EL VII DUQUE Y SU MECENAZGO LITERARIO
WEDDING ABSTRACT
5.4.2.1 Coding Results and Changes to Categories, Concepts, Properties and Dimensions
The BHT 2009 teams from those at UCT differ in several ways: the teams are larger; they have a different kind of project task; they are forced to select their own tools to support their project work; the project duration is shorter; they are subdivided into two sub-teams, and they have no industrial sponsor. In the interviews regarding their project many answers point to the same concepts as was the case with the UCT Teams, but there are also a number of new concepts coming up. In total there are now about 170 concepts grouped into the very same four categories TEAM, PROJECT, INTERNET, and TOOL. In the 4 categories, there are now 25 sub-categories. Sub-categories relate to a main category and answer questions such as who, where, why, when, and how about that category (Corbin & Strauss, 2008).
Category TOOL
The BHT Teams 2009 had to select their own tools to support them in their project work.
There was no specific tool required by the course convenor. This explains a couple of new concepts arising in this category. In their interviews the teams explained the role these tools played in their project work: how the tools have contributed to their performance and how they personally experienced the tool. Hence these selected tools contributed to new concepts. Especially interesting is the new concept CENTRAL PLATFORM. Every BHT team 2009 selected a tool that had a central role in
University
of Cape
Town
PhD Thesis Peter Weimann 156
their exchange of information, data, minutes or tasks and of discussion of project relevant issues. The following three quotations make the importance of the central platform transparent:
We started with Google Groups and I found the free file sharing great, and then also the automatic email notification after changes in the documents. This helped in the team’s cooperation and made work easier (BHT-Team-2009-2).
[Question: How was the trust in the team? Did the tools affect the trust?] With the use of tools you create at least a baseline for trust, because at least everybody has the information about what is going on in the project. If everybody is going to perform without such a tool, some members may not know what is going on (BHT-Team-2009-3).
For the UCT team, this central platform in most cases was Vula; therefore the need for a central platform was not obvious in the analysis of the data. The importance of a central tool came up in the interviews with the BHT teams. These interviews made it clear that a central platform is an important part of the project setting for both UCT and BHT teams, as the following words show:
[Question: What would have happened if we would have split up the team to work in Cape Town and Johannesburg (with the customer)?] Could we have kept using Vula?
[Yes!] Then it would have worked out fine (UCT-Team-2009-1).
There are also reasons why the BHT-Learning-Platform Moodle has not taken the same central role for the BHT-Teams. In Moodle, group specific up- and download features are missing and there is no appropriate user account management.
The concepts added to this category are described in the following table (see Table 51).
Table 51 - Additional Concepts in the Category TOOL
Concept/Property Dimensions Central Platform Yes, No
Change Yes, No
Document Sharing
Communication Synchronous, Asynchronous User Account Management Yes, No
Google Docs Google Calendar
University
of Cape
Town
PhD Thesis Peter Weimann 157
Concept/Property Dimensions Google Groups
Shared Document Handling Web-based Task Management
All specific tools (Chat-tool, Email, Forum, MS Project, Google Groups, Google Calendar, Google Docs, Phone, SMS, Web-based Task Management, Version Control, Voice over IP and Vula) have the following properties in common (see Table 52):
Table 52 - Common Properties of the Different Specific TOOLS
Property Dimension
Communication related Usage Yes, No Information, Data and Source Code
Sharing Related Usage
Yes, No
Shared Document Handling Yes, No Project Management Related Usage Ye, No
Usage Frequency Never, Daily, Two to three times a week, At least once a week, At least once a month
Wiki Yes, No
In addition, arising from the teams’ selection of their tools, concepts have been summarized under sub-category ACCEPTANCE:this reflects team members’ motivation or frustration as well as the maturity of tools or personal preferences. This sub-category also includes the concepts USABILITY, RELIABILITY,and SPEED (see Table 53).
Table 53 - Sub-category ACCEPTANCE
Sub-category Concept/Property Dimensions
Acceptance Frustration Low, Medium, High
Maturity level Low, Medium, High
Motivation Low, Medium, High
Personal Preferences Professionalism
Reliability Low, Medium, High
Response Time
Self-Explicatory Yes, No
University
of Cape
Town
PhD Thesis Peter Weimann 158
Sub-category Concept/Property Dimensions Speed
Usability Low, Medium, High
User-friendliness Low, Medium, High
Category INTERNET
There are only a few references to category INTERNET and no additional concept has been added. This can be explained by the BHT Teams working within an environment (Germany) with good Internet infrastructure.
Category TEAM
New concepts in the Category TEAM are listed in the next table (see Table 54).
Table 54 - New Concepts in the Category TEAM
Concept/Property Dimensions
Common Ground Personal Performance Performance
Sub Teams Team Contracts Team Goal Team Building Category PROJECT
Most of the new concepts (including those of the sub-categories) are coded into the category PROJECT (see Table 55).
Table 55 - Additional Concepts in the Category PROJECT
The following sub-categories are changed and extended. The sub-categories PROJECT ACTIVITY
and TASK MANAGEMENT have now the following concepts, properties and dimensions (see Table 56).
Concept/Property Dimensions
Responsible Person Duration
Complexity
University
of Cape
Town
PhD Thesis Peter Weimann 159
Table 56 - TOOL Sub-categories PROJECT ACTIVITY and TASK MANAGEMENT
Sub-category Concepts/Property Dimensions
Project Activity Code Exchange Conflict Solving
Discussion of Critical Issues Document Exchange
Face-To-Face Meetings Formal, Informal Face-to-Face Working
Information Exchange Knowledge Exchange Learning
Problem Solving
Scheduling of Face-to-Face Meetings Set-Up a Team Contract
Task Management Deadline Deliverables
Non-Distributable work item Task Assignment
Task Complexity Task Planning Task Tracking Task Status Task Transparency Time Sheet Management Work Break Down Structure
5.4.2.2 Refined Relationships - UCT Teams 2008, 2009 and BHT 2009
The following section extends some of the relationships from the last collecting cycle and defines new relationships derived from the analysis of the interviews of the BHT 2009 teams. Again I used drawings to visualize the relationships and added selected quotations from the interviews to underpin them.
University
of Cape
Town
PhD Thesis Peter Weimann 160