Keeping Virtual R&D Teams Creative

Abstract

Firms have no choice today but to disperse their new product units in order to access dispersed knowledge and skills. As a result, there is a general movement toward RD in virtual teams, in contrast, tasks must be much more highly structured. Also, virtual teams rely on electronic communication, as opposed to face-to-face communication in traditional teams. Figure 1 summarizes these distinctions. [FIGURE 1 OMITTED] Despite these perceived differences, however, it may not be useful to draw a distinction between conventional face-to-face teams and virtual teams. Distributed teams have characteristics very similar to those of individuals working in the same building. For this reason, we do not distinguish between virtual and non-virtual RD rather, we consider virtuality to be a matter of degree. Three dimensions characterize the degree of virtuality (2). These dimensions are derived from the discussion above and refer to the extent to which: 1) members in virtual teams are physically dispersed; 2) computer-driven communication is used; and 3) interaction is required among team members. By investigating these three dimensions it becomes possible to take a closer look at the relationship between virtuality and creative performance. Team Member Proximity The most fundamental effect of proximity is that potential collaborators have the opportunity to make contact with each other. This provides them with opportunities to become acquainted, identify common interests, and assess interpersonal compatibility. Moreover, proximity supports trust. R&D professionals are more prone to ask questions of others they trust and feel comfortable around because this reduces their fear of damage to their reputation when a question is met with a critical response. Thus, at first glance, close proximity appears to support creative performance. Still, the literature has argued against the positive effects of proximity on team creative performance. These arguments appear to fit broadly into two categories: team member distraction and creativity blocking. Lovelace suggests that scientists need to work alone and that their social needs distract them from their work (3). As a result, close proximity should decrease team creative performance. Moreover, distracted team members are likely to distract other team members and will, therefore, further decrease the team's creative performance. When team members begin distracting each other, the team as a whole spirals into lower levels of creative performance. The second argument involves creativity blocking. Proximity breeds increased interaction, and high degrees of interaction may carry teams along by the momentum of their enthusiasm for an innovative idea rather than by a clear understanding of its real value. …