JOYAS RETRATADAS

The data regarding diversity, cultural background, tools, and meeting frequency are described together, as there are only two online teams. Thus, differences can easily be described in one section and yet keep the analyses results transparent. As with the other BHT teams, Berlin’s multi-cultural background resulted in a team composition with a high diversity and different cultural backgrounds (see Table 61 and Table 62).

Table 61 - Diversity of the BHT Teams 2010

Teams BHT 2010 Gender Diversity Cultural Diversity

BHT-Team-2010-O-1 1 Fem.; 3 Male

2 Germans; 2 Germans (Polish) Medium cultural diversity BHT-Team-2010-O-2 2 Fem.; 3

Male

3 Germans; 1 German (Turkish), 1 German (Greek)

Medium cultural diversity BHT-Team-2010-1 3 Fem.; 5

Male

5 Germans; 1 Moroccan; 1 Vietnamese;

1 German (Turkish)

Medium cultural diversity BHT-Team-2010-2 3 Fem.; 5

Male

2 Germans; 1 German (Dutch); 1 German (Polish); 1 German (Tunisia); 1 German (Lebanon): 1 German (French); 1 German (Turkish)

7 Turkish/German (Turkish); 1 Indian Low cultural diversity BHT-Team-2010-4 2 Fem.; 5

Male

2 Germans; 3 Germans (Turkish); 1 South-American, 1 Arabian,

High cultural diversity BHT-Team-2010-5 6 Fem.; 2

Male

1 Chinese, 3 Germans, 1 French, 3 Turkish High cultural diversity BHT-Team-2010-6 1 Fem.; 7

Male

8 Germans Low cultural diversity

Table 62 - Team and Work Characteristics BHT Teams 2010

Teams Size Team Characteristics Collaborative Work Characteristics BHT-Team-2010-O-1 4 High level of technical expertise

High level of trust

Average to good task awareness Good task management BHT-Team-2010-O-2 5 Medium level of technical expertise

High level of trust

Good task awareness Average task management

University

of Cape

Town

PhD Thesis Peter Weimann 175

Teams Size Team Characteristics Collaborative Work Characteristics BHT-Team-20010-1 8 Good level of technical expertise

High level of trust

Average task awareness Good task management BHT-Team-2010-2 8 High level of expertise

High level of trust

Good task awareness Good task management BHT-Team-2010-3 8 Low level of technical expertise

Low level of trust grew to medium level of trust

Poor task awareness Poor task management BHT-Team-2010-4 7 Medium level of technical expertise

Medium to low level of trust

Good task awareness Poor task management BHT-Team-2010-5 8 Medium level technical expertise

Low level of trust

Average task awareness Average task management BHT-Team-2010-6 8 High level technical expertise

High level of trust

Good task awareness Good task management

Based on their course results, the teams from BHT were categorized into high, medium, and low performance teams. The marking of the BHT 2010 teams was done by the lecturer and the industrial sponsor prior to the interviews and collection of the survey results. Based on their course results, the teams from BHT were categorized into high, medium, and low performance teams. The marking of the BHT-2010-O teams was done by the lecturer prior to the interviews and the collection of the survey results.

Table 63 - Performance Level BHT Teams 2010 Teams BHT 2010 Performance level

BHT-Team-2010-O-1 High

The teams were subdivided into two sub-teams and this might explain the broad spectrum of answers in the questionnaires. While one sub-team met quite often (two to three time per week), the other rarely met (but at least once per month). The questionnaire made this subdivision into two sub-teams transparent regarding the frequency of the face-to-face meetings as related to the usage patterns of the tools.

University

of Cape

Town

PhD Thesis Peter Weimann 176

Table 64 – Face-to-Face Meeting Frequency BHT Teams 2010

Teams Frequency of Face-to-Face Meetings BHT-Team-2010-O-1 Less than once per week

BHT-Team-2010-O-2 Less than once per month

BHT-Team-2010-1 From At least once per month to Two to three times per week BHT-Team-2010-2 From At least once per month to At least once per week per week BHT-Team-2010-3 From At least once per week to Two to three times per week BHT-Team-2010-4 From At least once per week to Two to three times per week BHT-Team-2010-5 From Less than once per week to At least once per week BHT-Team-2010-6 From At least once per month to Two to three times per week

I used the same survey to ask for the occurrence of face-to-face meetings and the usage rate of specific communication tools (see Table 65) and project management related software (see Table 66) during their six-month project. These results should help to estimate how often the different teams used a specific class of tools. It was even more important to evaluate which tools they preferred to select and in what combination they applied the tools (tool combination).

Table 65 - Use of Communication Technology BHT Teams 2010-O and BHT Teams 2010 Team Netmeeting or

University

of Cape

Town

PhD Thesis Peter Weimann 177

Team Netmeeting or Table 66 - Use of PM Software BHT Teams 2010-O and BHT Teams 2010

Teams Web-Based Task

tracking

Web-based time sheet management

Team Calendar

BHT-Team-2010-O-1 Never Never Never

BHT-Team-2010-O-2 At least once a week At least once a week Never BHT-Team-2010-1 From At least once a

month to Two to three

BHT-Team-2010-2 From At least once a week to Two to three times per week

From Never to Two to three times per week

From Never to Less than once a week

BHT-Team-2010-3 Never From At least once a month to At least once a week

From At least once a month to Daily

BHT-Team-2010-4 From At least once a month to Two to three times per week

From At least once a month to Less than once a week

From Never to At least once a week

BHT-Team-2010-5 From Never to Two to three times per week

From Never to Daily From Never to Daily BHT-Team-2010-6 From At Least once a

month to Daily

From At least once a week to Daily

From Never to Daily

The BHT-2010-teams selected different systems for support in different project management tasks. BHT-Team-2010-1 regularly used, in one sub-team, “Google Docs”. BHT-Team-2010-2 pointed out that they used their integrated project management tool “Projectplace” from Two to three times

University

of Cape

Town

PhD Thesis Peter Weimann 178

per week to Daily. BHT-Team-2010-5 selected “Dropbox”³³ for the data exchange and BHT-Team-2010-6 used “MS Office Groove”³⁴ from Two to three times a week to Daily for their teamwork on the result documents and protocols.

All BHT-2010 team members had good Internet availability and bandwidth. Regarding the question of Internet access, two students pointed out that they also used their cellphones to work via the Internet on project relevant issues, as can be seen in the following quotation:

But I also have, for example, Internet access via my mobile phone, so that I could access my emails all the time and I always knew when someone sent something to me (BHT-2010-Team-1).