Abstract—Understanding the communication process in product development organizations has been recognized as a key element to improve product development performance. It is particularly interesting to study information exchanges in geographically distributed product development teams because of the highly interdependent nature of design organizations. Additionally, the use of electronic-based communication media has changed how development teams communicate. By studying the way product development teams use various communication media (face-to-face, telephone, and e-mail), we assess how the process of exchanging technical information is influenced by factors such as geographic dispersion, organizational bonds, and degree of team interdependence. We present a model that allows us to formulate several hypotheses about how these factors influence both communication frequency and media choice. We use empirical evidence from the telecommunications industry to test our hypotheses. We confirm previous results about the obstructive influence of distance on technical communication. However, we found that such negative effects may be mitigated by other factors such as the recognizing of highly interdependent team members, the existence of strong organizational bonds, and the use of electronic communication media. Index Terms—Electronic-based communication, geographically distributed product development, media use, organizational bonds, team interdependence, technical communication. I.

Dispersed, cross-functional development teams—a particular type of virtual team—confront a wide range of knowledge-based challenges in their dispersed work. Encompassing diverse sources of task-relevant knowledge, such teams present rich opportunities for exchanging and combining knowledge—activities at the heart of an organization’s ability to innovate (Grant 1996; Schumpeter 1934). Yet empirical studies from distinct research streams indicate that both knowledge diversity and geographic separation also challenge the effective exchange and ability to leverage knowledge. This study explored how such teams interact to overcome the barriers and reap the benefits of their “built-in ” knowledge diversity. In particular, we sought to understand (1) how teams use various collaborative technologies at their disposal to share knowledge and (2) whether shared—or disparate—expectations around the use of those technologies influenced knowledge sharing practices. In-depth, multi-method field research of dispersed new product development teams in a multinational company forms the empirical basis of this work.

Mobile information systems (IS) hold great promise to support organizational processes. Clear guidelines, however, of how to design effective mobile IS in support of organizational processes have not been developed. Based on earlier research that emphasizes the importance of fit between organizational tasks and technology and that develops fit profiles for specific task−technology combinations, this paper develops a task−technology fit (TTF) profile for mobile IS to support managerial tasks. We suggest a three−way match between dimensions of managerial tasks, mobile IS, and the mobile use context. We find that use situations characterized by high distraction and poor quality of network connection are particularly challenging for the design of mobile IS, and that the user interface requires particular attention. The proposed conceptual model of task−technology fit provides guidelines for the design of effective mobile IS and for future research studies.

For almost a century, the Harvard Business School has used case studies as the basis for experiential learning in both MBA and Executive Education courses. This article presents a case on the school itself: its learning objectives and environment and the challenges of integrating technology into programs that have traditionally relied upon face-to-face, highly interactive classes. The authors summarize findings from interviews with faculty about the use of various types of technology and describe in detail two courses that are a hybrid of online and in-class sessions. The research highlights both the opportunities for technology-enhanced education at HBS and the challenges to conducting such programs.

This paper discusses psychological safety and distinguishes it from the related construct of interpersonal trust. Trust is the expectation that others ' future actions will be favorable to one's interests; psychological safety refers to a climate in which people are comfortable being (and expressing) themselves. Although both constructs involve a willingness to be vulnerable to others ' actions, they are conceptually and theoretically distinct. In particular, psychological safety is centrally tied to learning behavior, while trust lowers transactions costs and reduces the need to monitor behavior. This paper proposes a model of antecedents and consequences of psychological safety in work teams and emphasizes the centrality of psychological safety for learning behavior. Drawing from field research in a variety of organizational settings, I describe different approaches to studying and measuring psychological safety in teams. I conclude with implications of this work including limitations of psychological safety in practice and suggestions areas for future research. 1 There's much greater openness on this team—it's intangible.- Marketing member, new product development team, manufacturing company [In this team] people are put down for being different...- Accountant, publications team, manufacturing company Mistakes [in this unit] are serious, because of the toxicity of the drugs—so you’re never afraid to tell the nurse manager.- Nurse, Team A, Memorial Hospital [The team leader] treats you as guilty if you make a mistake... I was called into her office and made to feel like a two-year old... You get put on trial...- Nurse, Team B, Memorial Hospital