were gathered from 82 firms. The findings indicate that physical co-location is positively related to the frequency of face-to-face meetings. The frequency of face-to-face meetings is significantly and positively correlated with a new product development project's schedule performance. There is also a borderline significance between the frequency of face-to-face meetings and a project's final product quality. The managerial implications of this study are presented.
Article
This paper presents the results of an investigation of differences between global, virtual and colocated new product development (NPD) teams. Specifically, we examined whether and how these three types of teams differed in terms of usage, challenges, and performance.A survey of PDMA members was undertaken to collect the data. Out of 103 firms participating in the survey, 54 had used or were using global teams for some of their NPD efforts.Overall, we found that the use of global teams in our respondent firms is rapidly increasing. Our respondents indicated that by the year 2001, approximately one out of every five NPD teams in their companies are likely to be global. However, our respondents also expect that their companies will be using multiple types of teams that is, global, virtual, and colocated, to develop their new products.Our findings also suggest that global teams generally face greater behavioral and project management challenges than either colocated or virtual teams. Global team performance is also lower than the performance of virtual or colocated teams. Are these challenges associated with poorer performance? In examining this question, our results suggest that greater project management challenges are associated with lower performance, for all three types of teams. Surprisingly, behavioral challenges were not associated with performance for any team type.Our results suggest that firms face different problems associated with managing each type of NPD team—global, virtual and colocated. To effectively manage each type of team may, in turn, require that companies and their managers employ different solutions to these different problems. Additionally, companies may find that the preparation they provide to their managers and team members to work in these different team environments may also need to be different. Further research is clearly needed to address these managerial implications.
Article
Co-locate or perish. In this era of cross-functional integration, are these the only choices for the departments that participate in the new product development (NPD) process? Bringing together different departments certainly seems like a good idea. After all, breaking down the walls between functions improves the quality of the inputs to NPD and thus increases the likelihood of success. On the other hand, a firm would be ill-advised to implement co-location simply because it seems like a good idea. Such a complex undertaking requires careful consideration of the costs, the benefits, and the effects of co-location.