monday 21 june

Today i most importantly most probably upset my group members and everyone else. i would like to apologise. I am trying to make back the time starting with this study on the effectiveness of virtual teams particulartly dyad structured teams. This is to look at ways of optimizing use of virtual spaces beyond technical boundaries

Team Structure and Research in Virtual Environment
In looking at ways to optimize use of virtual spaces in research we came across a study by IIsik University and Old dominion University. The study was on the effectiveness of virtual teams using dyadic teams.

Definition of Virtual Teams
"Virtual teams are small work/project teams that are geographically dispersed and collaborate via computer-mediated technology, predominantly over the Internet, with a potential face-to-face initiation in order to work for a specific purpose and/or specific piece of work. It is possible that they may or may not
have worked together before, and they may or may not see each other again after the work is completed" (Gamze Karayaz & Charles B. Keating2: 2007)

Overview of dyadic structures
To understand the purpose of the research on has to grasp the nature of dyad structures.
Dyads can be found in a spectrum of relationships including the personal level such as parent-child, husband-wife, or in the professional level such as boss-employee, and teacherstudent. When two people get together, they form a dyad (Gamze Karayaz & Charles B. Keating2: 2007).

Most research that that has been done on dyads has been on emotional levels in intense relationships such as marriages, in terms of team structuring dyadic structures has been ignored.

In a study that investigated managerial communication patterns analyzing past studies, [22] observed that forty percent of all meeting time in organizations is spent in dyadic communications. Similar to these results, [18] found that
in one of the subject companies, most relationships in virtualteams were managed as dyads even though he did not delineate any specific structuration directions. It appears that dyadic communications plays a significant role in
organizational structure. (Gamze Karayaz & Charles B. Keating2: 2007)

The study we are reviewing considered dyadic teams as an exceptional team structure that may have an essential impact on the effectiveness of virtual teams. For the purpose of this research, a virtual dyadic team is defined as a two person-structured teams working on a particular task in a virtual collaborative environment.
Dyads have been said to be fragile in comparison to Large teams due to the fact that it only takes one members withdrawal for the structure to die and performance deteriorates. However a well working dyad can result in enhanced levels of performance. Studies have shown however that dyads are more capable of focusing on a task than large groups thus it avoids the issue that large groups have to deal with of becoming sidelined.

Research Questions
This research seeks the answer to four questions of virtual team effectiveness on task performance, communication frequency, and team satisfaction. It
investigates the effectiveness of dyad structured approach in virtual environments to answer the following questions:
1) How does a dyad structure influence virtual team performance?
2) What is the impact of a dyad structure on virtual team effectiveness with respect to task outcome?
3) What is the impact of a dyad structure on virtual team effectiveness with respect to team satisfaction?
4) What is the impact of dyadic communication on virtual team effectiveness in terms of reducing the overflow communication?

Research results
1. Task performance
The experiment results indicated that dyadic teams performed better than four-person teams. This conclusion was established from the results of task performance (correct decision). However, significant results did not emerge from statistical analysis. This was contrary to initial expectations.
However there is weak statistical evidence that dyads are better in task decision but better performance was achieved
The statistical results led us to conclude that there is weak evidence to claim that dyads are better in task decision. . Although the number of correct decisions was more in dyadic teams, comparing the six correct decisionsfrom dyadic teams with the four correct decisions from selfstructuredteams was not a sufficient difference necessary to establish the statistical argument of significance. Although it was encouraging to see that the dyadic structured teams did in fact come to the correct decision with greater frequency, the fact remains that the statistically significant difference was not supported.

2. Satisfaction: task Outcomes and Team Satisfaction
One of the important findings from this research was that dyadic teams were satisfied with the task outcome, but they were not satisfied with being a member of a dyadic team.
This can be explained again using the fragile nature of dyads. One member of a dyad has a big effect on the other thus any negative influence will have a big difference to the team. The potential for dissatisfaction in a dyad is much higher than in the other team structures.
The results of this study indicated that dyadic structured teams could perform better than self-structured teams. This finding opens the door for more structuration studies in virtual teams to further understand phenomena associated with their effectiveness. (Gamze Karayaz & Charles B. Keating2: 2007).

3. Data Communication
The results indicate that dyadic teams achieved better results with less communication. Communication frequency was found to be a significant factor depending on team type.
The significant evidence supported the relationship between team type and communication frequency. This finding has direct implications for global managers due to: 1) finding that reduction in the total amount of communication using dyadicteams can be accomplished without sacrificing the work results, and 2) consequently, there is the potential to decrease costs associated with excessive communication. Exploring the implications further, there are potential advantages to be gained in the utilization of dyadic teams invirtual environments. (Gamze Karayaz & Charles B. Keating2: 2007).
If dyadic structures are as effective as other team structures with fewer communication requirements it stands to reason that dyads structures use less resources in the form of time and technology that would have originally been spent communicating. With better structuring successful teams with fewer resource requirements will emerge. The benefits for cost effectiveness brought on by dyads have been realised and further exploration is underway
1. Analysis of interest: Task structure
According to the research results 7.41% of the members in self-structured teams reported that they were insufficient in task planning while none of the dyad teams responded similarly. This inability to sufficiently plan tasks by self-structered teams may explain why dyad teams performed tasks better.

2. Analysis ofinterest: Social structures
In this study no attempt was made to have teams engage in social or informal relationships. A survey asked to determine whether teams spend time on social relationships indicated that 50% of both team structure types did not spend time socializing. In cases where an individual may require social attention this may present a problem. Hence why one global member during the research reported "There were no social interactions besides the task. This was somewhat disappointing....."

Conclusion
The study has shown that dyad structures could have significant advantages for companies that utilize them. One such advantage being the reduction of the cost for communication while maintaining performance. This reduction in communication activity allows for more time to be spent on the task at hand.Dyads biggest weakness is that it is fragile. With further research or utilization methods can be developed to maintain a good relationship between members of a dyad team. I think the CSIR will do well to invest in dyad teams because performance can get better and costs reduced.

Again i am sorry.