1 / 13

Tom Wise

Tom Wise. THE EFFECT OF GEOGRAPHICAL SEPARATION, MEDIATED COMMUNICATIONS, AND CULTURE, ON TESTER TEAM MEMBER TRUST OF OTHER INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY VIRTUAL PROJECT TEAM MEMBERS by Thomas P. Wise BERNARD J. SHARUM, PhD, Faculty Mentor and Chair EDWARD M. GOLDBERG, DM, Committee Member

thina
Download Presentation

Tom Wise

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Tom Wise THE EFFECT OF GEOGRAPHICAL SEPARATION, MEDIATED COMMUNICATIONS, AND CULTURE, ON TESTER TEAM MEMBER TRUST OF OTHER INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY VIRTUAL PROJECT TEAM MEMBERS by Thomas P. Wise BERNARD J. SHARUM, PhD, Faculty Mentor and Chair EDWARD M. GOLDBERG, DM, Committee Member STEPHEN G. MORRISSETTE, PhD, Committee Member William A. Reed, PhD, Acting Dean, School of Business and Technology

  2. Hypothesis • H0 There is no statistically significant difference in trust of other team members by a virtual team member in the position of tester than for other members of the team. • H1 There is a statistically significant difference in trust of other team members by a virtual team member in the position of tester than for other members of the team.

  3. Data Collection Instrument • Instrument was developed by Sarker, Valacich, Sarker as a measure of virtual team trust based on research regarding trust as a collective measure of the degree to which remotely located team-members are perceived to be reliable (2003). • Sarker et al. (2003) reported the reliability of the instrument as the reliability coefficient as follows: • For items regarding personality based trust, .79 • For items regarding institutional based trust, .90 • For items regarding cognitive based trust, • Message-related stereotyping, .94 • Technology-based stereotyping, .89 • Physical appearance/behavior-based stereotyping, .94 • Reputation categorization, .75 • Unit grouping, .82

  4. Data Collection • Sample Size Calculation • In 2011 PMI indicated a membership of 425,000 with over 260,000 US members. (based on 2006 fact sheet) • 33% of members are indicate working in IT jobs. • Sample expectation is 382 respondents • Population estimate 87,000 • 95% Confidence Level • 5% confidence interval

  5. Data Collection • Data was collected on-line for the period from August 1, 2011 to October 19, 2011 using SurveyMonkey.com. • 881 responses were collected

  6. The Data • Of the 588 usable responses 75% of the respondents reported participating in projects in the role of tester, with 13% of those respondents reporting a tester role also reporting 50% or greater time spent on projects in the tester role.

  7. The Data Figure reflects a normal distribution of the data. Figure 6. Respondent’s Current Age.

  8. The Data Figure reflects a normal distribution of the data. Figure 7. Respondent’s Years in Current Role.

  9. The Data • Reliability is a measure of the consistency to which the data collects the information. • 0.70 is considered to be an effective measure of reliability. Reliability of the data collection instrument as adapted to this study was verified using Cronbach’s Alpha as a coefficient of reliability. Cronbach’s Alpha uses the average covariance, average variance, and number of sample items measured as a calculation of internal consistency and is acceptable for use on a Likert scale (UCLA Academic Technology Services, 2011; Vogt, 2005).

  10. The Data • Cronbach's Alpha was calculated for the 4 personality based trust questions as 0.7394. • Cronbach's Alpha was calculated for the institutional based trust questions as 0.8196. • Cronbach's Alpha was calculated for the cognitive based trust questions as 0.8530. • 0.70 is considered to be an effective measure of reliability.

  11. The Data • Validity is a measure of the extent to which the instrument may be expected to collect the information that it is intended to collect. • Use of a previously validated instrument is considered to be an effective measure of validity. • This instrument was validated by Valacich et al. in 2003 and subsequently used in multiple studies as a measure of trust.

  12. Stated Anticipated Findings • It was anticipated that, using a t-test analysis, the difference in trust between test team members and that of other team members will be statistically significant. Statistical significance will be measured based on a probability level of .05. This finding is anticipated based on the theoretical inherent disenfranchisement of test team members from the core project team normally assumed to be present.

  13. Data Analysis Preliminary Findings • This research does reflect evidence of a statistically significant difference in trust of other team members by a virtual team member in the position of tester than for other members of the team. • The null hypothesis may be rejected.

More Related