Internationalization

Internationalization 1. Preface This paper has been written for the course Societal Developments Institutions. The topic of this paper, knowledge sharing in virtual teams, is primarily focused on the Internationalization aspect of this course. But also aspects from other courses of the Master of Organizational Sciences (Msc OS), like Complexity within Organizations and Organizational Dynamics, are represented in this paper. Virtual teams and especially the knowledge sharing within such a team seemed very interesting to me. The broad link of this topic with the different courses of Msc OS was attractive to me, but also the growth in popularity of using this kind of the teams in nowadays business motivated me into doing this research. I hope this inquiry about knowledge sharing in virtual teams can facilitate virtual teams in knowing the challenges ahead, and help virtual team managers and -designers in benefit better from the advantages of virtual teams. Furthermore, after reading this paper I hope you, as reader, are (even more) inspired about the possibilities of working with virtual teams in ‘the collaboration economy. Key concepts: Internationalization, globalization, virtual teams, knowledge sharing. 2. Introduction In todays society people have adopted media technologies, such as e-mail, chat, and videoconferencing, that enable them to ‘go virtual and communicate with other individuals from all over the world. Currently, there are 1,733,993,741 internet users around the world (Internet world Stats, 2009). Because of those technological innovations it is possible to collaborate with other people regardless there geographical position. The last couple of years, next to those technological developments, two other mechanisms developed in a historical way globalization and demography. Tapscott and Williams argued in their book Wikinomics (2006): The three mechanisms: technology, globalization and demography are influencing the world towards a new economy, the collaboration economy. Emerging globalization demands and facilitates new forms of economic collaboration and provides all businesses who are seeking for unique talents to fix their problems with talented employees from over the whole world. And demographically there is also a shift. A new generation, bigger than the babyboom generation, the internet generation will dominate the 21ste century because of her demographical presence. This generation has grown up with internet and will utilize this technology in an efficient way and will change the status-quo in a radical way. Doing business and the way of collaborating in business will also change. Old monolithic multinationals which creates added value in a closed hieratically structure is quickly outdated. Successful businesses nowadays need open and porous bo rders and should compete using knowledge, resources and capacities outside the organization. Even heavy, capital intensive production industries will not be an exception. Also Ilinitch, DAveni Lewin (1996) addressed those changes; by opening their special issue on new organizational forms and hyper-competitive environments by nothing that, organizations are facing strong forces of change: globalization, demographic shifts, advances in technology, and the demassification of society. In response to those changes and shifts organizational forms are proliferating. One such new organizational form is found in virtual teams, sometimes called distributed teams (Saunders Ahuja, 2006). Virtual teams are, in summary, technology mediated groups of people in various places around the world that work together on common tasks (Hardin, Fuller, and Davidson, 2007). Currently those virtual teams are widely embraced by modern businesses. A motive of this popularity is that they can help organizations adapt better. They may provide firms with advantages such as increased utilization of employee-time, round-the-clock workforce availability, and the opportunity to leverage knowledge and expertise around the world (Paul, Seetharaman, Samarah Mykytyn, 2004). Virtual teams bring organizations also some other advantage: reduced travel expenses, Co2 emissions, and less working time wasted on traveling (Lu, Watson-Manheim, House, Matzkevich, 2005). This increasing use of virtual teams is also noted by the Wall Street Journal. It reports that more than half of companies with more than 5000 employees use virtual teams (de Lisser, 1999) Also, a survey by the Gartner group found that more than 60% of professional employees work in virtual teams (Kanawattanachai Yoo, 2002). The growth in popularity of virtual teams inquires a summary of how to manage such a team in an efficient an effective way. Questions about what are important factors in managing successful global virtual teams needed to be answered. In this inquiry I will address those success factors in case of knowledge sharing in global virtual teams by answering the question: â€Å"What are success factors of knowledge sharing in virtual teams, with team members across the whole globe?†. This enquiry is focused on knowledge sharing in virtual teams because those dispersed teams in particular need to share knowledge, experience and insights in order to function successfully (Rosen, Furst, Blackburn, 2007). The aim of this paper is to facilitate virtual team managers and -designers with a summary of virtual team success factors in knowledge sharing by which they can benefit better from the advantages of virtual teams. Firstly I will address the theoretical background of virtual teams. In this theoretical background I will explain the organizational need for virtual teams, give a definition of virtual teams, deal with the key feature of virtual teams; the absence of face-to-face contact and I will give an insight in the knowledge sharing mechanism. In the second part of this paper I will focus on answering the research question based on earlier researches and literature references. This will be followed by a brief conclusion and recommendations of those success factors in knowledge sharing to facilitate virtual team managers and -designers with a practical summary. 3. Literature References Allen, T., (1977). Managing the flow of technology. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press. Armstrong,D.L., Cole, P. (1995). Managing distances and differences in geographically distributed work groups. In Jackson, S. Runderman, M. (Eds) Diversity in Work Teams: Research Paradigms for a Changing Workplace, p. 497-529. Bailey, D.E., Kurland, N.B., (2002). A review of telework research: findings, new directions an lessons for the study of modern work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, vol. 23, p. 383-400. Bell, B.S., Kozlowski, S.W.J., (2002). A typology of virtual teams: Implications for effective leadership. Group Organization Management, 27, p. 14-49. Boutellier, R., Gassmann, O., Macho, H., Roux, M., (1998). Management of dispersed product development teams: the role of information technologies. RD Management, 28(1), p. 13-25. Conrath, D., (1973). Communication environment and its relationship to organizational structure. Manage Science ,20, p. 586-603. Cummings, L.L., Bromiley, P., (1996). The organizational trust inventory (OTI): Development and validation. Trust in organizations: frontiers of theory and research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. de Lisser, E. (1999). Update on small business: Firms with virtual environments appeal to workers. Wall Street Journal, B2 Devine, D.J., clayton, L.D., Philips, J.L., Dunford, B.B., Melner,S.B. (1999). Team in organizations: Prevalence, charecteristics, and effectiveness. Small Group Research, 30, p. 678-711. Duarte, D.L. Snyder, N.T. (2006). Mastering Virtual Teams: Strategies, Tools and Techniques That Succeed. John Wiley and Sons, New York. Fiol, C.M., OConner, E.J. (2005). Identification in Face-to-Face, Hybrid, and Pure Virtual Teams: Untangling the Contradictions. Organizational Science, vol. 16, p. 19-32. Gibson C.B., Cohen, S.G. (2003). Virtual teams that work: Creating conditions for virtual team effectiveness. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. Griffith, T.L., Neale, M.A. (2001). Information processing in traditional, hybrid, and virtual teams: from nascent knowledge to transactive memory. Research in organizational behaviour, vol. 23, p. 379-421. Griffith, T.L., Sawyer, J.E., Neale, M.A. (2003). Virtualness and knowledge in teams: managing the love triangle of organizations, individuals, and information technology. MIS Quarterly, vol. 27, p. 265-287. Gudykunst, W.B., (1997). Cultural variability in communication. Communication Research, 24, p. 327-348. Gullahorn, J., (1952). Distance and friendship as factors in the gross interaction matrix. Sociometry, 15, p. 123- 34. Hardin, A.M., Fuller, M.A., Davidson, R.M. (2007). I know I can, but can we?: Culture and efficacy beliefs in global virtual teams. Small Group Research, 38, 130-155. Hertel, G., Geiser, S., Konradt, U. (2005). Managing virtual teams: A review of current emperical research. Human Resource Management Review, 15, 69-95. Hertel, G., Konradt, U., Lehman, K., (2004). Staffing virtual teams: Development and validation of a web-based tool for selection and placement of virtual team members. Manuscript in preparation. Hollingshead, A.B., (1998). Retrieval processes in transactive memory systems. Journal of personality and social psychology, 74, p. 659-671. Ilinitch, A.Y., DAveni, R.A., Lewin A.y. (1996). New Organizational Forms and Strategies for managing in Hypercompetitive Environments. Organization Science, vol.7, p. 211-220. Internet World Stats (2009). Top 20 countries with highest number of internet users. Retrieved November 25th, 2009 from: http://www.internetworldstats.com/ Jarvenpaa, S., Leidner, D., (1999). Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Organization Science, 10, p. 791-15. Jehn, K.A., (1995). A multimethode examination of the benefits and determents of intragroup conflict. Administrative science quarterly, 40, p. 256-282. Kristof, A.L., Brown, K.G., Sims, H.P.Jr., Smith, K.A. (1995). The virtual team: A case study and inductive model. Advances in interdisciplinary studies of work teams, 2, 229-253. Lu, M., Watson-Manheim, M.,B., House, C.H., Matzkevich, T. (2005). Does distance matter? Bridging the discontinuities in distributed organizations. HICSS 2005. Levitt, B., March, J., (1988). Organizational Learning. Annual review of sociology, 14, p. 319-340 Kanawattanachai P., Yoo, Y. (2002). Dynamic nature of trust in virtual teams. Journal of strategic Infromation Systems, 11, 187-213. Kaywoth, T., Leidner, D., (2000). The global virtual manager: a prescription for success. European management journal, 18, p. 183-194. Kiesler, S., Sproull, L. (1992). Group decision making and communication technology. Organizational Behavior Human Decision Processes, 52, 96-123. Konradt, U., Schmook, R., Mà ¤lecke, M., (2000). Impacts of telework on individuals, organizations and families: a critical review. In C.L. Cooper and I.T. Robertson (Ed), International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, vol. 15, p. 63-99, Wiley, Chichester. Kozlowski, S.W.J., Ilgen, D.R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work group and teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7(3), 77-124 Lipnack, J., Stamps, J., (1997). Virtual teams. Reaching across space, time and organizations with technology. John Wiley and Sons, New York. Majchrzak, a., Rice, R., King, n., Malhotra, A., Ba, S., (2000). Computer-mediated inter-organizational knowledge-sharing: insights from a virtual team innovating using a collaborative tool. Information Resource Management Journal, 13, p. 44-53. Martins, L.L., Gilson, L.L. Maynard M.T., (2004). Virtual Teams: What do we know and where do we go from here? Journal of Management, vol. 30, p. 805-835. Maznevski, M., Chudoba, K., (2001). Bridging space over time: global virtual team dynamics and effectiveness. Organizational Science, 13, p. 473-492. McDonough E., Kahn, K., Barczak, G. (2001). An investigation of the use of global virtual, and collocated new product development teams. The journal of product innovation management, 18, p. 110-120. Monge, P., Kirste, K., (1980). Measuring proximity in human organization. Social psychology quarterly, 43, p. 110- 5. Meyerson, D., Weick, K.E., Kramer, R.M., (1996). Swift trust and temporary groups. Trust in organizations: frontiers of theory and research, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, p. 166-195. Owens, D., Mannix, E.A., Neale, M.A., (1998). Strategic formation of groups: Issues in task performance and team member selection. Research on managing groups and teams: composition, 1, p. 1419-165. Powell, A., Piccoli, G., Ives, B., (2004). Virtual teams: a review of current literature and directions for future research. The data base for advances in information systems, 35, p.6-36. Robbins, S.P., Judge, T.A., (2007). Organizational Behavior. Upper Saddle River, NY: Prentice Hall. Rosen, B., Furst, S., Blackburn, R., (2007). Overcoming barriers to knowledge sharing in virtual teams. Organizational Dynamics, 36, p. 259-273. Sanders, C.S., Ahuja, M.K., (2006). Are all distributed teams the same? Differentiating Between Temporary And Ongoing Distributed Teams. Small Group Research, vol. 37, p.662-700. Sarker, S., Lau, F., and Sahay, S., (2001). Using an adapted grounded theory approach for inductive theory building about virtual team development. Database for advances in information systems, 32, 38-56. Scott, W.R. (1981). Organizations: Rational, natural and open systems, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Sproull, L., Kiesler, S., (1986). Reducing social context cues: electronic mail in organizational communication. Manage Science, 32, p.1492- 512. Stasser, G., Titus, W., (1985). Pooling of unshared information in group decision making: biased information sampling during discussion. Journal of personality and social psychology, 48, p. 1467-1478. Suchan, J., Hayzak, G., (2001). The communication characteristics of virtual teams: a case study. IEEE transactions on professional communication, 44, p. 174-186. Townsend, A.M., DeMarie, S.M. Hendrickson, A.R. (1998). Virtual teams: Technology and the workplace of the future. Academy of Management Executive, vol. 12, p. 17-29 Tapscott, D. Williams, A.D. (2006). Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything. Penguin Group, New York. Thompson, L.L. (2004). Making the team: A Guide for managers. New Jersey: Pearson Education. Warkentin, M.E., Beranek, P.M., (1999). Training to improve virtual team communication. Information system journal, vol. 9. Wegner, D.M., (1987). Transactive Memory: A contemporary analysis of the group mind. Theories of group behavior, New York: Springer-Verlag.

McDonalds Essay -- essays research papers

McDonald's is the world's leading food service retailer with more than 30,000 restaurants in 119 countries serving 47 million customers each day. It is one of the worlds most well-known brands and holds a leading share in the globally branded quick service restaurant segment of the informal eating-out market in every country they do business. McDonald’s marketing strategy is having friendly people serving the right product with affordable prices. McDonalds’s showcase their restaurants as clean, comfortable and welcoming, and create promotions that resonate with key consumer groups. They want to stay in tune with customer’s lifestyle. Suzanne Drolet is manager of a McDonald’s restaurant in a city with many seniors. To attract seniors to McDonalds’s Suzanne has a $1.99 breakfast special every fourth Monday. This was a resounding success. Between 100-150 seniors were attracted initially by that monthly breakfast special for people aged 55 and older. Now that many seniors come for breakfast daily and surely revenue has increased. Most are gone before the lunch crowds at 11:30, however, some stay until at 3 p.m. McDonald’s strengths are an established fast food restaurant with a friendly caring staff. Suzanne’s employees embrace that philosophy by being friendly and caring to the seniors. Another plus is the seniors are friendly and neat and someone that isn’t a regular would perceive the place as a friendly place. Further they are neater than most customers and clean up their...

Prioritizing Projects at Dd Williamson

Introduction Case Analysis D. D. Williamson created a list of 78 projects which needed to be prioritized, organized, and selected. The company used a four step method to rate each project: 1) Establish criteria for prioritizing projects. 2) Weigh each criterion. 3) Refine the list of projects. 4) Rate each project on each criterion and total ratings. To give team members control over the ranking of projects, each member was asked to write three different criteria on three Post-it Notes. These Post-it Notes were divided into similar item groups and each group was named. This process established the important criteria for selection. The criteria were used to determine how well each project would fit into the strategy of the company (Kloppenborg, 2009, p. 35). To weigh each criteria group, the team members assigned each group a score. More important groups were given a score of 10, less important groups a score of 6 to 9, the least important groups a score of 5 or less. Criteria that were scored at 6 or higher were used to assess each project and criteria of 5 or lower were reserved for further ranking later in the process. Criteria are weighted in order to help place the projects in order of importance as they are aligned with the goals of the company (Kloppenborg, 2009, p. 36). After the criteria were established and weighted, the list of projects was refined. Projects that were listed out as individual projects but were really one project happening concurrently in different locations were discovered and the list was changed to reflect this, reducing the number of projects on the list. There were also projects added to the list that had not been formally identified as projects earlier. The criteria helped to determine which projects could initially be considered projects and which projects could be removed from the list. The projects on the list were reviewed to discover which were considered most important and rank the rest. The projects considered most important were immediately placed on the top of the importance list, and the rest went through the scoring process to be ranked in order from most to least important. The projects were than rated according to the criteria that had been established earlier. Each project was rated to see how well it fit into each individual criterion, one at a time. All team members participated in the scoring, and agreement needed to be reached on how to score each project before scores were recorded. If project scoring required a lengthy decision, that was set aside for a different time so that team members could get through this process fairly quickly (Kloppenborg, 2009, p. 36-37). This entire process was recorded into a spreadsheet. How the projects were ranked, how each project was scored on each criterion and the calculation of the weighted scores were all recorded on the spreadsheet. The team had prioritized 62 projects total throughout this process. Since the projects had already been ranked in order of importance, it would be easy for the team to hold a future meeting to assign resources and timelines to the projects at the top of the list (Kloppenborg, 2009. P. 44-45). The prioritization of the projects was a very important task for D. D. Williamson’s global operating team to complete. Although the task seems time consuming, it will save the team time in the long run because projects are rated in importance long before they are scheduled to begin. The weighting process allowed the team to discover where each project would fit into the SWOT analysis, and how each project would further the strategic objectives or otherwise benefit the company. The company uses a database to identify their potential projects. The database is used to keep track of daily work and project work. This tracking helps to highlight things that need to be improved during daily processes. The very large list of 62 potential projects gives the company a wide range of choices in selecting which projects to complete. This helps to ensure that the most important issues that need to be worked on will be addressed in the timeliest fashion (Kloppenborg, 2009, p. 32-33). D. D. Williamson chooses to use a scoring model in project selection. This seems to be the most efficient way for the company to prioritize and select projects. Major problems arising with this process would be the potential for lengthy discussions revolving around project selection and prioritization. The rating process helps to eliminate much of the discussion, but there may be some sticking points where additional criteria will have to be used to decide on issues. Recommended Actions In addition to the continuing use of the database and prioritization and selection process, it is recommended that D. D. Williamson use the lower weighted criteria to help make decisions when a stalemate has been reached when discussing potential projects. The additional criteria can help team members to quickly address concerns about potential projects. If the potential projects are ranked well in the highly weighted criteria, the lower weighted criteria can be used to further break down the project and determine if it is a good fit. The last recommendation is creating mandatory criteria. In addition to moving the most highly scored projects to the top of the list, mandatory criteria can ensure that necessary projects are not overlooked. These mandatory criteria can include issues like government regulation, safety issues, and security issues (Kloppenborg, 2009, p. 36). The mandatory criteria will fast-track projects that must be completed. Conclusion D. D. Williamson has a great project selection process in place. While many other companies use personal preference or whims to make project decisions, D. D. Williamson carefully considers which projects fit best into the company’s strategies and which will best help further the interests of the company. With a few minor additions to the process, D. D. Williamson can continue to make great project selections and maintain a competitive advantage in their market. References Kloppenborg, T. J. (2009). Contemporary project management (pp. 27-45). Mason: South- Western Cengage Learning.

Definition and Examples of the Master Tropes