Challenges to Knowledge Integration in Virtual Team Settings

A review of communication and group literature by Alavi identified four key challenges to knowledge integration in virtual team settings: “(1) constraints on transactive memory, (2) insufficient mutual understanding, (3) failure in sharing and retaining contextual knowledge, and (4) inflexibility of organizational ties” (Alavi, 2002). Components of the first three challenges are described below (summary adapted from Alavi, 2002).

1. Transactive memory (summary adapted from Alavi, 2002)
   • Definition and attributes:
     • A transactive memory system (TMS) is the collective team knowledge that is developed or acquired over time by individual members that is stored and retrievable by the team. A well developed system allows team members access to expert knowledge.
     • Cognitive interdependence in groups of people can be focused around memory processes. People in close relationships enact a single transactive memory system, complete with differentiated responsibility for remembering different portions of common experiences.
     • Transactive memory can be viewed as a meta knowledge system about who knows what in the group.
     • Two types of memory—internal knowledge in individuals’ mind and external repositories from which information can be retrieved when needed; external knowledge may be owned by other team members or may be contained in various storage devices.
     • Transactive memory systems (facilitated by interactions/transactions) enhance team members’ contributions and task performance.
   • Constraints on the development and maintenance of transactive memory:
     • Indirect (virtual) interactions
     • Lack of collaborative history
     • Diversity of backgrounds of virtual team members
     • Quality of knowledge integration will suffer, additional resources are spent on locating and acquiring the necessary knowledge
   • Suggestions for overcoming constraints:
     • Creation of an online “yellow pages” containing profiles of team members and their area of specialization.
     • Searchable libraries of codified knowledge relevant to the team task.
     • Electronic bulletin boards where team members can post questions and seek assistance and knowledge from team members. (Alavi, 2002)

---

Focus on Research

Researchers at Case Western examined socio-cognitive aspects of virtual team dynamics over time. They found that transactive memory systems and the collective mind had significant influence on virtual team performance, especially later in the process (Yoo, 2001). The volume of communication among team members positively influenced team performance early in the process but the influence quickly deteriorated as teams developed transactive memory systems and a collective mind. However, early communications among virtual team members helped to build transactive memory systems and a collective mind. The collective mind is more likely to develop in the later stages of a project, after a transactive memory system (representing the map of team knowledge) is in place. The transactive memory system allows members to recognize the available expertise and knowledge in the team, however, it is the collective mind that “enables team members to connect and relate the distributed expertise and knowledge to perform the task as a coherent unit” (Yoo, 2001).

2. Insufficient mutual understanding among team members (summary adapted from Alavi, 2002)
   • Definition and attributes:
     • The knowledge that group members share (and know that they share) is what is referred to as “mutual understanding.”
     • Mutual understanding enhances comprehension and interpretation of information.
     • Provides an awareness of what others know and don’t know.
     • It is developed through joint training, first-hand experiences, and joint problem solving.
   • Constraints on the development of mutual understanding on virtual teams:
     • Dispersion of team members in space and time
     • Diversity of expertise and/or culture
     • Absence of work history among members (Alavi, 2002)
3. Failure to share and retain contextual knowledge (summary adapted from Alavi, 2002)
   • Definition and attributes:
     • Contextual knowledge is all the knowledge that is relevant to understand a given problem under well specified circumstances.
     • Contextual knowledge is evoked by situations and events, and loosely tied to a task or a goal.
     • In co-located teams contextual knowledge can be shared and understood through direct interactions and experience. Visiting team members’ offices, attending in person meetings, and experiencing the same organizational culture and environment contribute to a shared understanding.
     • In face-to-face teams, people tend to focus on commonly known information and uniquely held information by some members may fail to draw attention and be retained.
   • Constraints with sharing and retaining contextual knowledge on virtual teams:
     • In virtual teams, by definition, contextual knowledge tends to be unevenly distributed among collaborating members. This may result in misunderstandings and misinterpretations, with destructive consequences.
     • As virtual team members are dispersed across multiple locations, their work context varies by organizational culture, physical environment, competing work demands, and access to information technology.
     • Virtual teams often lack the mechanisms to communicate the context or the mechanisms to store information for later retrieval.
     • Failure to share and remember contextual knowledge on virtual teams can lead to misinterpretation and misunderstanding. (Alavi, 2002)