Communication tools’ impact
on project communication
efficiency
An evaluation of traditional communication
tools and Social Media
Linda Berg
Blekinge Tekniska Högskola, Karlskrona 2017
Master Thesis in Engineering and Industrial Economy
Supervisors
Shahiduzzaman Quoreshi, BTH Anders Vinblad, Volvo GTT
i
Abstract
While project communication is positively correlated with project performance, little is known about communication tools impact on project communication efficiency. Efficient project communication has shown to improve communication and thereby increase competitiveness. Efficiency is dependent on what criteria are chosen to define efficiency; however, the literature expose some barriers and driving factors towards efficient project communication, such as: project complexity, company culture, and trust within the project team. Social Media has proven higher levels of efficiency compared to traditional communication tools in project, yet few Swedish companies adapt Social Media for internal communication. Thus, this study has investigated what impact the choice of communication tool might have on communication efficiency by performing a case study at Volvo GTT where traditional communication tools are predominately used. The study found that traditional communication tools contribute to
decreased efficiency while the attitude towards Social Media is lack of safety issues. Still, high values in trust are generated through traditional tools. Compromising secrecy can be prevented through self-hosted Social Media solutions which is why Volvo should consider to decrease usage of traditional communication tools and instead look for more efficient solutions such as Social Media.
ii
iii
Sammanfattning
Trots att projektkommunikation är positivt korrelaterat med projektets lönsamhet är förståelsen om kommunikationsverktygs påverkan på projektkommunikationens effektivitet bristfällig. Effektiv projektkommunikation har påvisat förbättrad kommunikationen och därigenom ökad konkurrenskraft. Effektivitet är beroende av vilka kriterier som väljs för att definiera effektivitet, men litteraturen har ändå exponerat ett antal barriärer och förutsättningar för effektiv
kommunikation: projektkomplexitet, företagskultur och tillit gentemot projektmedlemmar. Trots att sociala medier har påvisat högre effektivitet jämfört med traditionella
kommunikationsverktyg i projekt har få svenska företag implementerat sociala medier för internkommunikation. Denna studie syftar därför till att undersöka vilken påverkan valet av kommunikationsverktyg har på effektiv kommunikation genom att utföra en fallstudie på Volvo GTT där mestadels traditionella verktyg används. Studien visar att traditionella verktyg bidrar till förminskad effektivitet och att sociala medier anses vara bristfälligt gällande säkerhet.
Traditionella verktyg genererar däremot höga nivåer av tillit. Säkerhet behöver inte riskeras genom att välja sociala medier där information inte passerar en tredje part. Volvo bör därför överväga att minska användandet av traditionella verktyg och istället söka efter en effektivare lösning såsom sociala medier.
iv
v
Preface
There might be only my name on the report; however, I was never alone. To my supervisors both at Volvo and BTH: thank you. Thank you thank you thank you. For all the simple yet brilliant questions only a true master can ask. Those questions made my master thesis possible. I would also like to say a big thank you to all involved from Volvo GTT for your engagement in my thesis work.
To mom, dad and my aunt: thank you for your endless love and tremendous support through my personal journey. I simply would not make it without you.
vi
Nomenclature
Notations
Symbol Description
𝑐𝑤 Cost of Waste (SEK)
𝑡𝑟 Time spent on waiting for response (hours) 𝑡𝑠 Time spent on searching for information (hours) 𝑡𝑚 Time spent on meetings (hours)
𝑞𝑖 Information quality
𝑆̅ Average salary paid to project team members
Acronyms
Volvo GTT Volvo Group Trucks Technology
IT Information technology
TABLE OF CONTENT
1 INTRODUCTION
1
1.1 BACKGROUND ... 4 1.2 OBJECTIVE ... 4 1.3 DELIMITATIONS ... 5 1.4 THESIS QUESTIONS ... 52 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
7
2.1 PROJECT COMMUNICATION ... 72.1.1 EFFICIENT PROJECT COMMUNICATION ... 9
2.2 TOOLS FOR PROJECT COMMUNICATION ... 13
2.2.1 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY – EVALUATION ... 13
2.2.2 TRADITIONAL COMMUNICATION TOOLS ... 15
2.2.3 SOCIAL MEDIA ... 15
3 VOLVO GROUP TRUCKS TECHNOLOGY
22
4 METHOD
25
4.1 DATA COLLECTION ... 25 4.1.1 CASE STUDY ... 27 4.2 DATA ANALYSIS ... 31 4.2.1 CROSS TABLE ... 32 4.2.2 MEASUREMENTS ... 325 RESULT
34
5.1 THE GENERAL ATTITUDE ABOUT PROJECT COMMUNICATION AT VOLVO GROUP TRUCKS TECHNOLOGY ... 345.2 COMMUNICATION TOOLS USED AT VOLVO GROUP TRUCKS TECHNOLOGY 34 5.2.1 TRADITIONAL COMMUNICATION TOOLS’ EFFICIENCY ... 36
5.2.2 COST OF WASTE OF TRADITIONAL COMMUNICATION TOOLS ... 40
5.3 SOCIAL MEDIA ATTITUDE ... 41
6 DISCUSSION
42
7 CONCLUSION
49
9 REFERENCES
52
9.1 BOOKS ... 52 9.2 ARTICLES ... 53 9.3 LINKS ... 58
1
1 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of the first chapter in this thesis work is to provide the reader with an overview of the subject chosen for the thesis but also to present the objective, thesis questions and
delimitations. The thesis is executed at Volvo Group Trucks Technology, which is a part of the Volvo Group organisation.
Project communication is the transmission of data, information and knowledge (Robbins, 1993) between two or several stakeholders (Allen et al., 1980; Katz, 1982) and plays a key role in project success (Jo & Shim, 2005). Projects occur when faster decision making tools and techniques are needed than possible in a normal operation (Munns & Bjeirmi, 1996; Murphy & Ledwith, 2007) and include resources provided by the company in which the project is operated (Remidez & Jones, 2012). As project organisations grow larger and the complexity of the project objective increases, it becomes harder for project teams to manage efficient communication (Remidez & Jones, 2012); project team members representing different knowledge areas need to communicate despite possessing different knowledge backgrounds. Therefore, project teams need to understand and operate efficient project communication. Efficient project
communication is achieved when meaning of information sent conform to interpretations of information received (Robbins, 1993); the meaning intended by the transmitter should conform to the interpretation made by the receiver. Furthermore, efficient project communication requires information to travel fast. In contrast, inefficient communication includes waste activities, which are activities with no value for the end customer (Kilczewski, 2004). The objective of
performing efficient communication is therefore to minimize waste activities (Liker, 2009) without jeopardizing the understanding and clarity of information. The Cost of Waste activities can be mathematically explained as the relationship between Cost of Waste, 𝑊, price paid by the buyer of the goods occurred from demand, 𝑃𝑑, and price paid by the seller of the goods occurred from supply, 𝑃𝑠. The formula for this is defined as
𝑃𝑑 = 𝑃𝑠+ 𝑊 (Sing, 2008; Norton, 1992)
The equation demonstrates that companies want to minimize waste to gain maximal profit from goods or service sold; if Cost of Waste in a project exceeds price paid by seller, the project outcome fails and loses its performance. Hence, Cost of Waste activities determines sensitivity towards competitiveness (Sing, 2008). Difficulties in managing efficient communication are especially seen in large technology companies with hierarchical structure (Steinheider &
Al-2
Hawamdeh, 2004). Therefore, those companies need tools which enable communication to flow with speed and simplicity (Jo & Shim, 2005) to empower communication efficiency (Grudin & Poltrock, 1989). When tools for communication aren’t sufficient, an increase in waste activities such as response time and search time appear. A tool for communication is recognized as an object that helps to fulfil the objective of project communication. Information technology, IT, is a tool for communication that enables transmission of information between two or several destinations (Sing, 2008) and has proven to reduce Cost of Waste (Norton, 1992; Silva & Ratnadiwakara, 2008). IT-based tools for communication can provide communication channels and platforms where information can be stored and interaction between users can occur
(Robbins, 1993). Reduced distance between receiver and provider of the information is
especially achieved when higher levels of IT are invested in. The level of IT invested by the firm corresponds to improved project communication (Hinds & Kiesler, 1995). Increased level of IT invested by the firm doesn’t necessarily means improved project communication as more information is transmitted (Blum et al., 2005). Instead, the distance between receiver and
provider of the information is reduced and this in turn improves communication efficiency since it reduces response time and search time for information. The ambition of investing in IT is therefore to simplify information transmission between two or several destinations by removing barriers for efficient communication such as project complexity. The success of implementing IT for project communication is dependent on the company culture, which can work as both a barrier and a driving factor for efficient communication. The company culture is an attitude which belongs to the company (Ankrah et al., 2009). The attitude is directed towards a change or events happening in the project and is based on beliefs that determine behaviour of the project team members. These beliefs are created based on employees’ thoughts and experiences. Other driving factors towards efficient communication are trusting relationships as well as shared visions and beliefs, which empowers team performance by working towards a common project objective. These driving factors can be further improved by investing in higher levels of IT (Hinds & Kiesler, 1995).
Tools for communication can be IT-based but also based on physical presence. A typical tool based on physical presence is meetings where project team members meet and work towards a common agenda. Meetings are an example of a traditional communication tools which are well established tools used in the company for communication (Taylor & Perry, 2005). Skype and E-mail are also examples of traditional communication tools. A non-traditional tool for project communication is Social Media which is a relatively low cost information technology that has
3
proven high levels of communication efficiency (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010). Social Media emerged as a communication platform in 1997 (Boyd & Ellison, 2008) and is most commonly defined as an online platform through which users can interact and share information
(Edosomwan et al., 2011). Social Media has lately been released from being demarcated to private usage and is now utilized by companies for internal communication (Leonardi et al., 2013). Intensity and level of interaction are two characteristics for Social Media and determines channel richness respectively ability for one or multi-dimensional conversations. The prediction of in what extend a communication channel will be used considering company culture relies on Social Media richness; if a Social Media channel enables multi-dimensional conversations, the channel is more likely to be used (D’Urso & Rains, 2008). Compared to traditional
communication tools, which diverge from trends and new communication tools, Social Media increase information accessibility and is less time consuming and interruptive (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010). Social Media diverge from traditional communication tools as it is not an established communication tool. Using Social Media for internal communication in project management can help to reduce Cost of Waste by improving coordination and aggregation (Macnamara & Zerfass, 2012) and at the same time increase trust and enable common visions among team members, which are two driving factors towards efficient communication. Despite this knowledge, less than 20 % of Swedish companies are using Social Media for internal communication (SCB, 2013). Further investigation shows a lack of knowledge about Social Media regarding safety, secrecy and functionality (Macnamara & Zerfass, 2012). This creates space for fear of implementing Social Media (Kouzmin & Korac-Kakabadse, 2000). Social Media can also exaggerate the amount of information and thereby create a barrier for efficient communication (Storey et al., 2014) as excess data is generated. However, excess data can also be generated from any IT-based tool for communication. The advantages of a new technology will be underestimated by a factor of 3, while the disadvantages of giving up old technology will be overestimated by a factor of 3 (Zyl, 2009). By increasing information available about a change, project team members are more likely to have a positive attitude towards the implementation (Worley & Doolen, 2006). Change will also not be made until benefits of implementing the change exceed the effort needed to implement the change (Kouzmin & Korac-Kakabadse, 2000). However, it is argued that IT will never be able to completely replace face-to-face conversations occurring in meetings and real time situations (Kouzmin & Korac-Kakabadse, 2000). Face-to-face conversations are necessary in various extend when solving complex issues and take action.
4
1.1 BACKGROUND
Achieving efficiency in project communication is a direct ambition for all projects since it is positively correlated with project profitability (Kossai, 2014); when efficient communication is accomplished, Cost of Waste is eliminated and resources can be dedicated towards value-adding activities instead. However, project communication efficiency is compromised as companies fail to find adequate communication tools (Grudin & Poltrock, 1989); as existing communication tools cannot manage complexity, space for waste is created and communication efficiency is restricted. Social Media is a relatively low cost information technology that has proven high levels of efficiency, yet few companies are using Social Media for project communication and this might be because of lack of knowledge and fear which give rise to change resistance. Another possible cause can be that traditional communication tools are sufficient for the fulfilment of existing needs in project communication, but traditional communication tools are time consuming and interruptive. (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010). However, few studies provide a deeper analysis of traditional communication tools’ impact on efficient communication. Therefore, this study will perform a case study complemented with a survey where traditional communication tools’ impact on communication efficiency will be detected. Traditional communication tools will be evaluated based on criteria defining efficient communication and the attitude towards utilizing Social Media in project communication will be exposed to detect potential change resistance.
1.2 OBJECTIVE
The objective of this study is to investigate traditional communication tools’ impact on communication efficiency. The study will evaluate traditional communication tools based on criteria defining efficient communication with purpose to detect Cost of Waste but also potential contribution to communication efficiency. The study will also measure the attitude of utilizing Social Media in project communication with purpose to expose potential change resistance towards communication tools which diverge from traditional tools. The general attitude about project communication will be measured to expose company values regarding project
communication with purpose to understand the selection of existing communication tools. The objective will be fulfilled by performing a case study at Volvo Group Trucks Technology where traditional communication tools, such as E-mail and Skype, are used for project communication. The case study will be complemented with a survey containing both open-response and closed-response questions.
5
1.3 DELIMITATIONS
Project communication in this thesis will implicate information exchanged, virtually or physically, between two or several project team members. Hence, information exchanged between IT-systems will not concern this thesis work. The study will exclusively cover internal project communication performed by team members located in Gothenburg at Volvo GTT. Internal project communication will be demarcated to communication related to meetings in technique related projects. Furthermore, the study will be concentrated to investigate information exchange regarding coordinating people and resources in project meetings where the function of communication tools will be highlighted. The communication tools that will be evaluated in the study are traditional communication tools and Social Media; other tools are excluded in the study. Majority of the tools studied will be IT-based with few exceptions.
1.4 THESIS QUESTIONS
To fulfil the objective of the thesis, the study will proceed from thesis questions that aim to answer what impact communication tools have on communication efficiency. The primary thesis question is therefore:
• What impact do traditional communication tools have on communication efficiency? To understand why existing tools might be chosen for project communication at Volvo GTT, the company’s values regarding project communication needs to be exposed. Hence, the secondary thesis question is:
i What is the general attitude about project communication in the company?
The study will comprehend an evaluation of existing traditional communication tools to detect Cost of Waste but also contribution to communication efficiency. The evaluation process of traditional communication tools will aim to answer following thesis question:
ii Are traditional communication tools efficient in projects?
iii What is the Cost of Waste when using traditional communication tools in terms of time? The selection of existing communication tools will be further clarified by detecting potential change resistance towards tools which diverge from traditional communication tools. Thus, Social Media’s feasibility in project communication will be explored by answering following thesis questions:
iv What is the company’s attitude towards Social Media in project communication? v Can Cost of Waste be reduced with Social Media in project communication?
7
2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
A reflection of existing literature regarding the chosen subject is presented in chapter 2 with purpose to educate and engage the reader in the subject. The chapter will begin with explaining project communication and thereafter explain tools used in project communication.
2.1 PROJECT COMMUNICATION
Communication is the transmission of data, information and knowledge between two or several destinations (Robbins, 1993). While data consists of numbers and facts, information is data related to a situation or scenario and knowledge is created when information is combined with experience gained from practical situations (Alavi & Leidner, 2001). Knowledge is based on personal experience possessed by individuals where information is related to facts interconnected with interpretations, observations, and judgments. Thus, knowledge is created from information, which in turn is created from data. Knowledge is responsible for resolving information into tangible assets (Alavi & Leidner, 2001). The objective of communication is to let meaning of information sent conform to interpretations of information received (Robbins, 1993; Shannon & Weaver, 1963); the meaning intended by the transmitter should conform to the interpretation made by the receiver. Also, the information should be expressed in such manner as to be interpretable by the receiver (Alavi & Leidner, 2001; Shannon & Weaver, 1963). As the objective of communication is fulfilled, misunderstanding of information is eliminated.
Communication enables conversations to take place, which is information exchange between one or several parties (Robbins, 1993). The content of the conversation represents information
exchanged between involved parties.
Communication can be formal or informal. The main difference between formal and informal communication is that formal communication occurs in a controlled environment while informal communication does not (Al Eslami Kandlousi et al., 2010). Formal communication is
characterised by its defined structure and its predictability; the agenda is specified, people involved is pre-determined and location is set (Kraut et al., 1990). In contrast, informal communication is unidirectional with un-specified agendas and allows random people to be involved in the conversation (Al Eslami Kandlousi et al., 2010). Informal communication doesn’t occur at a specific date, time or place. Informal communication is based on social relationships and aims to serve private purposes while formal communication aims to serve company purposes. Formal communication has in previous studies been linked to productivity
8
(Litterst & Eyo, 1982). However, informal communication has also been proven to contribute to productivity as groups in projects coordinates their work by keeping each other updated and solving minor problems (Al Eslami Kandlousi et al., 2010). Compared to formal communication, informal communication is more interactive and spontaneous (Fish et al., 1990). Informal
communication stimulates small talk, which is minor conversations between people considering time and content quantity (Pullin, 2010).
In project communication, the destinations between which data, information and knowledge travels are stakeholders involved in the project (Allen et al., 1980; Katz, 1982). A project occurs when faster decision making tools and techniques are needed than possible in a normal operation (Munns & Bjeirmi, 1996; Murphy & Ledwith) and includes resources provided by the company in which the project is operated (Remidez & Jones, 2012). These resources are representatives from knowledge areas needed to fulfil the project objective. Stakeholders are all participants with interests in the project (Bourne & Walker, 2008). Internal stakeholders are employees within the company and external stakeholders are suppliers and customers to the project. Figure 1 shows a generalized picture of the project organisational structure.
9
The organisation provides the project manager, PM, with resources in terms of team manager functions, TMF, each representing a knowledge area within the organisation (Westerveld, 2002). In large projects, the team manager functions represent and operate their own teams each
representing various knowledge areas. The project manager has an assisting team that oversees tasks such as planning and monitoring all resources of the project. The project manager is also involved with external stakeholders such as suppliers, clients and a steering committee who directs the project by allocating resources such as money. These stakeholders are represented by 𝑆1, 𝑆2, 𝑆3… in figure 1. The steering committee can take form as both an external and internal stakeholder (Hobday, 2000). However, figure 1 is a generalized picture and anomalous situations will likely occur.
Project communication is one important tool to perform well to reach project success (Katz, 1982). Project success is commonly associated with the outcome (Munns & Bjeirmi, 1996), which is affected by all processes included in the project. Project communication has significant impact on the project success as poor communication can adversely affect the project
performance (Katz, 1982) by directly affecting the outcome. In fact, project communication, among other tools within projects, aims to control the achievement of the project objective (Munns & Bjeirmi, 1996). By eliminating waste in project communication, efficiency can be achieved and greater project success can be accomplished (Silva & Ratnadiwakara, 2008).
2.1.1 EFFICIENT PROJECT COMMUNICATION
What makes a process or activity efficient depends on criteria chosen for defining efficiency (Robbins, 1993). This might be the reason why there’s no definite way to measure efficiency in project communication. However, by diverging from the objective of communication, project success is compromised. As mentioned in chapter 2.1, the objective of communication is to let meaning of information sent conform to interpretations of information received (Robbins, 1993); the meaning intended by the transmitter should conform to the interpretation made by the
receiver. In contrast, activities that diverge from the fulfilment of the objective of project communication can be compared to waste activities, which are non-value adding activities for the end customer (Kilczewski, 2004) such as searching for information or waiting for response. Waste activities are a concept within efficiency (Liker, 2009) and are a barrier towards the achievement of efficiency. Therefore, the objective of efficient communication is to minimize waste activities without jeopardizing the understanding and clarity of information. The cost of waste activities can be mathematically explained as the relationship between cost of waste, 𝑊,
10
price paid by the buyer of the goods occurred from demand, 𝑃𝑑, and price paid by the seller of the goods occurred from supply, 𝑃𝑠. The formula for this is defined as
𝑊 = 𝑃𝑑− 𝑃𝑠 (Sing, 2008; Norton, 1992) Rewriting this formula results in
𝑃𝑑 = 𝑃𝑠+ 𝑊
This shows a linear relationship between price paid by buyer and price paid by seller as Cost of Waste are held fixed. The equation demonstrates that companies want to minimize waste to gain maximal profit from goods or service sold; if waste is reduced and becomes approximately zero and price paid by buyer is held constant, additional profit is generated since profit is the
difference between income and expenditure (Berk & DeMarzo, 2014). However, the formula does not give space for any profit as waste equals zero, which is inaccurate (Berk & DeMarzo, 2014). If Cost of Waste in a project exceeds price paid by seller, the project outcome fails and loses its performance. Hence, eliminating waste is crucial for project success since it determines sensitivity towards competitiveness; too high Cost of Waste might result in not surviving market competition (Sing, 2008). Waste activities are inevitable; however, methods that achieves to reduce waste activities should be desired as it leads to lowered expenditures (Silva &
Ratnadiwakara, 2008) and higher values in profitability.
A barrier for the achievement of efficient communication is project complexity. Project complexity occurs as multiple stakeholders are involved and information is shared across
multiple organisational borders (Stead et al., 2009). In this case, the objective of communication becomes hard to accomplish. Project communication faces difficulties as project complexity increase (Cameron, 2007). Project complexity complicates the fulfilment of the project objective and is therefore associated with a risk considering project profitability (Rohrmann, 1992). Communication becomes especially hard in projects by its natural structure (Remidez & Jones, 2012) since multiple knowledge areas possessed by each team member are brought together in a collaborative environment. Besides, the project team needs to inform and update internal and external stakeholders involved in the project, which increase project complexity even further. Project complexity arisen from large project teams can lead to misunderstanding, which in turn can cause tasks not being completed in time (Remidez & Jones, 2012; Cameron 2007). This makes it essential for the team members to be able to share information to other team members with different knowledge backgrounds with clarity and simplicity, which is a skill by nature
11
(Heaven, 2004) and demands experience. By owning strong communication skills that support team-building, project performance can be improved by maintaining relationships throughout the project (Remidez & Jones, 2012). Technology is the area that carries the largest demand of communication (Blum et al., 2005). In addition, large companies carry greater complications regarding communication than smaller companies (Steinheider & Al-Hawamdeh, 2004). Hence, large technology firms combined will face remarkable difficulties in project communication. Companies with dynamic structure tend to have less complications regarding project
communication as they have higher levels of information transmitted (Steinheider & Al-Hawamdeh, 2004). However, efficient communication doesn’t necessarily mean an increased amount of information shared (Blum et al., 2005). Companies with dynamic structure have undefined organisational borders, which allows information to become local rather than centralized. Centralized information means access limitations since information is possessed only by the source itself (McKelvey & Page, 1986). In contract, locally sourced information increases accessibility (Kouzmin & Korac-Kakabadse, 2000) as anyone can reach information independent on the information owner. Localising information removes organisational borders and destroys hierarchy. As organisational borders are removed, people can interact and share knowledge simultaneously in a greater extend. This opens up for dynamic conversations (Zyl, 2009), which are of interest in project communication (Cameron, 2007) where multiple
stakeholders are involved. Project complexity gives rise to aggregation and coordinating issues as multiple sources of information exist (Rubenstein-Montano et al., 2001). This in combination with centralized information can cause waste activities as search time for information increase (Zyl, 2009). The large amount of information existing in complex projects makes it harder to develop aggregation techniques that make valuable use of information (Przydatek et al., 2003). As project organisations grow larger and the project objective becomes complicated, excess information appears and compromise communication efficiency. Excessive amount of
information contributes to confusion (Alvai & Leidner, 2001) gives rise to need of data mining (Agrawal & Srikant, 2000). Considering the large scale of information available and project resource constraints, developing and designing efficient information processing and aggregation techniques is an important challenge to make effective use of data (Przydatek et al., 2003). Whenever information isn’t used and transformed into actions, it is useless (McKelvey & Page, 1986) and becomes a hidden asset.
The culture of the company can either be a barrier or a driving factor towards efficient communication. Company culture is recognized as an attitude which belongs to the company
12
(Ankrah et al., 2009). The attitude can be directed towards any things or events and is inconstant. Company culture is based on beliefs and determines behaviour of the project team members. Rubenstein-Montano et al. (2001) argues that the company culture can exclusively determine success or failure of the fulfilment of the project objective. Company culture can evoke change resistance as the change diverges from shared beliefs and attitude within the company.
Companies are more likely to be open to change in a situation of urgency or crisis or when benefits of the change exceed the effort needed to implement the change (Kouzmin & Korac-Kakabadse, 2000). Understanding the company culture will reduce change resistance and mitigate negative orientations (Ankrah et al., 2009). Poor project communication can be another consequence of company culture and might cause misunderstanding and information scarcity (Ankrah et al., 2009).
A driving factor towards efficient communication is trust (Jo & Shim, 2005). Building trust improves team member performance as satisfaction is stimulated, which in turn improves the fulfilment of the project objective (Jo & Shim, 2005). Besides, trust prevents fear and uncertainty from happening in teams (Pullin, 2010). Communicating teams can build trust as more
information is shared and covers potential knowledge gaps existing in project teams where communication is poor. Small talk is an informal way of communicating and can contribute to increased information sharing. Small talk stimulates familiarity and can improve relationships by enabling attachment between team members. Through this, trust among team members is built and expectations are clarified (Pullin, 2010). Small talk is therefore another driving factor towards communication efficiency. Sharing common beliefs among team members also
contribute to communication efficiency as this preserves collective decision making, which is of special importance in projects (Remidez & Jones, 2012). Communication animates visions and stimulates acceptance for common objectives, which motivates for change and improves project performance as it builds collaborative teams (Kouzmin & Korac-Kakabadse, 2000). Aggregating information is supportive towards collective decision making (Feddersen & Pesendorfer, 1997). Access to local information can impact individuals into creating common beliefs among team members since there is a close connection between common knowledge and rational
expectations (McKelvey & Page, 1986).
Projects should continuously strive towards minimizing time spent on waste activities since it increases value for the end customer (Womack et al., 2007), which in turn increase
competitiveness and improves project performance. Reducing waste activities in communication is also associated with improved operational performance and labour productivity
13
(Hajmohammad et al., 2013); insufficient operations in projects can be reduced (Remidez & Jones, 2012) as being uninformed or misinformed correlates to poorly operated tasks (Katz, 1982). Furthermore, efficient communication is positively correlated with increased project profitability (Kossai, 2014).
2.2 TOOLS FOR PROJECT COMMUNICATION
Implementing tools for communication contributes to increased project communication efficiency (Grudin & Poltrock, 1989). Communication can occur between physically present people or through IT-based solutions; tools for communication can either be based on physical presence or IT-based. Tools are recognized as an object used to achieve a special objective (Kay, 1995). Thus, project communication tools aim to enable information sharing between two or several stakeholders. Information technology, IT, is the technique that allows information to be transmitted between transmitter and receiver. It can also be described as the electronic
processing and storage of information (Sing, 2008). IT-based tools for communication can provide communication channels and platforms. A communication channel is the medium through which information travels and a platform are channels by which information flows (Robbins, 1993). Hence, the communication channel is embedded in the communication platform. Through a communication platform, information can be stored and shared between users and users can search for information. A communication channel enables conversations and instant messaging to take place. Instant messaging is an internet-based synchronous text chat with point-to-point communication between two users (Grinter & Palen, 2002). Instant messaging also supports group chats where multiple users can interact simultaneously and thereby create a dynamic communication environment. These chats often carry informal
information and enable fast information exchange (Nardi et al., 2000) yet formal information can still be exchanged through the group chats. Instant messaging stores information shared in chronological order where new information is visible in the chat window. Instant messaging highlights up-to-date information as new information shared replaces former information visible in the chat window. Information in a text chat is organised considering the time it was shared. Therefore, older information becomes harder to find than recently shared information.
2.2.1 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY – EVALUATION
Structuring information available in the project by categorizing information and responsibilities helps to decrease risk occurred from project complexity (Stead et al., 2009). This can be done by
14
implementing higher levels of information technology which helps to aggregate and coordinate information (Müller & Seuring, 2007). Higher levels of implemented IT indicate higher levels of technique used to manage information transmission. If the level of implemented IT is too low it loses its ability to cope with large amount of information (Przydatek et al., 2003). By facilitating information transmission, IT allows receiver and provider of information to be connected and can reduce the distance through which the message travels (Alavi & Leidner, 2001). Through this, time associated with searching for information and waiting for response can be reduced and cost of waste can thereby be reduced (Silva & Ratnadiwakara, 2008). However, Cost of Waste will only be reduced if a low-amount of specific technology is implemented (Müller & Seuring, 2007). Higher levels of technology implemented might even increase waste as excess
information is generated and confusion arises. IT localizes information by aggregating multiple sources of information. IT links and facilitates communication between stakeholders as
relationships are built (Katz, 1982; Müller & Seuring, 2007). Furthermore, by allowing information to flow with speed between stakeholders (Kouzmin & Korac-Kakabadse, 2000), learning capabilities are improved (Sing, 2008).
IT-based communication tools create opportunities for communicating in virtual environments. According to Jarvenpaa and Leidner (1998), trust and safety is especially important in virtual environment, which is contradicted by Reed and Knight (2010) who still suggest that
information should be reviewed before transmission but claim that no evidence of correlation between increased risks regarding secrecy and virtual communication environments exists. IT will never be able to completely replace face-to-face conversations available in meetings (Kouzmin & Korac-Kakabadse, 2000), which will always be needed in various extend to solve complex issues and take action. Furthermore, it is commonly occurred that IT is expected to solve issues associated with knowledge sharing; however, the people and culture of the company’s impact on project performance is often underestimated. The underlying issue with knowledge sharing isn’t necessarily to address knowledge areas, but to express knowledge in such manner as to be interpretable by the receiver as intended from the provider’s perspective. This, on the other hand, is hard to communicate only through pure IT solutions. Nevertheless, there’s a risk of not incorporating IT; people with less knowledge about IT might end up left out of the conversation because they do not know how to use the new system (Kouzmin & Korac-Kakabadse, 2000). Besides, Pullin (2010) states that low IT infrastructure is one reason why some parts of the world haven’t developed.
15 2.2.2 TRADITIONAL COMMUNICATION TOOLS
Traditional communication tools are well established tools that have been used in a company for a long period (Taylor & Perry, 2005). However, what makes a communication tool traditional is a subjective estimation and changes as new communication tools becomes well-established in the company. Traditional communication tools diverge from trends which arise from a peak in demand over a short period (Chopra & Meindl, 2016) as well as new communication tools. Traditional communication tools can be based on both physically presence and IT. Traditional IT-based tools support one-way or top-down communication (Zyl, 2009). Examples of typical traditional communication tools are telephone, Skype, E-mail and meetings.
Meetings are a frequently used tool for solving project-related issues (Stefik et al., 1987) and can occur face-to-face, virtually through IT-tools such as Skype or a combination of both. Meetings are gathering people with one or more objectives to be achieved (Kay, 1995). The demand of meetings often arises from the need to generate ideas, share information and to initiate action (Kay, 1995). Successful meetings are performed when the objective for the meeting is achieved, which is possible when criteria for successful meetings are fulfilled. Firstly, participants need to be prepared and updated for the meeting (Pearson et al., 2006) to preserve focus towards the meeting objective. Second, topics brought up during the meeting need to be relevant and
contribute to fulfilment of the meeting objective (Stefik et al., 1987). Third and final, a follow up with lessons learned and actions taken needs to be summarized to clarify the outcome of the meeting (Kay, 1995). If needed, upcoming actions towards project-related issues should also be included in the follow up to make sure the project objective will be fulfilled. Aside from criteria defining successful meetings, the project team can also use tools during the meeting to make the fulfilment of the meeting objective easier (Kay, 1995; Stefik et al., 1987). Meetings might be frequently used to solve project-related issues; however, Kay (1995) questions meetings’ ability to solve project-related issues as participants are prevented from working simultaneously with tasks. Kay (1995) further argues that some information gained from the meeting will always be lost since everything communicated cannot be documented. Instead, meetings should be
supported with IT-tools through which tasks can be operated simultaneously and information can be saved more frequently.
16
The pure definition of Social Media is unclear; however, Social Media is most commonly
described as an online-based communication platform through which users can interact and share information (Edosomwan et al., 2011). Until recently, the usage of Social Media has been
released from being demarcated to private usage and is utilized by companies for internal communication (Leonardi et al., 2013). The first Social Media communication platform was launched in 1997 (Boyd & Ellison, 2008) as a progress of digital communication platforms (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010; Storey et al., 2014).
Even though there is no systematic way in which Social Media can be categorized, Social Media can be classified against the level of intensity considering self-fulfilment available on each Social Media platform (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010). The intensity is determined by the degree of social presence or Social Media richness and self-presentation or self-disclosure. To further explain this, a table made by Kaplan and Haenlein (2010) is presented in table 1.
Table 1 Determining Social Media Classification by social presence/media richness and self-presentation/self-disclosure
Social presence/Social Media richness
Low Medium High
Se lf-pr ese ntat ion /S elf -disclosu re Low Collaborative projects (e.g. Wikipedia) Content communities (e.g. YouTube) Virtual game worlds (e.g. World of Warcraft) High Blogs Social network sites (e.g. Facebook) Virtual social worlds (e.g. Second Life)
As presented in table 2, social presence or Social Media richness is divided into low, medium and high and self-presentation or self-disclosure is divided into low and high. The level of social presence or Social Media richness is influenced by the degree of intimacy, which is described as the visual and physical contact that can be achieved by using the platform. The level of self-presentation or self-disclosure is determined by users’ ability to control the impressions other people form of them (Goffman, 1959); in other words, the ability to contradict a statement.
17
According to table 2, the most intense Social Media application is virtual social worlds since they enable high levels of social media richness or social presence and, at the same time, high levels of abilities to self-presentation and self-disclosure. The most commonly introduced Social Media in Sweden, Europe and Australia is social network sites (SCB, 2016; Macnamara & Zerfass, 2012), which is of medium-high intense classification. The prediction of channel use behaviour considering company culture relies on Social Media richness (D’Urso & Rains, 2008). To maximize trust building in project teams, a high-intense Social Media platform with high Social Media richness and self-disclosure is needed (Storey et al., 2014).
Social Media can be further classified against level of interaction. The level of interaction responds to the Social Media platform’s ability of having one-to-one, one-to-many or many-to-many conversations (Zyl, 2009). Table 2 summarizes examples of activities most appropriate for each classification and through which Social Media platform these activities can take place.
Table 2 activities most appropriate for each level of interaction in different Social Media platforms Typ e of in te rac
tion One-to-one One-to-many Many-to-many
Ac
tivity
Private conversations, confidential or sensitive
information
Push ideas to a broad audience, share information, discussion forum Collaborative planning, joint decision making, knowledge capture Soc ial M ed
ia Facebook Messenger Blogs, Web sites Wikis
As level of Social Media intensity is presented in table 1, the purpose of table 2 is to explain in which Social Media platform a certain number of users can interact simultaneously. In contrast, Social Media intensity considers self-fulfilment and in what extend users can express themselves (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010). Thus, Social Media intensity and interaction should be treated separately yet combined explain the differences between Social Media platforms. Level of interaction and intensity can be further used to described other communication tools such as traditional ones. The choice of Social Media platform in project communication differs in which interaction each platform intends to serve; if a project manager possesses information that needs
18
to be sent out to the team functions, a platform that supports one-to-many interactions will be the most appropriate choice (Robbins, 1993). Social Media support many-to-many conversations (Storey et al., 2014), which is desired in project communication because those conversations bring team members and stakeholders closer together (Remidez & Jones, 2012). This will result in reduced distance through which the information travels. Dynamic conversations correspond to many-to-many conversations or high level of interaction. Low levels of interaction correspond to low level of interaction and medium levels of interaction correspond to one-to-many
conversations.
Social Media can be hosted or hosted by a third party. As a Social Media platform is self-hosted, data is owned and utilized by the creator of the data; self-hosted solutions don’t allow other parties to control or use data (Feller et al., 2006). In practise, this means that all
information stored at a self-hosted Social Media platform can be viewed and edited by no one else but the owner of the Social Media platform (Lin & Halavais, 2004). However, companies do not need to create their own Social Media platform to be the owner of information but can
instead by a license which allows the company to become the owner of the Social Media platform. In contrast, a Social Media platform that is hosted by a third party allows data to be viewed and, in some cases, edited by a third party, which is the owner of the Social Media platform (Ristenpart et al., 2009). When using a Social Media platform that is third-party hosted, companies risk that sensitive information is reviled. In worst cases, information can be found and used by a competitor which can have serious impact on the company’s performance (Ristenpart et al., 2009). Hence, self-hosted Social Media platforms are more private than if hosted by a third party.
As Social Media is not an established communication tool, Social Media directly diverge from traditional communication tools. Social Media is an evolvement from traditional communication tools since Social Media provides a higher richness in information flow and dynamic. Social Media goes beyond traditional communication tools as communication appears in multiple directions simultaneously (Zyl, 2009). Implementing Social Media as a tool for internal project communication has proved a reduction in Cost of Waste (Macnamara & Zerfass, 2012) as it aggregates multiple sources of information and allows project team members to be connected through easy flowing communication channels (Zyl, 2009). Social Media allows parties to communicate in one platform through which users interact in several dimensions instead of having one-way or top-down conversations. This removes barriers in the organisation as information isn’t controlled to hierarchical groups (Zyl, 2009; Storey et al., 2014) and
19
information can flow easily between organisational borders. This is especially important in hierarchical organisations since knowledge becomes local and more accessible for all employees (Remidez & Jones, 2012) compared to using traditional communication channels such as E-mail and Skype. Furthermore, those traditional communication channels are time consuming and interruptive, which can be the cause of decreased productivity (Zyl, 2009; Storey et al., 2014). Localizing information in Social Media platforms removes dependency of people possessing certain knowledge as the information becomes accessible for all project team members (Remidez & Jones, 2012). This will improve productivity in the project team. By allowing information to be shared with speed in project communication, team members can prevent major damages in crises situations as information is exchanged within seconds through Social Media platforms. In these situations, decisions must occur in a compressed timeframe. Social Media can bring various team members together and localizing information, which prevent major damages from occurring in crises situations (Yates & Paquette, 2011). According to Schultz et al. (2011), the media through which information travels matters more than the message itself in crises
communication; bigger consequences such as negative publicity come from sensitive information being spread on a frequently used platform than from publishing sensitive
information on a smaller platform. The reason for this is that more people will read the sensitive information in a large platform, while attention will be low in a smaller platform with smaller amount of readers. In project communication, sharing important information or knowledge in a frequently used platform will be most time efficient.
By facilitating interaction, Social Media can increase information sharing (Edosomwan et al., 2011) and close potential knowledge gaps. Social Media aggregates information by allowing only one platform to bear all communication (Zyl, 2009). Through this platform, users can share information and build conversations. Aggregating information improves the condition for better collective decision making (Feddersen & Pesendorfer, 1997). Using only one platform for information also coordinates information and time spent on searching for information can be reduced (Yates & Paquette, 2010) which in turn reduces Cost of Waste (Macnamara & Zerfass, 2012). By facilitating the flow of information through aggregation, the distance between receiver and transmitter of the information can be reduced (Pullin, 2010). Through this, Social Media holds great promise for knowledge sharing (Yates & Paquette, 2010) as it facilitates individual learning and expression as well as coordination and collaboration between stakeholders (Storey et al., 2014). Social Media further enables common learning and knowledge sharing (Yates & Paquette, 2011) by supporting communities of practice to arise. Communities of practice arise
20
when groups of people with common interests and beliefs can interact in a common platform. Through this platform, knowledge can be shared and allows people to evolve in a collaborative environment. Transferring knowledge between stakeholders in projects is an important role of any channel used for communication as it facilitates individual learning as well as coordination and collaboration among team members. (Storey et al., 2014).
Social Media is also able of reducing the distance through which a message travels. Therefore, implementing Social Media as a tool for internal project communication will improve
communication efficiency. Despite this fact, less than 20 % of Swedish companies use Social Media for internal exchange of information and knowledge (SCB, 2013) and it isn’t used in a greater extend for that purpose in Europe and Australia (Macnamara & Zerfass, 2012). In addition, studies have shown an attitude of fear among workers towards Social Media
(Macnamara & Zerfass, 2012) and lack of knowledge about how to use Social Media (Storey et al., 2014; Yates & Paquette, 2011). The fear of using Social Media in businesses arises from concerns regarding secrecy and sensitive information leakage. As mentioned, Social Media allows information to travel fast, which will have a negative impact regarding sensitive
information. However, this only concerns companies who store information at and communicate through a third-party hosted Social Media platform. Thus, fear seams not to be a direct
consequence of Social Media but lack of knowledge about existing self-hosted Social Media platforms. Fear also arises from concerns regarding privacy and distractions as great amounts of notifications received might be disturbing employees’ work. Lack of knowledge about Social Media usage might correlate with age, experience of using IT and IT knowledge (Storey et al., 2014). Studies have also shown that Social Media can cause a need for data mining as excess data are available in Social Media platforms (Yates & Paquette, 2011; Storey et al., 2014). Excess data might be correlated with project size (Storey et al., 2014) as conversation complexity increase from interacting with multiple stakeholders (Cameron, 2007).
Advantages and disadvantages that arise from implementing Social Media in communication are summarized and listed in table 3.
21
Table 3 summary and list of advantages and disadvantages of implementing Social Media in project communication
Advantages Disadvantages
Improved aggregation and coordination of
information and people Secrecy issues
Increased knowledge exchange Knowledge gaps in Social Media usage among workers
Reduced distance through which the message
travels Excess data
Increased trust
The disadvantages of implementing Social Media for project communication might disturb change and give rise to change resistance. Providing an increased amount of information about the specific change will reduce resistance towards the change (Worley & Doolen, 2006). One of the most important principles in organisational theory is that groups strive towards structure their work environments to reduce the amount of stress they must face by directing their activities towards a more workable and predictable level of certainty and clarity (Katz, 1982). New tools for communication might not be attractive to implement in a project organisation where existing tools are enough to manage communication needs since change is not made if benefits of the change don’t exceed efforts needed to make the change (Kouzmin & Korac-Kakabadse, 2000). On the other hand, the advantages of a new technology will be underestimated by a factor of 3, while the disadvantages of giving up old technology will be overestimated by a factor of three (Zyl, 2009).
22
3 VOLVO GROUP TRUCKS TECHNOLOGY
In chapter 3, information about the company studied in the case study is provided. Information regarding the Volvo GTT organisation was found at the Intranet. Because of secrecy, references for this information cannot be included in the reference list.
Volvo Group Trucks Technology, Volvo GTT, is a global company within the Volvo Group organisation (Volvo Group, 2017) which is presented in figure 2.
Figure 2 Chart over the Volvo Group organisation
As shown in figure 2, Volvo GTT operates as an assisting function towards the CEO of Volvo Group, which is the owner of Volvo Trucks, UD Trucks, Renault Trucks and several. In
addition, Volvo GTT has two assisting teams concerning operations and purchasing. The Volvo GTT organisation is presented in figure 3.
23
The functions representing Volvo GTT are technology product project, complete vehicle, powertrain engineering and quality and customer satisfaction combined with the assisting teams such as human resource and several. Volvo GTT is a global organisation with approximately 7000 employees all over the world (Volvo Group, 2017). In Sweden, Volvo GTT is found in Gothenburg where 3200 employees work. As shown in figure 3, project office is a part of Volvo GTT and operates development processes of the trucks. These development processes are mainly performed in projects and concern areas within both hardware and software components, which are cab; electrical and electronics; chassis and vehicle dynamics; engines, transmissions and axles; and controls and software functionalities. The components included in the truck are shown in figure 4.
Figure 4 components included in the development processes operated by Volvo GTT
In other words, projects operated at Volvo GTT concerns areas presented in figure 4. The project process includes several phases but starts most commonly with a new solution processed by a research and development team together with a portfolio management. The projects can also emerge from upcoming law requirements which affect the design of the truck. The portfolio management determine resources in terms of money dedicated to the project. After that, a feasibility study is made to investigate the solution’s feasibility in the market. If the solution is feasible, a concept development is made followed by a solution development process in which the solution is converted to an actual product. When the product is constructed, a final
verification is made to prepare for the next phase in the project process, which is industrialisation and commercialisation. As a last stage of the entire project process, a follow up is made to
24
document findings and difficulties throughout the project process. These documents are saved in the Volvo database with purpose to learn and educate other project processes operated within Volvo GTT. A demonstration of the project process is shown in figure 5.
Figure 5 overview of the general project process in Volvo GTT
As shown in figure 5, all processes included in the projects overlap each other yet separated by deadlines called gates. The gates are represented by the lines drawn between each phases of the project process. To continue to the next phase of the project, the project team needs to fulfil determined criteria determined for each gate. If the criteria are fulfilled, the project team can continue to the next phase of the project. Throughout the entire project process, knowledge gained is meant to be documented in the Follow-Up phase.
25
4 METHOD
Chapter 4 presents chosen methods to collect data and analysis methods that will be the link between research question and answer. These methods are evaluated and compared against other methods used in project communication.
To determine communication tools’ impact on communication efficiency, the first research approach was to implement a Social Media group chat in one or several project teams where communication efficiency would be measured before and after the implementation.
Communication efficiency would be measured against the same criteria before and after the implementation to be compared and evaluated. However, this approach was rejected as secrecy issues appeared; the Social Media group chat, which was carefully selected, was hosted by a third party. In addition, installing the group chat was not possible due to technical issues at Volvo GTT as installing the group chat software would disturb the current system. Instead, the research approach was change to evaluating currently used traditional communication tools’ impact on communication efficiency.
The barriers and driving factors, or criteria, included in the formula for Cost of Waste, found in chapter 4.3, are chosen based on previous literature defining efficient project communication. Since efficiency is dependent on what criteria are chosen to explain efficiency (Aaker et al., 1995), the criteria are subject to literature resources and this method is only one of many potential ways of defining efficiency and calculating Cost of Waste. No definite or tested formula was found in existing literature; the formula used in study is based on project
communication literature and previously applied waste formulas within other fields. Hence, the formula used in this study to define efficient communication and Cost of Waste cannot be exclusively used to determine efficient communication; barriers and driving factors not
mentioned in this study will likely also have an impact on efficient project communication and Cost of Waste. In conclusion, the method used for defining efficient communication is a roughly simplified method.
4.1 DATA COLLECTION
Data can be collected by using either qualitative or quantitative methods. Qualitative methods emphasise understanding while quantitative methods emphasise testing and verification (Ghauri & Grønhaug, 2010). Qualitative methods are appropriate when studying a social process or event
26
in an organisation, group or individual (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). The objective of this study will be fulfilled by using qualitative methods since the understanding about tools for project
communication will be uncovered and explored with purpose to understand why Social Media isn’t adapted for project communication. Yet, the research will include quantitative elements as Cost of Waste will be estimated and efficient communication will be evaluated against fixed criteria. Thus, the research design will be qualitative but utilize both qualitative and quantitative techniques. The research approach will be explorative and focus on the understanding of
people’s behaviour. In explorative research, the research problem is poorly understood and the research therefore aims to seek answers to the research question (Ghauri 2004; Marshan-Piekkari & Welch, 2004). The study will exclusively rely on primary data except for one variable
included in measurements which will be collected from an external source. The reason for this is because no secondary data is available at Volvo GTT regarding this subject. Primary data will be collected by performing a case study at Volvo GTT where observations, which is a frequently used method in qualitative research (Miles et al., 2013), will appear. The observations will be complemented with a survey. Qualitative data is mainly expressed in text yet can be quantified into numbers (Ghauri & Grønhaug, 2010). Hence, both qualitative and quantified qualitative data will be used in this study. Qualitative data can be used to draw general conclusions at the
conceptual level (Ghauri & Grønhaug, 2010). This is useful when exploring concepts such as communication tools’ impact on efficiency in project communication. Quantitative data, on the other hand, enables measurements and conclusions based on logical reasoning at the operational level.
Regarding ethics, the participants of the study will not be exposed to stress since anonymity will be preserved and participants will be aware the involvement in the research study. The
participation will be voluntary and uncomfortable questions will be avoided.
The entire population of this study was Volvo GTT employees whose work is related to projects, which in total consists of 3200 people globally located. The sample size was selected from Volvo GTT since Volvo GTT is a large technology firm in which projects are operated. In these projects, traditional communication tools are dominating. Employees whose work is not related to project management was excluded from the sample size since the study is restricted to project communication. A quota sample was selected and consisted of 47 project team members. These team members had various knowledge backgrounds and responsibility areas as they serve different functions in projects; however, everyone included in the sample size works in technique-related projects with various size in terms of money and team members. Still, all
27
projects have similar knowledge background considering all projects are related to technique. This will eliminate risks of having different information travelling among project team members and will therefore reduce diversification. The different project areas operated at Volvo GTT can be found in chapter 3. The sample size in the observations diverge from the sample size in the survey; the sample size in the survey was expanded considering a larger sample size could be captured in this case. Besides, allowing more people to respond to the survey provides more data and thereby a more accurate result considering reliability and validity (Chopra & Meindl, 2016). In the observations, the 47 participants correspond to four different projects: three software projects within electronics and IT and one hardware project treating the axis of the truck. Aside from 4 project managers, each participant represented various team function. The projects were chosen with consideration to embrace diversity regarding project area and project size to be representative towards the rest of the firm. However, drawing general conclusions about the entire population from a quota sample might provide misleading results (Ghauri & Grønhaug, 2010). Hence, conclusions made in this study cannot be reliably applied at the general
population. The survey was E-mailed to 100 employees out of which 47 of those were included in the sample size used in the observation. The additional 53 employees had connection to the four projects which were observed.
4.1.1 CASE STUDY
The case study was performed at Volvo GTT in Gothenburg where 3200 employees work. A case study is often used in qualitative research with explorative approach yet not restricted to any area (Ghauri & Grønhaug, 2010). As the thesis questions aren’t measurable and hard to answer without studying a natural setting, case studies become especially appropriate as a method to collect data. A case study becomes additionally appropriate as the thesis question has real-life relevance. The case study aims to unfold the unsolved thesis question by allowing the researcher to investigate a natural setting from the inside. This process includes analysis of a group,
individual or situation within a definite time frame. If a case study is performed on a group, conclusions does not aim to be drawn from individuals but from the group as a unit. Hence, the case study is performed in a real-time situation where conclusions made concerns the sample size selected.
A common way to collect data in case studies is through interviews, observations and verbal or written reports among others. However, observations have been selected in this case study. While interviews can provide information that the observer did not see, interviews are also
28
restricted to the respondent’s willingness or even ability to provide information (Ghauri & Grønhaug, 2010). Observations can be more accurate and objective as the observer is the only source of information; interviews can provide the same information in various format as respondents might have different interpretations. On the other hand, information collected through observations relies only on the observer’s knowledge and skills, which can limit the research. (Ghauri & Grønhaug, 2010). No sufficient amounts of verbal or written reports were found to cover the thesis questions, which is also why no such report has been used.
4.1.1.1 OBSERVATIONS
This study will be using human observations and collet data through field observations where the observer is a natural part of the situation being observed, which is also called non-participant observations. In human observations, a person is the object of the observation rather than a camera, which is used in mechanical observations. In the case of human observations, the observer can have an impact on the situation at first since people might be disturbed by the observer’s presence. However, this is expected to disappear as people get used to the observer’s presence.
The purpose of the observation process is to increase the understanding of existing traditional communication tools used at Volvo GTT. Therefore, the operation process will evolve around meetings and IT-based tools associated with meetings. The observation started by participating in meetings and having access to all information shared regarding meetings; access to agenda, meetings notes etc. All four projects had 8 meetings per week in total, which corresponds to 9 hours meeting time in total. Participants of the observation were aware of the purpose of the observations and the observer participated passively in the meeting; no effort but documenting was made by the observer. A summary of focus areas during the observation are presented in table 4.
Table 4 focus areas for the observation process of participating in meetings
Focus area Question to be answered Purpose/goal
Preparation before the
meeting Are participants able to be prepared for the meeting? Identify preparing information for the meeting
Topics brought up during
the meeting What is the reason for the meeting? Find out what is causing the meeting to occur
Tools used for
communication Are tools used appropriately? Evaluate tools for communication
Follow up What is communicated
