Knowledge work productivity in distributed teams

Bosch‐Sijtsema, Petra M.; Ruohomäki, Virpi; Vartiainen, Matti

doi:10.1108/13673270910997178

Cited by 103 publications

(108 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

103

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition to the workplace, other factors may have an impact on knowledge workers' productivity, such as technology, leadership, team spirit, self-management practices and the workers intrinsic motivation ( Van der Voordt, 2003;Vartiainen, 2007;Bosch-Sijtsema et al, 2009). It is impossible to include all possible impact factors in one study.…”

Section: Independent Variables In This Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

The impact of workplaces and self-management practices on the productivity of knowledge workers

Palvalin

Voordt

Jylhä

2017

JFM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This paper aims to explore the impact of workplaces, which support concentration and communication, and self-management practices on individual and team productivity. The underlying hypothesis is that the impact of these variables on the two levels of productivity (individual and team) and the two dimensions of productivity (quantity and quality) may be different. Design/methodology/approach The paper is based on survey data from 998 Finnish knowledge workers. Factor analysis was used to test the dimensions of the conceptual model. Insights into the impact of workplaces for concentration and communications and self-management practices on productivity were obtained by multiple-regression analyses. Findings The findings show that self-management practices have a larger impact on the quality and quantity of individual output and the quantity of team output than workplaces for communication and concentration. Improving self-management skills is key to increase all productivity dimensions and in particular the quality of the output. Practical implications This paper contributes to a better understanding of the impact of workplace characteristics and self-management practices on different levels and dimensions of productivity. It offers valuable lessons for managers, as they are able to recognize how productivity can be approached from several perspectives. Different dimensions can be enhanced using different workplace settings. For example, the quantitative output of employees can be increased by adding more space for concentration, while quantitative team productivity can be increased by providing appropriate space for collaboration. An important means to enhance a higher quality of the output is to improve self-management skills. The findings also suggest that collaboration between different disciplines – corporate management, corporate real estate management, human resource management and IT – is needed to optimize individual and team productivity. Originality/value This paper explores work environment experiences of Finnish office workers and connects both workplace appraisal and work practices to perceived productivity support, on individual level and team level. It also adds insights into the different impacts on quantity and quality.

show abstract

Section: Independent Variables In This Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

The impact of workplaces and self-management practices on the productivity of knowledge workers

Palvalin

Voordt

Jylhä

2017

JFM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…publications have conceptualized the implications of virtual team environments on knowledge work (Assudani, 2009;Bosch-Sijtsema et al, 2009) no major review analyzing and integrating the diverse empirical studies on knowledge processes within virtual teams has been published to date. As the enabling of knowledge processes is one of the core motivations of forming virtual teams we address this gap by reviewing the existing research in the context of virtual teams.…”

Section: Research On Knowledge Processes In Virtual Teamsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Knowledge processes in virtual teams: consolidating the evidence

Fang

Kwok

Schröeder

2012

Behaviour & Information Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Alavi and Leidner (2001) (i.e., creation, transferring, storage/retrieval and application) INTRODUCTIONThe globalization of business competition and a growing need for customer responsiveness in the past few decades have caused an increasing number of firms to undergo dramatic organizational changes (Miles & Snow, 1992). Organizations transform to networks by flattening organizational structure and establishing inter-organizational links (Davidow & Malone, 1992). This change has promoted contemporary firms to coordinate activities that span geographical and organizational boundaries (Townsend et al., 1998). It has also increased the need for utilizing decentralized, specialized knowledge and expertise (Alavi & Tiwana, 2002;Boutellier, 1998;Penrose, 1959). Virtual teams have emerged to allow organizations to overcome these geographical boundaries and to address the emerging knowledge needs (Powell et al., 2004;Workman, 2007).Virtual teams constitute essential structures in today's organizations (Siebdrat et al., 2009). An internal virtual workforce survey of twelve hundred employees in Intel Corporationreveals that approximately 70 percent of the Intel workforce collaborates with people in different time zones without meeting face to face (Intel Corporation, 2004). Accenture, an international IT systems consulting firm, rests its viability on the performance of "customerintimate" project teams coordinated among dispersed sites (Accenture., 2005 ). Virtual teams form an essential part of today's organizations with important implications for teamwork and collaboration.A crucial aspect of virtual teams is the knowledge process among the team members. In fact, the main driver for building virtual teams is the prospect of integrating the dispersed knowledge and expertise of the team members (Alavi & Tiwana, 2002;Boutellier, 1998).However, while virtual teams are established to support knowledge integration it has been recognized that the virtual collaboration environment inhibits the team's knowledge 3 processes. The geographic dispersion and the reliance on information technologies hinder team members to create, transfer, store and apply knowledge (Alavi & Tiwana, 2002;Cramton, 2001;Griffith et al., 2003). Studies in innovation management (Ahuja, 2000) and organizational learning (Walsh, 1995) highlight how the distributed nature of cognition and the diversity of knowledge in team settings creates challenges for team learning and knowledge processes. These challenges become even more pronounced when the interaction among teams are virtual (Alavi & Tiwana, 2002).Virtual teams are in a "catch-22" situation: the opportunities of integrating dispersed knowledge promotes the emergence of virtual teams; at the same time virtual teams are arguably less capable of identifying and leveraging the collective knowledge of their members than traditional teams are. Recognizing this paradox is highly important for virtual team members as effective knowledge exchange and utilization is not achieved until the team has id...

show abstract

“…In this context, the individual productivity is not as important as team productivity. In fact, the evaluation of individual productivity may not affect the productivity of other knowledge workers [Bosch-Sijtsema et al, 2009]. These assumptions provide a motivation to study productivity of teams', not individuals.…”

Section: Agile Team Productivitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A Knowledge Worker (KW) has been described in the literature as a high-level employee who applies theoretical and analytical knowledge, acquired via formal education and experience, to develop new products or services [Drucker, 1994]. The product of a knowledge worker is typically intangible: knowledge is the addition of meaning, context and relationships to data or information [Bosch-Sijtsema et al, 2009].…”

Section: Productivity Definitionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The product of a KW is typically intangible: knowledge is the addition of meaning, context, and relationships to data or information [Bosch-Sijtsema et al, 2009]. Even if there are no universally accepted methods to measure KW productivity, it has been studied through its dimensions, including a KW's perception of his productivity, customer satisfaction, quantity of work, innovation, creativity, timeliness, product quality, absenteeism, profitability, and team efficiency and effectiveness [Ramírez and Nembhard, 2004].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Productivity of agile teams: an empirical evaluation of factors and monitoring processes

Melo¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Lower cost and shorter time-to-market expectations are the major drivers of software productivity improvements. To manage productivity effectively, it is important to identify the most relevant difficulties and develop strategies to cope with them. Agile methods, including Extreme Programming and Scrum, have evolved as approaches to simplify software development process, potentially leading to better productivity. They aim to shorten development time and handle the inevitable changes resulting from market dynamics.Although the industry has extensively adopted agile methods, little research has empirically examined the software development agility construct regarding its dimensions, determinants, and effects on software development performance. Understanding this construct could help determine where to concentrate management efforts (and related financial resources) from a practical standpoint and where to focus research efforts from an academic perspective.Considerable research has been directed at identifying factors that have a significant impact on software development productivity. In general, the studied productivity factors were related to product, personnel, project, process, or organizational issues. Continuously evaluating productivity factors is important, as factors may change under new software engineering practices. However, little research has investigated the major factors influencing agile team productivity.The goal of this thesis was to explore productivity definitions, factors, and monitoring in agile teams and to improve the practice based on the collected evidence and gained knowledge. This thesis presents five novel contributions: C1 -Empirical verification of the importance of productivity for companies adopting agile methods and its perceived benefits; C2 -Rationale for the definition of productivity in the context of agile methods; C3 -Empirical verification of agile team productivity factors; C4 -A conceptual framework for agile team productivity factors and their impact; C5 -A team productivity monitoring process considering adaptability and an evaluation of the usefulness of agile team productivity metrics.

show abstract

Knowledge work productivity in distributed teams

Cited by 103 publications

References 42 publications

The impact of workplaces and self-management practices on the productivity of knowledge workers

The impact of workplaces and self-management practices on the productivity of knowledge workers

Knowledge processes in virtual teams: consolidating the evidence

Productivity of agile teams: an empirical evaluation of factors and monitoring processes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About