Teorías prácticas profesionales del profesor

In this research respondents agreed that communicating the reasons for any decision is important, and on reflection most members in this research were satisfied with the resulting task allocations, because the team leaders used the output as a basis for a face-to-face discussion with team members. The sort of team building activity inherent in discussions between the team leader and team members leads to task and social cohesion, but according to Bahli and Buyukkurt (2005), task cohesion is more important than social cohesion in group performance, so task allocation with each member knowing the reasons for the allocation is all important. The sort of activity involved in design is said to be enhanced by social processes (Detienne 2006), so converging activities are better supported by face to face discussion.

A few respondents said that including ground rules did get the team thinking about their means of communication in general, and how they work with each other, indeed some team leaders reported improved team spirit, with less conflict experienced during their project. Socialising is an important part of the “forming” stage of the project, in which communication is key.

Communication face to face, in addition to the automated allocation of tasks and agreement to ground rules, seemed to play a large part in achieving some consensus between all of the team members:

“Another source to look at. Socialising is important. Something else to think about and help making decisions” TL, T1, 2003

In this research a combination of using the system output with face to face communication seemed to have been the most effective. One team leader suggested that team members would not trust the output from the system without some discussion:

“If tasks are allocated without having to meet the team members, then may not be aware of any ‘man machine’ argument taking place” FG, 2002

In the study by Barcus and Montibeller (2006) on virtual teams in organizations, they refer to the man-machine conflict, and noted a marked preference of decision makers to rely on their gut feeling, over the analytical approach, as exemplified through using the output from this system. So too, some of these teams disregarded the output from the system in favour of their previous experience in teams.

Another study, with virtual business teams, found that use of some tools helps to generate team trust, and that team leaders are usually the ones who determine the extent and type of communication tools used within the team (Thomas and Bostrum 2008). The team leaders in this case decided how to communicate the output to team members, whether to base a contract on the ground rules output, and how this would be applied.

Project management is important to prevent failure of the project, through failing to meet the stated objectives, and involves steering the project through a series of different activities (Lauden and Lauden 2006:555). Student teams need to apply their knowledge and skills, with the aid of technology tools to achieve a successful outcome, within certain constraints. They are working with incomplete knowledge about each other, skills that need to be developed and there is a strict time constraint on its completion. The students in this case study use Microsoft Project as an aid, usually producing a Gantt chart showing stages of progress, and to communicate which tasks are assigned to different team members. The software system of this research is designed to help gain information upon which to base a project plan so can be a precursor to using a project management tool. The teams of this case study have a designated leader and deputy leader; it is the team leader who drives the project, needing to co-ordinate the activities according to the available skills, and communicate this to members, as noted by Beranek et al. (2005). It is notable that many of the comments on project management are from the team leaders themselves; few team members were involved in project management in the initial stages of their projects.

The following comment reinforces the authority the team leader has over the team members as project manager, but shows an appreciation that an agent system could aid communication, through implementing an hierarchical team structure:

“Areas spot on. To form the sub teams, so layer of authority and give out orders, better idea of what’s going on” TL, T5, 2005

The system was mainly used as a starting point for discussion of allocated tasks, very few team members consulted the database of other members’ skill levels and preferences after the initial allocations had been made, because team members relied on their team leader to communicate this information. The output of ground rules suggestions were often communicated through drawing up a contract, and there was limited discussion of the ground rules, but improved team spirit was reported by some teams. The next section discusses the impact of the outputs from the system on trust within the team, and the part played by the culture of these teams in using the output is given.