... Schumpeter, and the case of Josiah Wedgwood (1730â1795) ..... (Cohen & Bailey, 1997, p.242f). In terms of ... Cohen, S. G., Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes ...
Enterprise 2.0 and enterprise social software A literature review
Assignment in Innovation Strategy II Winter term 2013/14
Eingereicht von:
Greiner, Maximilian; Gronau, Felix; Saxinger, Anna; Thanner, Marius; Zeltsperger, Andreas Matrikelnummern: 21581917; 21540616 ; 21534494 ; 21579372 ; 21601275 Referentin: Prof. Dr. Kathrin M. Möslein Betreuer: JULIA JONAS & UTA RENKEN Bearbeitungszeit: 11.11.2013 - 03.02.2014
Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg Lehrstuhl für Betriebswirtschaftslehre, insbes. industrielle Informationssysteme Lange Gasse 20, 90403 Nürnberg, www.wi1.uni-erlangen.de
List of contents 1.
LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................................................. 2 1.1 a.
Where to start the research ............................................................................................................................................ 2
b.
List of keywords ................................................................................................................................................................... 3
1.2
3.
LITERATURE RATING ............................................................................................................................................... 7
a.
Rating of sources (quality) ............................................................................................................................................. 7
b.
Rating of sources (content) ............................................................................................................................................ 7
1.3
2.
SEARCH STRING DEVELOPMENT.......................................................................................................................... 2
ANALYSIS BASED ON RATING ................................................................................................................................ 8
a.
State of the art ...................................................................................................................................................................... 8
b.
Future forecast/Potentials .............................................................................................................................................. 9
INDIVIDUAL GROUP-WORK-REVIEW ................................................................................................ 11 2.1
GREINER, MAXIMILIAN ....................................................................................................................................... 11
2.2
GRONAU, FELIX....................................................................................................................................................... 14
2.3
SAXINGER, ANNA .................................................................................................................................................... 17
2.4
THANNER, MARIUS ................................................................................................................................................ 19
2.5
ZELTSPERGER, ANDREAS .................................................................................................................................... 21
LIST OF REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................ 23
1
1.
Literature review
1.1
Search string development
a.
Where to start the research
Developing a scientific team assignment about the topic „Enterprise 2.0 and enterprise social software”, a source needs to be identified, where literature can be accessed. To assure traceability of the whole work, the following two pages will give an overview of the literature finding process in the team assignment. First of all, students of the FAU can access literature directly from the university’s library in Lange Gasse 20, secondly, literature can be searched online. There are two ways to get access to the data: Direct connection in the university network via Wifi or home login with the aid of a VPN-tunnel. Once logged in at www.ub.fau.de, OPACplus can be accessed. In “OPACplus”, book titles can be searched. In “Datenbanken”, articles and topics can be searched. Here, different kinds of literature are available in distinguishing databases. To understand the functionality of this system, some background information can be useful. A database is an organized collection of data. The data are typically organized to model relevant aspects of reality in a way that supports processes requiring that information. For example, modelling the availability of rooms in hotels in a way that supports finding a hotel with vacancies (From: Wikipedia, 30.12.2013). Hence a database can be used as a tool to start the research. Targeting the right aspects, information will be available easier as a lot of unimportant literature is automatically filtered out right from the beginning. For that purpose, a database called BSC – Business Source Complete was recommended to be used for the assignment. The BSC is a scholarly business database assembling a huge collection of bibliographic and full text content. According to the recommendation, information in the BSC generally is current, citable and trustworthy. Out of more than 3300 journals, 1700 are peerreviewed. Once logged in Business Source Complete suitable literature can be search via so called “Search strings”. A Search string generally consists of one or more keywords of the researched topic. Keywords can be linked by Boolean Operators to specify the researched area. Such Operators are “AND”, “OR” and “NOT”. Additionally, some filters can be applied to get literature even more specified. These filters can be “Full text”, “References available” or “Scholarly (peer-reviewed) Journals. Also the publishing date of the literature and the source type can be considered. Regarding the publishing date, a span of years can be defined, wherein the literature has been published and the type can be filtered according to “All results”, “Academic Journals” or “Magazines”.
2
The results, such as magazines, book passages, etc., can be saved in a separate online folder and exported
afterwards
or
directly
printed,
saved
or
sent
as
an
e-mail
(cf. Sitzung 4, Innovation Strategy II, Kathrin M. Möslein,…).
b.
List of keywords
For our search process we first decided to create a mind map. In order to this, every group member had to brainstorm, find ten headwords and send this ten points via Facebook to one person of our group. This person created a mind map with the tool „bubble.us“. This is an online tool for brainstorming and mind mapping processes. With this tool, you can simply create mind maps and share it with others. A mind map is a creative illustration of a specific topic. In the middle of the mind map there is a central point, in this case our topic „Enterprise 2.0 and enterprise social software“. Away from this central point you can draw several lines with other headwords on their ends which are sub items of the central topic. These sub items are again headwords for new lines and so on. More and more there is building up a map looking like a tree or a crayfish. Thus you can structure, cluster, categorize and combine coherently or related points. This is giving opportunity to visualize the brainstorming process in a clear and structured way. The created mind map gave us the opportunity to simplify our searching process. Every one of the group got one string of the mind map to pick and to search for relevant journals and articles.
3
Source: www.bubbl.us, own work
c.
Combination with operators
During the research phase, the most commonly used search operator of our team was the AND in combination with our keywords “Enterprise 2.0”, “Network”, “Innovation”, “Change” and “Management”. We also linked the keywords by the operators NOT and OR in various ways, such as the search string Enterprise 2.0 AND Network NOT Web 2.0. This was an attempt to reduce the number of unfitting or not exactly fitting journals for our topic. The research lead to the following results.
d.
Results
Some of our best sources of the research were found by the combination Change AND Management. That leads us to journals such as Academy of Management Journal and Academy of Management Review, both top rated ones. Other reliable results are articles from Long Range Planning (“Enterprise 2.0” AND Employees) or the MIS Quarterly (Enterprise AND Group). These ones will be characterized in the rating of sources. A lot of combinations of keywords and operators do not lead to useful results. For instance the search strings “Enterprise 2.0” AND “Social Business Software” or “Enterprise 2.0” AND “Community Management” only provide journals which’s ratings are not trustable enough. Due to that these ones do not play any role in our further considerations.
5
EBSCO literature review results: title:
rating:
year:
source:
When does voice lead to exit? It depends on leadership. The family innovator´s dilemma: How family influence affects the adoption of discontinuous technologies by incumbent firms. Alliances, Rivalry, and Firm Performance in Enterprise Systems Software Markets: A Social Network Approach.
A+
2013
Academy Of Management Journal
A+
2013
Academy Of Management Review
A+
2010
Information Systems Research
Web 2.0 Environmental scanning and adaptive decision support for business mergers and acquisition When does technology use enable network change in organisations? A comparative study of feature use and shared affordances
A
2012
MIS Quarterly
A
2013
Online channels and innovation: Are users being empowered and involved?
B
2011
How network managers contribute to innovation network performance.
B
2012
MIS Quarterly International Journal of Innovation Management International Journal Of Innovation Management
"Social", "Open" and Personal Experiences and Organisational Effects of Enterprise 2.0 Use Exploring the Nature and Implementation Process of User-Centric Business Models
B B
2011 2011
Long Range Planning Long Range Planning
Mitigating forecast errors by lot-sizing rules in ERP-controlled manufacturing systems
B
2012
International Journal of Production Research
Strategic Development of Business Models Implications of the Web 2.0 for Creating Value on the Internet
B
2010
Long Range Planning
Strategic positioning and organizational adaption in social enterprise subsidiaries of voluntary organizations Framework of open innovation in SMEs in an emerging economy: firm characteristics, network openness, and network information. Privacy concerns with social software in the workplace: A discussion of concepts to make enterprise 2.0 services forget.
B
2010
C
2013
Public Management Review International Journal Of Technology Management
C
2010
International Journal of Business Research
Assimilating generation Y IT new hires into USAA'S workforce: The role of an enterprise 2.0 system. Exploring new combinations in innovation and entrepreneurship: social networks, Schumpeter, and the case of Josiah Wedgwood (1730–1795)
C
2010
MIS Quarterly Executive
C
2011
Industrial & Corporate Change
Networks for Innovation - But What Networks and What Innovation? A theoretical framework for exploring the influence of national culture on Web 2.0 adoption in corporate contexts.
C
2012
C
2012
Organizational Adoption of Web 2.0 Technologies: An Empirical Analysis
C
2012
Business Impact of Web 2.0 Technologies
C
2010
Customer knowledge management and the strategies of social software
C
2011
Governing Web 2.0
C
2011
Creativity & Innovation Management Electronic Journal Of Information Systems Evaluation Journal Of Organizational Computing & Electronic Commerce Communications of the ACM Business Process Management Journal Communications of the ACM
Building Web 2.0 enterprises: A study of small and medium enterprises in the United States.
C
2013
International Small Business Journal
6
1.2
Literature rating
In order to further characterize and evaluate the articles found in the literature research, a literature rating can be done. Therefore at first the quality of the sources is determined, until the actual content of the single articles is compared.
a.
Rating of sources (quality)
German Academic Association for Business Research VHB publishes a ranking of the scientific quality of economically relevant journals, called the “VHB-Jourqual” (Hennig-Thurau & Sattler, 2011). In this rating the most important journals are characterized by single index values and finally classified in groups by the letters “A+” for the highest quality to “E” for the lowest. For the drawing up of a literature review of the ten most valuable articles the decision was taken to only use sources with a “C”-rating at the minimum. In this case two “A+”-, one “A”-, three “B”-, e.g. “Group Decision and Negotiation” and “Long Range Planning”, and four “C”-rated journals as “Industrial & Corporate Change” and “International Journal of Business Research” e.g. containing relevant articles were made out. In the following the three top rated ones will shortly be specified: The “Academy of Management Journal” by the chief editor Jason Colquitt is released six times a year by the Academy of Management. In general it deals with all sorts of topics regarding the management studies, is read by many scholars and frequently cited in magazines like “The New York Times” or “The Wall Street Journal” (Academy of Management, 2014). With an index value of 9,07 out of 10 another “A+”-rated journal represents the “Academy of Management Review” by the Academy of Management, too. Chief editor Amy Hillman quarterly publishes her “theory development journal” including research of convenient literature which is also regularly cited (Academy of Management, 2014). Furthermore with an index value of 8,84 the “A”-rated “MIS quarterly” issued by the University of Minnesota is highly esteemed concerning topics like business informatics and IT-based services. As its name implies the journal by chief editor Detmar W. Straub is released four times a year (MISQ, 2014). Besides the three presented sources the other seven sources also outline valuable scientific journals whose content is not unattended.
b.
Rating of sources (content)
Looking at the sources found, it is obvious that especially enterprise social software (ESS) is a fairly new topic. There is hardly literature to find, except one article which states that there is an ab7
sence of industry-wide ESS standards and compatibility, although it would be essential for functionality (Chellappa, 2010). There is not a single source that describes the implementation of ESS in a business nor gives examples for existing solutions. Social software itself is barely covered, there is one article that examines the influence of social networks on innovation (Hemphälä, 2012). On the other hand enterprise 2.0 is widely discussed and there is a wide range of literature which sets it in different contexts. One of the most discussed issues is change management and the implicated managerial advices to implement enterprise 2.0 in existing business structures (Leonardi, 2013) (König, Kammerlander, & Enders, 2013) (McClean, Burris, & Detert, 2013). Another main topic is the experience with shifting from classical organisation to enterprise 2.0 based organisation within companies and resulting issues, such as again change management, privacy concerns and internal resistance (Karla, 2010) (Deyner, Parry, & Flowers, 2011) (Saldanha & Krishnan, 2012). Two sources set enterprise 2.0 in context with innovation and entrepreneurship (Dodgson, 2011) (Jesperson, 2011). In direct coherence there is often web 2.0 mentioned which means the whole process of change in information technologies not only in enterprises. The impacts on business models and organisational structures are examined and practical experiences are given. There is also one article about virtual group discussions and collaborative 2.0 (Turban, Liang, & Wu, 2011) which is highly connected to our main topic.
1.3 Analysis based on rating
a.
State of the art
As the effect of firm size is continuously discussed, three authors from China made a survey with 420 innovative SMEs examining this connection. They found large support for the thesis that firm size and disposition for open innovation are positively connected. And suggest “a network framework by bridging the resource-based view and the social network perspective” (Xiaobao, 2013). Another big, yet not really researched field is the influence of family based companies on the adaption of new technologies such as ESS. König, Kammerlander and Endres (2013) state that there is a not to underestimate figure of companies that are based on family structures and do have strong economic power. Last but not least “family owners in particular, play important roles in shaping the strategic activities of firms” and therefor are important addressors for implementing new technologies in business structures. They identified that “if highly family-influenced companies make their knowledge bases heterogeneous and stretch the mental models of their members, they will transform the agency that organizational members gain from increasing family influence…into more flexible, successful adoption of discontinuous technologies” (König, Kammerlander, & Enders, 8
2013). As mentioned before there is an increasing concern about privacy. Karla for example states that the privacy concerns in enterprise 2.0 “are more likely connected to career aspects.” He gives an example of a failed project which hinders the person in charge to make the next career steps in future. In his opinion there are four solutions against data disclosure: “digital abstinence…or perfect contextualization can only contribute to a limited extend”. More innovative are the introduction of “property rights for personal data” and “an expiry date for information”. Whereupon “it becomes obvious that in particular those solutions that tend to hand over protection to the users themselves are more likely to succeed” (Karla, 2010). Another study was based on data from Telco, a large multinational telecommunication company. One result was “that their expectations regarding Enterprise2.0 use were not met” although it “claimed to be ‘social’, ‘open’ and ‘participative’ and has the potential to deliver significant business benefits”. To succeed nevertheless a “change of organisational culture is needed to overcome the barriers associated with organisational politics” (Deyner, Parry, & Flowers, 2011). Instead of enquiring the how, Leonardi (2013) focusses on the “when information technologies will bring changes to organizational advice networks”. He states that it “requires a focus on the way members of a social group actually use the features of the technology”. According to him there is a various number of “field studies” that “have shown that identical technologies can be used very differently by people working in different organizations (e.g., Edmondson et al. 2001), or even between people who work in different groups within the same organization (e.g., Boudreau and Robey 2005)”. To solve this problem and make enterprise 2.0 use more efficient he suggests “distinctions between the concepts of individualized affordance, collective affordance, and shared affordance”. Individualized affordance means that a single person can use it, but it may not available for other group members. Collective affordance “is an affordance that is collectively created by members of a group, in the aggregate, which allows the group to do something that it could not otherwise accomplish”. A shared affordance is available for all group members and does not necessarily have in contrary to collective affordances any interdependences in tasks (Leonardi, 2013).
b. Future forecast/Potentials The biggest potential is beyond controversy the knowledge of employees. Understanding their needs of speaking up can lead to huge benefits. McClean et al. (2013) state that “if leaders are not able and prepared to act on problems identified and opportunities suggested, employees may look to find employment where their input has more impact or even engage in behaviours that provoke managers to remove them” (McClean, Burris, & Detert, 2013). To protect employees and their needs it is furthermore important to take their concerns about privacy as qualified. According to 9
Karla (2010) “state regulation cannot guarantee sufficient protection of the private sphere on Enterprise 2.0 platforms” and “the endangering of the private sphere of a user will increase in the future” (Karla, 2010). Using enterprise 2.0 many commentators see only beneficial aspects, “other foresee challenges that go beyond the traditional issues associated with technology implementation, and anticipate problems that arise as a result of the challenges to existing and established cultural and organisational norms and habitual practices” (Deyner, Parry, & Flowers, 2011). “Some believe that the delicate balance, and the time, effort and trust needed on the part of both leaders and employees means that the practitioner expectations may not be satisfied” (Deyner, Parry, & Flowers, 2011). Another important field for further research and a need for action for vendors of such technologies is “the need for interoperability of Web 2.0 technologies with other existing enterprise systems in the IT infrastructure to leverage the benefits of Web 2.0 technologies”. According to them “Web 2.0 technologies become increasingly popular mechanisms for generating and sharing information” (Saldanha & Krishnan, 2012). Regarding family influence König et al. (2013) suggest that “future studies could also increase the generalizability of our theory by studying the effects of the personalities and dispositions of individual key decision makers in an organization”. According to them so far few studies examined “the importance of different forms of governance in general and family influence in particular in the context of discontinuous change” (König, Kammerlander, & Enders, 2013). Leonardi (2013) again states that: “Getting people to simply use a new technology is not enough to bring about network change in organizations. How they use the technology matters.” That is the reason why it is according to him so important to know when technology changes organizational networks and not only how (Leonardi, 2013). As social networking changed through web 2.0 and enterprise 2.0 there is a need for new types of entrepreneurs and a chance for new innovations since “new combinations occur through entrepreneurship supported by social networks” (Dodgson, 2011). Past research into innovation was focussed on lead users only, but Jespersen (2011) suggests “it would be interesting to learn more about the contribution to innovation by other user types than lead users as it seems that pioneering users hold unrealized innovation value for companies to benefit from”(Jesperson, 2011). In conclusion “some believe that the extension of Web 2.0 to Web 3.0 (semantic web, personalization, intelligent search, automated decision support, etc.) will increase the usefulness of social software” (Turban, Liang, & Wu, 2011).
10
2.
Individual group-work-review
2.1
Greiner, Maximilian
The following reflection about the team process particularly deals with the application of a team process model, the shared technology to collaborate and the organization of tasks within the whole literature review as a group work. Our team consisted of five students, three from the technical field and two rather from a economic study path. Therefore the main focus was on the establishment of a team by connecting individuals to agree on a certain issue though viewing it from different perspectives. The collaboration started in the team finding phase which Tuckman (1965, p.388f) describes in his team process model as the "Forming". Since not every team member knew each other before a getting to know happened where different expectations and task behaviors were identified. Furthermore we agreed to act as a virtual team as well as a conventional team. On the one hand we wanted to save travel expenses by flexibly communicating with each other from home but on the other hand we wanted to avoid misunderstandings in important decisions by making them face-to-face. In our first discussion meeting we came to the conclusion to start a Facebook group for a simple information exchange. Moreover every team member was encouraged to a brainstorming on purpose to create a mind map on the website bubbl.us for a better overview about the topic. In another meeting different sectors of the mind map were discussed and distributed. Thereby several disagreements in the understanding of certain terms arised which were nevertheless clarified and eliminated. For each sector one person conducted a literature review to prevent the research process from discovering only the same sources. Furthermore we determined some boundary conditions to prerestrict our research and ascertain only the ten most significant scientific papers: 1. Valid sources are journals with a minimum ranking of C according to the VHB JOURQUAL (Hennig-Thurau & Sattler, 2011) 2. Articles published in the year 2010 or later 3. Keywords and search string have to be related to the topic There was the consideration to use a special form of literature technology like Mendeley or Zotero but problems occurred within the application. We were not able to use the freeware of one of them as a group of five persons. Therefore we decided to create a common Dropbox to collect the scientific papers and included Excel sheets as reference databases. At this time we reached the "Performing" phase. (Tuckman, 1965, p.395) Every team member knew what to do and had its own special tasks which were carried out parallel. A timetable was drawn up, appointments were concluded and upcoming issues were openly discussed. 11
After the individual literature research had been accomplished we came together once more in a big meeting. Everybody shared its results of the literature review, the scientific papers were discussed in terms of the quality of the journals and the content of each paper. Subsequently we came to a final decision about the ten most significant articles and created a categorizing table. Based on this substructure a disposition of the whole group work was designed and separated into equal parts regarding the amount of paper work. Relatively fast we came to an arrangement to not organize a product-producing meeting for the simple reason that the efficiency of individually working on each part alone at home would clearly exceed the collaboration performance. So we decided to further remove ambiguity virtually via Facebook and also consented to hold a Skype session in order to check the progress. In this stage of the group work miscellaneous proplems occurred. Skype sessions were not attended by every team member, the disposition was brought into question again and appointments or deadlines were not adhered to. And even though the results of each meeting were documented, registered and published similar questions came up repeatedly. But after this difficult period the individual parts were finally finished. After all five parts were uploaded into the Dropbox, everybody was able to reveal weak spots in another colleague's part. Therefore the entire text was reviewed, examined, corrected and the team member with the maximum experience in formatting implemented the specifications. In a final meeting the literature review was checked for correctness and completeness for the last time and the assertion under oath was subscribed by every team member. Now, according to Tuckman (1965, p.384), we were located in the "Adjourning" phase. The task was completed, the team process shortly reflected and at the end the group was dissolved. Conclusively our team could be described as a combination of a project and a self-managing work team and the mix of a conventional and a virtual team: Regarding the performance the cooperation was time-limited due to the fact that members of various courses of studies came together for a single assignment. We had a common assignment defined by supervisors but were able to organize our tasks by ourselves. Moreover the productivity and quality of our work was improved through the collaboration of several team members with different skills. (Cohen & Bailey, 1997, p.242f) In terms of communication we found a appropriate compromise by between the importance of discussing difficult questions face-to-face as a conventional team and saving travel and time expenses by using Web 2.0 applications for interaction and information exchange as a virtual team. (Hertel, Geister & Konradt, 2005, p.76f)
12
Sources: Cohen, S. G., Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23, 3, 239-290 Hennig-Thurau, T., Sattler H. (2011). VHB-Jourqual 2.1. German Academic Association for Business
Research
(VHB).
Zugriff
am
23.01.2014
unter
http://vhbonline.org/service/jourqual/vhb-jourqual-21-2011/ Hertel, G., Geister, S., Konradt, U. (2005). Managing virtual teams: A review of current empirical research. Human Resource Management Review, 15, 69-95 Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63, 6, 384-399
13
2.2
Gronau, Felix
First step in a team building process is according to Tuckman (1965, p.388f) the forming where first rules and goals are set. Therefor we decided to use Mendeley in the first place. Soon we recognised that using Mendeley is only free of charge for upto two members, otherwise you have to pay a fee of 49$ a month (Mendeley Ltd., 2014). So we decided to meet personally again, therefor we assigned a facebook group and added the five members of our team to find a suitable date for the first meeting. The first meeting was on Decmber the 2nd at the building of the Friedrich-AlexanderUniversität (Ludwig-Erhard-Gebäude Findelgasse 7/9 90402 Nürnberg). In this phase of storming (Tuckmann, 1965) I did not experience any fightings for power roles, we seem to be an equal and harmonic team from the beginning. The leader role shifted from Anna to Andreas to Felix throughout the process and we arrived in the phase of norming (Tuckmann, 1965).
We determined the first criteria for the research: -
literature no older than 2010
-
rated A to C in the VHB Jourqual
-
found on ESBCO
-
documentation of the search string development
In addition we scheduled the first task until the next meeting on December the 11th: every group member has to find three to four souces fitting our criteria. We installed a shared dropbox so that everyone could upload the sources. It was a bit tricky until everyone had access on every part of our work. Solution brought the consultation of the dropbox support center (Dropbox, Inc., 2013).
The next step was preparing an Excel sheet where every member integrates his sources including title, name, rating, year, source and search string. An outline was developed and the next meeting was scheduled for December the 16th.
At this meeting we determined the individual tasks: who has to cover which topic and how many pages he has to write. Due to hollidays we scheduled a skype conference for Decmber 29th and the next meeting for January 8th.
So far the work process developed pretty good, we used facebook for communication asides the meetings and dropbox to share the files. One problem that occurred was the hassle finding appropiate dates for meetings as three team members are not living in Nuremberg and we do have different schedules because of our different fields of study. To solve this problem we decided to 14
shift our meetings from offline to online: Next time we tried a skype conference. Working with skype worked perfectly, one member opened the conversation and added the others to create a group conversation. One group member was determined to write down the topics discussed and the decisions made and post it on facebook in our group.
As it worked so good and processing new decisions was even easier and more efficient, we decided to stick to skype conferences only instead of offline meetings. Few problems had to be discussed at the first online meeting, one member had problems finding appropiate literature to cover his topic. The other group members were able to contribute. Next conference was scheduled for January 5th and this was at the same time a rough deadline for finishing the works.
The next conference had only two attendees, the rest of the group lost sight of the date. A new date January 8th was scheduled.
All team members took part and it was decided that one member creates a top ten list of sources. In addition every finished work has to be moved to the folder “fertige Einzelarbeiten” in our dropbox. The lecture from December 16th has to be reviewed by a team member because it gives important information on the assignment, one member was determined. January 13th was scheduled for the next conference. The date was also set as a deadline for finalizing the individual works.
Few things had to be discussed at this meeting. We decided that we include the top ten list of our sources in the continous text and attach the whole list of our sources as an Excel sheet. Furthermore every group member was asked to read and review the individual works. On January 16th there was another conference scheduled for giving feedback to every member regarding his work.
At this meeting feedback was given for the individual parts. Every part seems to be coherent and apart from small mistakes in grammar there was nothing to be changed. A final skype conference was scheduled for January 21st and a last meeting for finalizing the paper and signing the declaration on oath. One member was determined for the final formatting work and hand the assignment over. The last stage of adjourning (Tuckmann, 1965) was not yet reached as we stay a team for the assignment in Innovation Strategy I.
15
Sources: Mendeley Ltd. (2014). Team Plan. Abgerufen am 16. 01 2014 von https://www.mendeley.com/upgrade/team/ Dropbox, Inc. (2013). Wie gebe ich einen Ordner frei? Abgerufen am 11. 12 2013 von https://www.dropbox.com/help/19/de Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63, 6, 384-399
16
2.3
Saxinger, Anna
The first desicion about our team startet in the second lecture where we had to do group work. This was three people of our current team (Marius Thanner, Andreas Zeltsperger und Anna Saxinger) who set side by side in this lecture. After this group work we decided to work together. Two weeks later, Marius and Andreas suggested another member, Max Greiner, who was quickly accepted and integrated in our team. After the fifth lecture we get the last member, Felix Gronau, by our lecturer. I would define our group of people as a team, because there is no leadership role. Also it is more an multual accountability than and individual one. Everyone has to solve the same task and we had to work together in this assignment, so it’s a collective work-product. But there is also an induvidual assignment, like this text here. Nevertheless in the following we can see further more manifastations of a defined team. First we founded a group on facebook, where we could communicate, in our opinion, in simplest and quicklest way. This is a little bit like a virtual team but we still have had real „face-to-face“ meetings. First it was hard to find a date for such a meeting, where everyone of the five members could participate. One problem was, that Andreas, Marius and Max live in Erlangen and Felix and me (Anna) in Nürnberg. So primarily we met the followed „lecture-monday“ between lecture of IS 1 and IS 2, because anyway everyone participated on this lecture. This was the first „forming“ of our team like shown in „Tuckman’s Team Process Modell“ (cf. Sitzung 6, WS 2012/14, Innovation Strategy II, Jonas, Möslein & Renken). At this little meeting, we first decided to try out mendeley. After all members signed in, we quickly realised, that this was not the perfect tool for our assignment. In Mendeley you can only found groups with at most three members. In our next meeting, this gave us the idea to use Dropbox as our current literature store. The advantage of Dropbox is, that we can store literature not alone but rather can share all documents which were necessary for our group work. So Dropbox was our local store for every kind of document, for excample also meeting reports and other information about the work progress. I would define this meeting as an open-ended discussion because there was not really anything done. Till our next meeting, we determined to creat a mindmap, as mentioned above. Felix Gronau suggested to create this mindmap with the tool bubble.us to visualize our ideas and cogitations. As also already mentioned above in the team part, until a deadline, everbody had to send ten ideas, suggestions or thoughts to Felix, so that he could creat our mindmap. The mindmap helped us greatly to do the literature search. Each gat a string out of the map to search for relevant articles.
17
After we had finished this first searching, we met again. First we have had a view about our discovered literature. Quickly we realizied, that this was not the perfect way to search after convenient journals in a team. There were so much equivalent articles discovered. Therefore Marius designed an excel table, where everybody’s literature was listed. Multiple articles were marked. Then we realized, that we had to discribe our searching-string. Luckily everybody could remember their own string. Moreover we had to register the author, the source, the ranking and the relevant pages of the journal. For that reason our next excercise was, to refill this gaps in our table. Additonally we determined to describe the rough intent of every single article and also noted this in the table. This was because of an easier overview about all articles and to lighten the later research process. At the following meeting we designed an outline for our task. Therefore we used the lecture notes, not to miss a required task. Then we looked at our articles and at our mindmap. Due to this, it was not difficult to design this outline. After we drafted the outline, we sent it to our lecturer to make sure that we were on a right track. After we got the nod, we allocated a section to everybody and set, that till our next meeting, there had to be written about this section. This is where you can see the „performing step“ in Tuckman’s Team Process Modell. The next meeting was a virtual meeting via skype. We made an inquiry of all the invidiual progress and gave recommendations and support. Furthermore we determined that till our next skype meeting every task had to be finished or rather had to be nearly finished. This job was accomplished very well, so that the next step could have been to read all over the complete text of the group assignment. After this, there was only one thing left. The signment for our affidavid, which we signed on the day of the lecture test. I would like to say that almost all of our meetings were a mixture of decision-making meeting, discussion meeting and product-producing-meetings. Because in rather every meeting there was anything done and we it was real work together. The virutal meetings gave us some advantages especially taken into account, that we do not live in the same city. So we could save the travel costs. In generally our team was harmonious and motivated in the same way for what reason we fitted together perfectly. To be sure, there were only two meetings in which all members could participate, which makes me a little bit angry in every of them. So you could see the „forming step“ of Tuckman’s Team Process Modell. But mostly there were four out of five members present, so that we could perform very well. Due to our meeting reports everyone got informed about what was discussed, processed, enacted and what to do until our next meeting or deadline, which shows more or less the „Norming Step“ of Tuckman’s Team Process Modell. At last it was a great team and I was a little bit sad to do the „adjourning step“.
18
2.4
Thanner, Marius
To start the reflection about team process it is helpful to characterize our team. It consists of five team members, who all participate in the courses Innovation Strategy I and II. So fortunately our team is the same in both courses. That simplifies the organization and creation of the assignments a lot. The names of the members are Anna Saxinger, Felix Gronau, Maximilian Greiner, Andreas Zeltsperger and Marius Thanner. Our courses of studies are very different, that leads to an high diversity in the group. The range goes from business education, over economic sciences to International Production Engineering and Management, which is an combination of engineering and business studies.
Before the first meeting we found a Facebook group to have a platform for communication and organizational points. By using that platform our group was able to find a fitting date for the first group meeting in the university building Findelgasse 7/9 at December the 2nd. In the beginning our organization form was to have personnel meetings every week before the IS lectures. Everybody had to provide the outcomes until the next meeting. The results of the first meeting were not only positive. For instance the attempt to use the program Mendeley, which was recommended to us in the lecture IS II, did not work the way we planned. It is not possible to utilize the software freely for more than three users. Due to that our group decided to use Dropbox instead. By hindsight it was a really positive decision. The organization of folders in that software worked quiet well. Fortunately there were a lot of positive results after the first meeting. We organized the research tasks for our team. The demand for everybody was to find three or four articles, which should fulfill the following criteria: 1.) The rating of the sources must not be lower than C according to the list of VHB Jourqual. 2.) The date of publication should be quite actual. We agreed about the range 2010 until now. 3.) Everybody has the duty to document the search history including keywords and operators.
The task was to find fitting documents and save them into the intended Dropbox folder until the next meeting on December the 11th.
Before the meeting a team member created an Excel-Sheet to collect all the sources and have an overview about the found articles. Everyone had to fill in his or her outcomes into the sheet.
19
The second meeting was a very productive one. Each group member properly fulfilled the task to find fitting articles. As all members had an overview about the topic “Enterprise 2.0 and enterprise social software”, we decided to create a vague structure for our assignment. Afterwards we divided the themes roughly. So each one had to deepen his or her focus and search for interesting and important information concerning the topic. The next meeting was set on December the 16th.
At the last meeting before Christmas we edited our structure to the end form, because every sub point did make sense and enough information was given. Now each team member did get an exact theme to write about. At the next meeting, the first Skype conference on December the 29th everybody should report about the progress in his or her topic. The next personnel meeting was planned for January the 8th. Unfortunately the participation in the first Skype conference was not that good, only three of five members took part in it. Nevertheless some decisions were made. For example concerning the content, the date for the next Skype conference and the date until everyone should have finished the part for the group assignment. After the conference one member posts the protocol of the meeting in the Facebook group. After a fewer visited Skype conferences all team members joined the third one. Again topics concerning the contend were discussed and Monday the 13th of January was set as a deadline for the group part. All progresses were documented in our Facebook group. From now on we had most of our meetings online, because three of our group members did not live in Nuremberg and it turned out that Skype meetings were much more efficient than the personnel ones. Everybody provided good ideas and the further progress was organized in a harmonious atmosphere. So we changed our group organization from a personnel present team to a virtual team. Apart from some difficulties at the beginning it turned out that this was the better way of working for our team. In conclusion the method of working in a virtual team gave us, despite of some disadvantages, the opportunity to work effectively together from different locations. Additionally everyone had more freedom to decide when and how to work on the multiple tasks. It was not always easy for us to find fitting dates for physical meetings with different courses of studies. Therefore in this case our decision to work as a virtual team on this assignment was absolutely the right one.
20
2.5
Zeltsperger, Andreas
For the following reflection about the team process, Tuckman’s Team Process Model (Tuckmann, 1965) is used as a basic pattern.
Forming At the beginning of the lecture, I knew I wanted to build a team with my studying colleague Marius Thanner, as we already had some experience in working together due to earlier study-related work. Max Greiner also joined the lecture, again another studying colleague, as we found out later on, so we were three persons trusting each other. During the search for our fourth and fifth member, we faced that being a problem, because we knew nobody else of the course, so we were afraid, that we cannot fully trust the others. However, we had to find somebody for our team and take the risk. We should be taught, that our doubts were groundless. Our fourth member was Anna Saxinger, who we met during the first and second lecture. Due to both side’s communicativeness, sympathy was built from the very beginning and she was included in our team. The last member of the team was Felix Gronau, who was appointed to be our fifth member from the organizational team. Our team then consisted of three students with a technical background (International Production Engineering and Management) and two who were studying at the WISO (“Berufspädagogik Wirtschaft” and “Wirtschaftsinformatik”). We started pretty early with the actual teamwork. Our target was to fulfill the guideline given in the lecture, which says, that the literature review should be finished by Christmas. So we had our first group meeting two or three weeks after the beginning of the lecture in October. During that meeting we discussed, how the teamwork has to be done and the task given to us has to be fulfilled. Our idea was to start with a brainstorming, categorize the results and thereby find out how the topic can be separated and researched. The coordination of meetings and work proceeding should be done via a facebook group, that was founded specifically for that purpose.
Storming In the following week, everybody of the team made a brainstorming about our topic. We fixed the target, that everybody has to write down at least ten thoughts related to it. Our topic was “Enterprise 2.0 and enterprise social software”.
Norming One week later, we looked at our results. We had a mix of fifty words and fixed, that they should be organized in different categories to get a better overview. To make the result clearly visible and 21
structured, we decided to create a mind map. In the following week we used bubble.us (https://bubbl.us/) to do the same. This was a very nice tool to visualize and structure our results, so that we could make out five categories that could be researched on. At the next meeting, every team member got one category to prepare a literature review. Within one week, everybody should have found ten sources related to his topic. This was the first time, that some of us faced problems with their designated work. This was due to the fact, that not every category, even if generally interesting for the topic, was not researched to the same extent, so that some of the team could not find appropriate sources. In that phase, it was helpful, that we decided earlier to save the search string, so that we could specifically search in a fruitful direction now. During the following meeting, the extent of research of the topic of each member was discussed and new categories were defined, now based on actual scientific material available. The week after that, appropriate sources were available and the actual literature review was ready to be worked on.
Performing Therefore, we tried to use the recommended software Mendeley to organize our literature and team working process. Downloading it was okay, but when we tried to work with it and when we invited each other to join the group, so that we would be able to do real teamwork on a digital platform, we recognized, that Mendeley does not allow you to form groups of more than three people free of cost. As it did not serve our purpose to pay money, we looked for a way to exchange information and work together on the same documents free of cost. We started to use Dropbox (https://www.dropbox.com/) as everyone of the group already had some experience with that tool and it served our purpose. Only issue was, that we could not work on documents simultaneously. We solved that problem by posting on facebook, when a document was worked on, so that no data loss could arise.
Adjourning Our basic team-working pattern, to meet, work one week alone and meet again, was successful. However, problems came into the picture, because three of us always had to come from Erlangen to Nuremberg to attend the lecture and meet with the others. This is not always just a question of motivation. Four of our team members are working on a part time job in addition to their studies. To synchronize everybody and find a date, where the meetings could take place, was not always very easy. In the last few weeks we only met on Sundays, as nobody had to work there, this was the easiest of communication. Also we did not meet physically then, but only via Skype.
22
3.
List of References
References Academy of Management. (2014). Current Issue. Abgerufen am 12. 01 2014 von http://amj.aom.org/ Chellappa, R. K. (2010). Alliances, Rivalry, and Firm Performance in Enterprise Systems Software Markets: A Social Network Approach. Information Systems Research(21(4)). Deyner, D., Parry, E., & Flowers, P. (2011). “Social”, “Open” and “Participative”? Exploring Personal Experiences and Organisational Effects of Enterprise2.0 Use. Long Range Planning(44 (5/6)), S. 375-396 (22). Dodgson, M. (2011). Exploring new combinations in innovation and entrepreneurship: social networks, Schumpeter, and the case of Josiah Wedgwood (1730–1795). Industrial & Corporate Change(20(4)), S. 1119-1151. Hemphälä, J. &. (2012). Networks for Innovation - But What Networks and What Innovation? Creativity & Innovation Management(21(1)), S. 3-16. Jesperson, K. R. (2011). ONLINE CHANNELS AND INNOVATION: ARE USERS BEING EMPOWERED AND INVOLVED? International Journal of Innovation Management(Vol. 15, No. 6), S. 1141-1159 (18). Karla, J. (2010). PRIVACY CONCERNS WITH SOCIAL SOFTWARE IN THE WORKPLACE: A DISCUSSION OF CONCEPTS TO MAKE ENTERPRISE 2.0 SERVICES FORGET. International Journal of Business Research, S. 101-109 (9). König, A., Kammerlander, N., & Enders, A. (2013). THE FAMILY INNOVATOR'S DILEMMA: HOW FAMILY INFLUENCE AFFECTS THE ADOPTION OF DISCONTINUOUS TECHNOLOGIES BY INCUMBENT FIRMS. Academy Of Management Review(38(3)), S. 418-441. Leonardi, P. M. (2013). When does technology use enable network change in organisations? A comparative study of feature use and shared affordances. MIS Quarterly(37 (3)), S. 749-775 (27). Leonardi, P. M. (2013). When does technology use enable network change in organisations? A comparative study of feature use and shared affordances. MIS Quarterly(37 (3)), S. 749-775 (27). McClean, E. J., Burris, E. R., & Detert, J. R. (2013). WHEN DOES VOICE LEAD TO EXIT? IT DEPENDS ON LEADERSHIP. Academy Of Management Journal(56(2)), S. 525-548. MISQ. (2014). About MIS Quarterly. Abgerufen am 12. 01 2014 von http://www.misq.org/about/ Saldanha, T. V., & Krishnan, M. S. (2012). Organizational Adoption of Web 2.0 Technologies: An Empirical Analysis. Journal Of Organizational Computing & Electronic Commerce(22(4)), S. 301-333. Thorsen, H.-T., & Henrik, S. (2011). VHB-Jourqual 2.1. German Academic Association for Business Research (VHB). Abgerufen am 12. 01 2014 von http://vhbonline.org/service/jourqual/vhb-jourqual-21-2011/ Turban, E., Liang, T.-P., & Wu, S. (2011). A Framework for Adopting Collaboration 2.0 Tools for Virtual Group Decision Making. Group Decition & Negotation(20 (2)), S. 137-154 (18). Xiaobao, P. W. (2013). Framework of open innovation in SMEs in an emerging economy: firm characteristics, network openness, and network information. International Journal Of Technology Management(62(2-4)), S. 223-250.
23
