ConferenceXP: An Enabling Technology for Organizational Resilience

  • Murray Scott
  • Gino Sorcinelli
  • Peter Gutierrez
  • Chris Moffatt
  • Philip DesAutels
Part of the IFIP International Federation for Information Processing book series (IFIPAICT, volume 206)

Abstract

In order to respond to dynamic challenges, this paper argues that companies can develop a resilient capacity through the development of virtual teams and use of enabling technologies such as videoconferencing. The ability to respond to change creates pressure for proactive responses and the development of organizational flexibility and structural agility. Virtual teams and the use of technology such as videoconferencing can help organizations meet the evolving challenges of the business world and enable organizations to adapt better. This technology enables workers to increase their productive capacity and take advantage of expert collaborations. As a result, managers are looking to video-conferencing technology to help implement initiatives on the development of organizational resilience.

This practitioner report relates experiences from a project designed to give students experience of virtual teams in which the skills necessary to become effective members of a resilient organization can be acquired. This practitioner report also attempts to relate the tactics management uses to build resilient organizations and the supporting role video-conferencing can play. A new video-conferencing technology—ConferenceXP—is also described as a platform for the creation of flexible, distributed and virtual teams.

Keywords

Video-conferencing virtual teams organizational resilience 

References

  1. Allen, T., Hyman, D., and Pickney, D. L. “Transferring Technology to the Small Manufacturing Firm: A Study of Technology Transfer in Three Countries,” Research Policy (1242), 1983, pp. 199–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barabási, A-L., and Albert, R. “Emergence of Scaling in Random Networks,” Science (286), 1999, pp. 509–512.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bolin, M., Ljungberg, J., and Bergquist, M. “A Narrative Approach to Change Management,” Fifth European Conference on Organizational Knowledge, Learning and Capabilities, Innsbruck, Austria, 2004.Google Scholar
  4. Denning, P. “The Social Life of Innovation,” Communications of the ACM (47:4), 2004, pp. 15–20.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fish, R. S., Kraut, R. E., Root, R. W., and Rice, R. E. “Video as a Technology for Informal Communication,” Communications of the ACM (36:1), 1993, pp. 48–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Freeman, C. “Networks of Innovators: A Synthesis of Research Issues,” Research Policy (20:5), 1991, pp. 499–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gladwell, M. The Tipping Point, London: Abacus, 2000.Google Scholar
  8. Hamel, G., and Valikangas, L. “The Quest for Resilience,” Harvard Business Review (81:9), 2003, pp. 52–63.Google Scholar
  9. Hamel, G., and Valikangas, L. “In Search of Resilience,” The Woodside Institute, Woodside, CA, 2005 (available online through http://www.woodsideinstitute.org/pubslist.php).Google Scholar
  10. Kettinger, W. J., and Grover, V. “The Use of Computer-Mediated Communication in an Inter-organizational Context,” Decision Sciences (28:3 1997, pp. 513–556.Google Scholar
  11. Mallak, L. “Putting Organizational Resilience to Work,” Industrial Management (40:6), 1998, p. 8–13.Google Scholar
  12. Milgram, S. “The Small Wworld Problem,” Psychology Today (2:60), 1967.Google Scholar
  13. Nonaka, I., and Konno, N. “The Concept of ‘Ba’: Building a Foundation for Knowledge Creation,” California Management Review (40:3), 1998, pp. 40–53.Google Scholar
  14. Paul, S., Seetharaman, P., Samarah, I., and Mykytyn, P. P. “Impact of Heterogeneity and Collaborative Conflict Management Style on the Performance of Synchronous Global Virtual Teams,” Information & Management (41:3), 2004, pp. 303–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Porter, M. “Strategy and the Internet,” Harvard Business Review (79:3), 2001, pp. 62–78.Google Scholar
  16. Press, L. “Low Cost Estimation of Travel Trade-Offs,” Communications of the ACM (41:6), 1998, pp. 17–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Quinn, J. B. Intelligent Enterprise: A Knowledge and Service Based Paradigm for Industry, New York: Free Press, 1992.Google Scholar
  18. Sarker, S., and Sahay, S. “Understanding Virtual Team Development: An Interpretive Study,” Journal of the Association for Information Systems (4), 2003, Article 4.Google Scholar
  19. Snowdon, D. “Complex Acts of Knowing: Paradox and Descriptive Self-Awareness,” Journal of Knowledge Management, Spring 2002.Google Scholar
  20. Townsend, A., M., S. Demarie, M., and Henderson, A. R. “Desktop Video Conferencing in Virtual Workgroups: Anticipation, System Evaluation and Performance,” Information Systems Journal (11:3), 2001, pp. 213–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Townsend, A., M, S. Demarie, M., and Henderson, A. R. “Virtual Teams: Technology and the Workplace of the Future,” Academy of Management Executive (12:3), 1998, pp. 17–29.Google Scholar
  22. Valikangas, L. “Four Steps to Corporate Resilience,” Strategy and Business News, May 24, 2005.Google Scholar
  23. Venkatraman, V. “IT-Enabled Business Transformation: From Automation to Business Scope Redefinition,” Sloan Management Review (35:2), 1994, pp. 73–87.Google Scholar
  24. Vissers, G., and Dankbaar, B. “Creativity in Multidisciplinary New Product Development Teams,” Creativity and Innovation Management (11:1), 2002, pp. 31–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Watts, D. J., and Strogatz, S. H. “Collective Dynamics of’ small-World’ Networks,” Nature (393), 1998, pp. 440–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Federation for Information Processing 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Murray Scott
    • 1
  • Gino Sorcinelli
    • 2
  • Peter Gutierrez
    • 2
  • Chris Moffatt
    • 3
  • Philip DesAutels
    • 3
  1. 1.National University of Ireland, GalwayGalwayIreland
  2. 2.University of Massachusetts, AmherstAmherstUSA
  3. 3.Microsoft CorporationUSA

Personalised recommendations