Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
increase in distance programs at higher educational institutions has also been cause for
the development of more group-oriented learning modalities for its remote participants
(Harasim, 2000). Educational institutions are moving more agressively into 3-D virtual
environments in order to create more social environments and to teach community
involvment, creative thinking and social interaction skills (Ritzema & Harris, 2008)
(Parsons, Stockdale, Bowles, & Kamble, 2008) (Bainbridge, 2007).
2.
Introduction of social context and peer influence into goal-setting
. Technology guides
the movement from a “sense of belonging to a sense of purpose” helping to orchestrate
“communities of knowledgeable” among peers (Gerben, 2009). This collaboration of
peers is viewed as relevant in discourse, evaluation and community building and
follows directly in line with a ripple-effect when circular organizational system values
function (Watts, 2007) (Browning, Saetre, Stephens, & Sornes, 2008).
3.
Recognition of ownership and authority for decision-making
. Organizational
structures tend to be flattened and decentralized in virtual collaborative settings such
that all partners within a virtual team look to be included within the decision-making or
else the technology can be perceived negatively (Cascio, August 2000). Ownership and
trust need to be based on a shared understanding for effective decision-making to
occur. It has also been noted that the flexibility and demands for more employee
empowerment can place the owners of these types of collaborative toolsets as the
enabler (Peters, 2007)(Fain, Kline, Vukasinovic, & Duhovnik, 2010).
4.
Method of Cost Containment
. Less overhead for companies to use teleworkers and a
growing movement towards environmentally green ventures (less travel/gas
consumption) has aided in the exponential growth in the use of virtual collaborative
spaces. The advantages of this type of collaboration are more often clear offsets to such
factors as maintenance and setup costs, trust and cultural differences, and the dynamic
nature of virtual teams/organizations (Goel & Prokopec, March 2009) (Avats, 2010).
5.
Knowledge and Creativity Capitalization.
Increased interactions between departments
and subunits otherwise unconnected could share information more freely in a virtual
environment. A non-linear activity of information sharing across multiple departments ,
units and subunits sparks new ideas and initatives. This process will provide an
heightening of overall knowledge access, management and organizational creativity
(Bergiel, Bergiel, & Balsmeier, 2008)(Fain, Kline, Vukasinovic, & Duhovnik, 2010).
Regardless of specialization, lateral unit activity increases knowledge and creativity
which can optimize assessments with regard to user needs or customer satisfaction.
Particularly in new product development (NPD), this capitalization serves to
implement successfully innovative ideas going fromembeddedto embodied knowledge
(Madhaven & Grover, 1998)(Badrinarayanan, 2008) as well as shifting that creativity to
situated knowledge where dispersed teams share (Sole & Edmunson, 2002).
Behind the growth in the use of virtual collaborative environments are drivers such as the
global distribution of both human and computing resources. Recent approaches to
outsourcing, a distinct focus shift from time to results, and a mobile to global movement are
all business forces that are fueling an increased interest in and use of these virtual
workspaces.
1.
Approaches to outsourcing
. In this current era of outsourcing, the core ideology centers
on “finding core competencies and outsource the rest” (known as the Bill Gates
philosophy)(Crossman & Lee-Kelley, 2004)(Vashistha & Vashistha, 2006). Necessary
