In globally distributed projects, members have to deal with spatial boundaries (different cities) and temporal boundaries (different work hours) because other members are often in cities within and across time zones. For pairs of members with spatial boundaries and no temporal boundaries (those in different cities with overlapping work hours), synchronous communication technologies such as the telephone, instant messaging (TM), and Web conferencing provide a means for real-time interaction. However, for pairs of members with spatial and temporal boundaries (those in different cities with nonoverlapping work hours), asynchronous communication technologies, such as e-mail, provide a way to interact intermittently Using survey data from 675 project members (representing 5,674 pairs of members) across 108 projects in a multinational semiconductor firm, we develop and empirically test a relational model of coordination delay In our model, the likelihood of delay for pairs of members is a function of the spatial and temporal boundaries that separate them, as well as the communication technologies they use to coordinate their work. As expected, greater use of synchronous web conferencing reduces coordination delay for pairs of members in different cities with overlapping work hours relative to pairs of members with nonoverlapping work hours. Unexpectedly, greater use of asynchronous e-mail does not reduce coordination delay for pairs of members in different cities with nonoverlapping work hours, but rather reduces coordination delay for those with overlapping work hours. We discuss the implications of our findings that temporal boundaries are more difficult to cross with communication technologies than spatial boundaries.
As organizations operate across greater distances, scholars are increasingly interested in the work of geographically dispersed teams and the technologies that they use to communicate and coordinate their work. However, research has generally not specified the dimensions (spatial, temporal, or configurational) and degrees of team dispersion, nor has it articulated the theoretical connections between those dimensions and important team outcomes. This research essay expands upon previous field and lab studies of dispersed teamwork by presenting a new conceptualization of dispersion as a continuous, multidimensional construct, in which each dimension is theoretically linked with different outcomes. We illustrate this new conceptualization with a series of examples from real dispersed teams and present implications for research regarding technology use.
Numerous methodological issues arise when studying teams that span multiple boundaries. The main purpose of this paper is to raise awareness about the challenges of conducting field research on teams in global firms. Based on field research across multiple firms (software development, product development, financial services, and high technology), we outline five types of boundaries that we encountered in our field research (geographical, functional, temporal, identity, and organizational) and discuss methodological issues in distinguishing the effects of one boundary where multiple boundaries exist. We suggest that it is important to: (1) appropriately measure the boundary of interest to the study, (2) assess and control for other influential boundaries within and across teams, and (3) distinguish the effects of each boundary on each team outcome of interest. Only through careful attention to methodology can we properly assess the effects of team boundaries and appreciate their research and practical implications for designing and using information systems to support collaborative work.