A Sociotechnical Systems Study of Virtual R&D Organizations

624 views

Published on

Published in: Business, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
624
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
79
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
6
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

A Sociotechnical Systems Study of Virtual R&D Organizations

  1. 1. A  Sociotechnical  Systems  Study  of   Virtual  R&D  Organiza;ons   Co-Chairs Ronald E. Purser & Ramkrishnan V. Tenkasi Panelists: Doug Austrom Betty Barrett Bert Painter Pamela Posey Discussant: William A. Pasmore Sponsors: ODC, OCIS, TIM Supported by NSF-VOSS award #0943237  
  2. 2. Central  Research  Ques;on   How  do  virtual  modes  of  communica3on  influence  the   quality  of  delibera3ons  at  various  stages  of  the  R&D   process?     -­‐  STS  theore3cal  lens   -­‐  Compara3ve  case  study   -­‐  Grounded  theory  building  
  3. 3. Session  Overview   •  Introduc3on  and  Framing:                                                                        1:15-­‐1:30   Panel  Presenta3ons   •  Large  Video  Game  Inc                                                                                        1:30-­‐1:40   •  Alzheimer’s  Disease  center                                                                       1:40-­‐1:50   •  CALTECH  Micro  &  Nano-­‐photonics                                            1:50-­‐2:00   •  Summarizing  across  the  cases                                                             2:00-­‐2:15   •  Discussant  comments                                                                                        2:15-­‐2:30   •  Q&  A                                                                                                                                                     2:30-­‐2:45  
  4. 4. Central  Research  Ques;on   How  do  virtual  modes  of  communica3on  influence  the   quality  of  delibera3ons  at  various  stages  of  the  R&D   process?     -­‐  STS    framework   -­‐  Delibera3ons   -­‐  Stages  of  the  R&D  
  5. 5. Evolu3on  of  Socio-­‐Technical  Systems   STS  v1.0   Rou3ne  work  in  a   single  organiza3on  –   e.g.,  coal  mines,   factories,  oil  refineries   •  Work  groups  with  pooled  iden3ty     •  Unitary  conversion  process   •  Linear  conversion  sequence   STS  v2.0   Non-­‐rou3ne   knowledge  work  in     single  organiza3ons  –   e.g.,  white  collar  office   work,  professional   services  firm,  NPD  and   R&D   •  Individual  performers,  specialized   exper3se   •  Mul3ple,  concurrent  conversion   processes   •  Nonlinear  conversion  flow   STS  v3.0   Virtual,  non-­‐rou3ne   work  –  e.g.,  R&D   consor3a,  complex   supply  chains   •  Individual  performers  and  work  groups   distributed  across  mul3ple  loca3ons   and/or  organiza3ons   •  ICT  enabled   •  Mul3ple,  concurrent  independent  and   interdependent  conversion  processes   •  Nonlinear  conversion  flows   *  
  6. 6. Delibera;ons:  Defini;on  and  Elements   Pava,  1983     •  Delibera;ons  are  sense  making  exchanges  in  which   people  engage  with  themselves  or  others  to  reduce  the   uncertainty    of  a  problema9c  issue.    -­‐-­‐i.e.  an  issue   subject  to  two  or  more  interpreta9ons   •  The  salient  elements  of  a  delibera3on  include  the  …     •  Topics  or  problema3c  issues  facing  the  social  en3ty   about  which  people  reflect  and  communicate   •  Forums  in  which  they  occur  which  may  structured,   semi-­‐structured,  or  unstructured  or  ad  hoc   •  Par;cipants  both  those  who  are  currently  involved   and  those  who  ideally  should  be  involved  in  the   delibera3on.  
  7. 7. A  Six  Stage  Con;nuum  of  the  R&D   Process    
  8. 8. Sampling  of  Virtual  R&D  Projects   across  Sites  and  R&D  Stages   Type of Research Development Program/Project Research Site R1 Pure R2 Applied D1 Exploratory D2 Advanced D3 Start-up D4 Scale- up Large Video Game Inc. X X NIAAlzheimer’s Centers X X X Caltech Micro & Nano-Photonics Research Group X X
  9. 9. Large  Video  Game,  Inc.     Case  Study     Major  support  and  funding  for  this  project  has  been  provided  by   the  Na;onal  Science  Founda;on.     NSF  Award  #0943237  
  10. 10. LVG  Inc.  Core   Team   Florida   QA  Tes;ng   Southern  USA   Engineering  and  Web   Development   USA   LVG  Inc.   Canada   Artwork  (Philiphines,   India,  China)   Virtual  Organiza;on  for  LVG  Inc.     Game  2012   Product  Development   Systems  Engineering     China   NSF  Award  #0943237  
  11. 11. Systems  View  of  Game  Development   NSF  Award  #0943237  
  12. 12. Core  Game  Team   NSF  Award  #0943237   QA Art EngineeringProduction Design
  13. 13. Org  Structure   NSF  Award  #0943237   Producer & Director Art Director Lead DesignerTechnical Director Engine/System Coders Gameplay Coders Network Coders Hardware Specialists Audio Specialists Rendering Specialists Gameplay Designers SP Level Designers Scripting Specialists Cinematic Specialists MP Level Designers Concept Artists Character Artists Environment Artists 3D Modelers Texture Artists Technical Artists Animators Audio Director Assistant Producer Writers Sound Engineers Music Composer Recording Studio Voice Actors Localization Studio
  14. 14. AGILE  -­‐  SCRUM   •  Rapid  prototyping  process  +  mul3ple  itera3ons  to   feature  comple3on   •  Episodic  surveys  of  “POD”  members,  assessing  their   virtual  interac3ons  with  vendors  aler  every  SPRINT   cycle  (3  week  cycles,  13  total  SPRINT  cycles,  we   entered  at  SPRINT  6).     •  AGILE  has  significant  implica3ons  for  virtual   organiza3ons  insofar  as  expecta3ons  may  change   during  the  life  of  a  contract,  during  various  “Sprints”   NSF  Award  #0943237  
  15. 15. SCRUM BOARD Feature  to  develop   Tasks  in  queue   Tasks  in  progress   Tasks  complete   Feature  complete   NSF  Award  #0943237  
  16. 16. déjà  vu     •  Souder’s  NSF  research  –  “Task-­‐dominant   approach  to  R&D”  (Souder,  1987)   •  “Rugby  vs.  Relay-­‐race”  project  management   •  How  and  to  what  extent  do  various    vendors   synchronize  and  entrain  with  itera3ve  nature   of  AGILE/SCRUM  at  the  host  organiza3on?     NSF  Award  #0943237  
  17. 17. NSF  Award  #0943237  
  18. 18. Data  Collec3on  to  Date   •  Ini3al  Scoping  Phone  Interviews  with  Various  General  and   Project  Managers  (Spring/Summer  2010)   •  On-­‐site  interviews  (14)  with  “Franchise”  team  (Sept.  2010)   –  (General  Manager,  Project  &  Program  Managers,  Ar3sts,  Solware   Engineers,  Crea3ve  Director,  Audio  Engineers,  Computer  Graphics,   Outsourcing  Managers,  Quality  Assurance)   •  Milestone  telephone  interviews  with  Project  Managers,  Ar3sts,   Engineers  and  Quality  Assurance  (Jan.  2011)   •  Episodic  electronic  surveys  at  the  end  of  each  “Sprint”  cycle,  and   at  the  end  of  “Alpha”  (@  3  weeks,  10/10  –  05/11)   •  Electronic  surveys  of  key  vendors  (May-­‐June  2011)   •  Follow-­‐up  phone  interviews  with  Project  Managers,  Ar3sts,   Engineers  and  Quality  Assurance  (Aug.  2011)   NSF  Award  #0943237  
  19. 19. Uniqueness  of  Producing     Art  in  Virtual  Organiza;ons   •  Art  studios  produce  art  assets,  not  games   – Large  knowledge  gap  between  making  art,  and   making  art  that  works  for  games   – Oversea  vendors  –  gap  larger   •  How  is  tacit  knowledge  obtained  in  virtual   exchanges?   – Some  vendors  more  sophis3cated  than  others   •  Ar3s3c  and  aesthe3c  judgment  is  part  of  the  socio-­‐ technical  system   •  Rich,  mul3-­‐media  documenta3on  is  key   NSF  Award  #0943237  
  20. 20. Socio-­‐Technical  Systems  of  Virtual  Art   Produc;on:  Emergent  Themes     –  Rou;ne  vs.  Nonrou;ne  Work.  Art  assets  vary  in  terms  of   “Likeness.”  The  more  authen3c  and  life-­‐like  the  art  asset,   the  less  rou3ne,  but  this  actuality  reduces  “ar3s3c   license.”   –  Unit  Opera;ons:  How  to  assign  and  parcel  out  pieces  of   work?  Too  litle  turns  the  vendor  into  a  “monkey,”  too   large  is  overwhelming.   –  Expecta;on  se`ng  is  key  to  joint  op3miza3on   –  Variances  take  the  form  of  revisions/  reitera3ons  and   delays  in  delivery     –  Managing  front-­‐end  delibera;ons  is  key  to  seung  flexible   and  realis3c  contracts   NSF  Award  #0943237  
  21. 21. Scoping Vendors Vendor Selection Defining & Estimating Project Work Pre-test & Trial Run Key  Delibera;ons  in  Virtual  Art  Produc;on   Detailed Documentation & Requirements Art Assets Deliveries Initial Testing of Assets Debugging Re-negotiating Project Work Contract Negotiation Critiques Critiques NSF  Award  #0943237  
  22. 22. Reducing  Equivocality  in  Art  Delibera;ons   •  Contrary  to  tradi3onal  studies  on  virtual  teams  that  strive  for   3ght  coupling,  ar3s3c  produc3on  relies  more  on  reducing   equivocality  of  front-­‐end  delibera3ons  by  providing  well  defined   documenta3on,  visual  targets,  and  reference  materials   –  “I  write  my  emails  out  properly  (addressing  the  person,  wri3ng  organized  paragraphs,  and   then  using  closing  remarks  with  a  signature).  I  started  no3cing  that  a  lot  of  that  properness   started  to  fade  as  the  sprint  carried  on.  We  are  star3ng  to  make  the  transi3on  into  alpha   and  the  workload  has  been  plenty,  so  I  thought  those  emails  were  a  great  reflec3on  of  it.   (just  something  funny  I  no3ced)”  2/23/11   •  Key  delibera3ons  in  virtual  art  produc3on  involve  gaining  shared   agreement  on    “standardiza3on  of  outputs”  (Mintzberg,  1993;   Ramesh  &  Dennis,  2002)   •  The  use  of  both  “seman3cally  and  aesthe3cally  rich  media”  (e-­‐ mails,  documenta3on,  visual  targets,  screen  shots)   NSF  Award  #0943237  
  23. 23. Virtuality  Impacts  the  Nego;a;on  of  Art-­‐Based   Project  Work   •  Ambiguity  in  defining  3me  per  asset   •  Pricing  es3mates  are  olen  inaccurate   •  Cost  effec3veness  is  hard  to  predict     –  “Cost  nego3a3on.  There  was  a  task  that  required  modifying  heads.  It  took  us   30min  to  1hr  to  do  one  head  in-­‐house,  so  I  tasked  them  out  as  4hr  jobs.  The   outsourcers  wanted  anywhere  from  6-­‐16hrs  to  do,  and  one  agreed  to  setle  at   4hrs  per  head  aler  doing  20  of  them.  Some3mes  you  win  with  outsourcing,   some3mes  it  makes  no  sense  to  outsource.”   NSF  Award  #0943237  
  24. 24. Management  of  Risk     Virtual  Engineering   •  A  Key  Delibera3on  involves  managing  risk  in   providing  access  to  source  code  packages   –  Key  Variances:  Delays  in  obtaining  approvals,  incomplete   documenta3on,  changing  expecta3ons/func3onality,  mis-­‐ matches  in  preferred  modes  of  communica3ons     •  Our  biggest  challenge  with  Vendor  E  has  been  geung  them  set  up  with  VPN  and  the  appropriate   permissions.  There  is  a  lot  of  red  tape  that  we  are  having  to  go  through  wi3n  our  company  to  get   them  properly  set  up.  It  ul3mately  took  up  to  5  weeks  to  get  them  fully  ready  to  start  work  for  us.   Thus,  the  project  is  behind  schedule  and  we  are  looking  at  the  project  coming  in  3  weeks  late  from   the  original  final  date.  …we  have  had  a  ton  of  email  and  conference  alls  trying  to  figure  out  the  next   steps  in  geung  Egeniq  set  up.   NSF  Award  #0943237  
  25. 25. Emerging  Theory  and  Prac;ce  Ques;ons   •  Can  we  observe  and  theorize  how  to  design  “high   performance”  virtual  organiza3ons?   •  Can  non-­‐rou3ne  STS  principles  be  applied  to  virtual   art  produc3on?   •  Can  theories  of  organiza3onal  aesthe3cs  help  to   understand  arts-­‐based  virtual  delibera3ons?   [Aesthe3cs  =  sensory  knowledge  and  felt  meaning   of  objects  and  experiences.]   •  How  does  aesthe3cs  factor  into  virtual  art   delibera3ons  to  create  value  and  performance?     NSF  Award  #0943237  
  26. 26. These  Slides  are  Op3onal   NSF  Award  #0943237  
  27. 27. NSF  Award  #0943237  
  28. 28. NSF  Award  #0943237  
  29. 29. NSF  Award  #0943237  
  30. 30. LVG  Core  Team   NSF  Award  #0943237  
  31. 31. Vendors:  Factors  Impeding  Virtual   Communica3ons   NSF  Award  #0943237  
  32. 32. NSF  Award  #0943237  
  33. 33. Research  Site  and  Project   • A  virtual  R&D  eco-­‐system  comprised  of  29   NIA-­‐funded  Alzheimers  Disease  Centers   (ADCs)  and  the  Na3onal  Alzheimers   Coordina3ng  Center  Center  (NACC)     • Uniform  Data  Set  
  34. 34. Key  Peformance  Outcomes  of  of  this   Alzheimers  Research  Eco-­‐System   Number  of   enrollees*   23,577  subjects   Both  demented  and  non-­‐demented   Number  of   variables   725  variables  using  up  to  18   standardized  forms  at  each   visit     Longitudinal  data  is  collected  by   clinicians,  neuropsychologists,  and   other  ADC  research  personnel  each   visit  -­‐-­‐  ini3al,  annual  follow-­‐up  and   milestones  such  as  death  or  dropout     Number  of   research   projects**   157  research  projects  have   been  approved  to  use  the   NACC  data   •  104  by  researchers  from  the  ADCs   •  27  by  NACC  staff   •  26  by  external  researchers   Number  of   publica;ons   using  NACC   data***   Since  2001  367  publica3ons   •  180  NACC-­‐funded  projects   •  53  by  NACC  staff   •  53  NACC-­‐ADC  collabora3ve  studies   •  72  by  non-­‐NACC  researchers   •  9  from  Indirect  NACC  support   *        As  of  June  2011   **    As  of  August  2011   ***  As  of  January  2011  
  35. 35. Alzheimers  Research  Eco-­‐System  and  a   “Culture  of  Collabora3on”   •  Culture  of  collabora3on  among  Alzheimers  researchers   has  extended  and  has  led  to  other  major  collabora3ve   research  ini3a3ves     •  Alzheimers  Disease  Neuro-­‐Imaging  Ini3a3ve  (ADNI)   •  Genome-­‐Wide  Associa3on  Study  (GWAS)   •  Alzheimers  Disease  Coopera3ve  Study  (ADCS)     •  Dominantly  Inherited  Alzheimer  Network  (DIAN)     •  Interna3onal  collabora3ve  ini3a3ve  with  Worldwide   ADNI  
  36. 36. Research  Process  to  Date   •  Conducted  14  interviews  with  a  representa3ve  cross-­‐sec3on  of   key  par3cipants  in  the  UDS  project  including  ADC  Center   Directors,  Na3onal  Ins3tute  of  Aging  (NIA)  ADC  Program  Director,   NACC  Director,  Clinical  Core  Directors,  and  Data  Core  Directors   •  Determined  that  the  UDS  project  is  D1  in  the  R&D  con3nuum,   Exploratory  Development  work  –  “They  know  what;  but  they   didn’t  know  how  to  achieve  it.”   •  Iden3fied  key  delibera3ons  in  the  ini3al  development,  ongoing   data  collec3on/submission/quality  control,  and  revision  of  the   Uniform  Data  Set  including  …   •  Iden3fying  and  choosing  the  “best  fit”  data  collec3on  methods,  diagnos3c   protocols  and  instruments,  variables  for  the  UDS   •  Achieving  agreement  on  the  UDS  across  the  29  ADCs     •  Ensuring  adherence  with  UDS  protocols,  data  quality,  and  3meliness  of  data   submission  at  all  29  centers   •  Revising  assessment  instruments  and  protocols  in  the  UDS  and  achieving   agreement  on  the  new  instruments  
  37. 37. Factors  that  Contributed  to   Delibera3on  Effec3veness     •  Delibera3on  processes  itera3vely  evolved  within  the   informal  network  and  the  formal  structure,  the  NACC   •  Face-­‐to-­‐face  forums  twice  a  year  have  enabled  the  ICT-­‐ enabled  (informa3on  and  communica3on  technologies)   forums  and  delibera3ons  to  be  more  effec3ve  and  efficient   •  Relied  on  high  levels  of  input  and  par3cipa3on  –  directly  on   commitees  and  sub-­‐commitees  and  via  surveys,  bulle3n   boards,  direct  feedback  to  Commitee  Chair  and  Members  –   to  build  agreement  on  the  UDS   •  Rou3ne  delibera3ons  (3mely  data  submission  and  data   quality  are  predominantly  ICT-­‐enabled  
  38. 38. Contextual  Factors  that  Contributed  to   Delibera3on  Effec3veness     •  Highly  effec3ve  and  highly  collabora3ve  virtual  socio-­‐technical   eco-­‐sytem  has  evolved  itera3vely  in  large  part  because  …   •  Leaders  in  the  Alzheimers  research  community  (from  the   ADCs  and  NIA)  with  considerable  source  credibility  (trusted   and  respected,  necessary  exper3se)  who  were  commited  to   the  success  of  the  network  and  a  transcendent  purpose  –  i.e.,     addressing  Alzheimers  disease   •  NACC  has  provided  the  infrastructure  for  effec3ve  and   efficient  delibera3ons  within  this  virtual  STS  and  serves  the   func3ons  of  a  referent  organiza3on  (Trist,  1983)  –   coordina3on,  apprecia3on  of  emergent  issues,  and   infrastructure  support   •  Dense  network  of  rela3onships  among  par3cipants  in  the   network  has  also  strengthened  collabora3on  
  39. 39. CALTECH  (California  Ins;tute  of  Technology)     &     D.A.R.P.A.  (Defense  Advanced  Research  Projects  Agency)                       ‘ORCHID’  PROGRAM    of  Fundamental  Research  -­‐                                                                                                                                                                                                           Op;cal  Radia;on  Cooling  &  Hea;ng  in  Integrated  Devices  
  40. 40. Theore3cal  &  Experimental  “Opto-­‐Mechanics”     Research  within  a  Virtual  Organiza3on   -­‐2  project  phases,  June  2010-­‐12  &  2012-­‐14:     VOSS  study  of  Phase  One-­‐-­‐Exploratory   -­‐Tightly-­‐Linked  Collabora;on  for  Design  of  Experiments  &  Device  Fabrica;on  among   Laboratories     using  3  Technology  plajorms  in  USA  &  Europe   -­‐ At-­‐distance  Theore;cal  scien;fic  Study  &  Input  to  work  of  the  Experimental  groups   -­‐ Major  CHALLENGE:     Crea3ve  Research  Design  &  Knowledge  Genera3on     in  a  complex  Virtual  se`ng   -­‐2  project  phases,  June  2010-­‐12  &  2012-­‐14:     VOSS  study  of  Phase  One-­‐-­‐Exploratory   -­‐Tightly-­‐Linked  Collabora;on  for  Design  of  Experiments  &  Device  Fabrica;on  among   Laboratories     using  3  Technology  plajorms  in  USA  &  Europe   -­‐ At-­‐distance  Theore;cal  scien;fic  Study  &  Input  to  work  of  the  Experimental  groups   -­‐ Major  CHALLENGE:     Crea3ve  Research  Design  &  Knowledge  Genera3on     in  a  complex  Virtual  se`ng  
  41. 41. Orchid  Project  Network   Core  Experimental  Groups  at  CALTECH  Physics  &  Applied  Physics  Depts.   Quantum  Op;cs  Group                                         Physics  -­‐  Caltech   Micro  &  Nano-­‐Photonics   Research  Group                                     Applied  Physics  -­‐  Caltech   Meso-­‐Op;cs  Research  Group                                     Applied  Physics  -­‐  Caltech  
  42. 42. Quantum  Op;cs  Group                                         Physics  -­‐  Caltech   Micro  &  Nano-­‐Photonics   Research  Group                                     Applied  Physics  -­‐  Caltech   Meso-­‐Op;cs  Research  Group                                     Applied  Physics  -­‐  Caltech   Photonics  &  Quantum   Measurement  Laboratory                                   Federal  Inst.of  Technology   Lausanne,  Switzerland   Quantum  Op;cs  &  Nanophysics   Group                                                Univ.  of  Vienna   -­‐  Austria   Orchid  Project  Network   Data-­‐Sharing  &  Collabora3on  between  Caltech  &  EUROPEAN  Laboratories  
  43. 43. Quantum  Op;cs  Group                                         Physics  -­‐  Caltech   Micro  &  Nano-­‐Photonics   Research  Group                                     Applied  Physics  -­‐  Caltech   Meso-­‐Op;cs  Research  Group                                     Applied  Physics  -­‐  Caltech   Photonics  &  Quantum   Measurement  Laboratory                                   Federal  Inst.of  Technology   Lausanne,  Switzerland   Quantum  Op;cs  &  Nanophysics   Group                                                Univ.  of  Vienna   -­‐  Austria   Orchid  Project  Network   THEORETICAL  Physicists  Study  &  Input  to  the  work  of  the  ‘Experimentalists’   Theore;cal     Physics  -­‐                   McGill  Univ.   Canada   Op;cal   Sciences  &     Physics  -­‐   Univ.Arizona  
  44. 44. Quantum  Op;cs  Group                                         Physics  -­‐  Caltech   Micro  &  Nano-­‐Photonics   Research  Group                                     Applied  Physics  -­‐  Caltech   Meso-­‐Op;cs  Research  Group                                     Applied  Physics  -­‐  Caltech   Photonics  &  Quantum   Measurement  Laboratory                                   Federal  Inst.of  Technology   Lausanne,  Switzerland   Quantum  Op;cs  &  Nanophysics   Group                                                Univ.  of  Vienna   -­‐  Austria   Theore;cal     Physics  -­‐                   McGill  Univ.   Canada   Op;cal   Sciences  &     Physics  -­‐   Univ.Arizona   Orchid  Project  Network   European  Graduate  Students  “Embedded”in  Caltech  Laboratories  
  45. 45. VOSS  -­‐  Preliminary  Finding  -­‐  Orchid  Project     -­‐ ‘Embedded  Researcher(s)’  provide  temporary  F2F  ‘presence’  +  ‘transla;on’  assis;ng  at-­‐distance  collaborators    to  resolve  high  ambiguity  delibera;ons   -­‐NOW,  ’Habit’  and  sufficient  Shared  Understandings  are  established  for  Skype-­‐based  collabora;on  across  groups  without   ‘embedded’  researcher(s)   -­‐Another  coincidental  forum  for  F2F  delibera;ons  -­‐  frequent  Interna;onal  Conferences  (>5  per  year)   -­‐Result:  Dynamic  Complementary  F2F  +  Technology-­‐mediated  Interac3ons  in  ‘hybrid’  Virtual  SeHng       (Note:  Dixon,  K.  &  Panteli,  N.  (2010).  From  Virtual  Teams  to  Virtuality  in  Teams,  Human  Rela3ons,  63,  1177-­‐1197.)     -­‐ ‘Embedded  Researcher(s)’  provide  temporary  F2F  ‘presence’  +  ‘transla;on’  assis;ng  at-­‐ distance  collaborators    to  resolve  high  ambiguity  delibera;ons   -­‐NOW,  ’Habit’  and  sufficient  Shared  Understandings  are  established  for  Skype-­‐based   collabora;on  across  groups  without  ‘embedded’  researcher(s)   -­‐Another  coincidental  forum  for  F2F  delibera;ons  -­‐  frequent  Interna;onal  Conferences  (>5  per   year)   -­‐Result:  Dynamic  Complementary  F2F  +  Technology-­‐mediated  Interac3ons  in  ‘hybrid’  Virtual   SeHng       (Note:  Dixon,  K.  &  Panteli,  N.  (2010).  From  Virtual  Teams  to  Virtuality  in  Teams,  Human   Rela3ons,  63,  1177-­‐1197.)  

×