Eship References

1. Doug Abbott, Lance Edwards, John Evans, Leo Heath, Mike Johnson, Timothy Kober, Mary North-Abbott, and Roger Oldenkamp (2006). Development and presentation of the interdisciplinary course Petroleum Project Evaluation: integrating entrepreneurial and business concepts into a petroleum engineering curriculum. Proceedings of the 2006 American Society Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, 2006.
2. Alice Agogino, Shuang Song, Jonathan Hey (2005) Triangulation of Indicators of Successful Student Design Teams. Mudd Design Workshop V, accepted by International Journal of Engineering Education.
3. Greg M. Ajamian and Peter A. Koen (2002) Technology Stage-Gate: A Structured Process for Managing High-Risk, New Technology Projects. In P.Belliveau, A Griffen and S. Sorermeyer, eds. PDMA Toolbook for New Product Development. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 267-295, 2002.
4. Carlos Albornoz, Patricio Poblete, Carlos Vignolo Friz, Sergio Celis, and William Young (2006). Assessing an Active Induction and Teaming Program at the University of Chile. Proceedings of the NCIIA 10th Annual Conference, pp 119-127, 2006.
5. Kathleen Allen, Richard Bergin, and Kenneth Pickar (2004). Exploring Trust, Group Satisfaction, and Performance in Geographically Dispersed and Co-Located University Technology Commercialization Teams. Proceedings of the NCIIA 8th Annual Conference, pp 201-211, 2004.
6. Robert H. Allen, William Tam, and Artin A. Shoukas (2006). A Design Repository as a Resource for Biomedical Engineering Students. Proceedings of the NCIIA 9th Annual Conference, pp 41-52, 2005.
7. Michael D. Ames (2006). AACSB International's Advocacy of Experimental Learning and Assurance of Learning - Boom or Bust for SBI Student Consulting? USASBI/SBI 2006 Joint Conference Proceedings, 2006.
8. M. Angeles (2004). Using a Wiki for Documentation and Collaborative Authoring.
9. Mahlon Apgar, IV (1998). The alternative workplace: Changing where and how people work. Harvard Business Review May-June 1998:121-139.
10. Koren K. Aragaki, Margaret H. Huyck, Daniel M. Ferguson (2005). Exploratory Analysis of Effectiveness of Assessment Tools on Project Based Interprofessional Education. Proceedings of the NCIIA 9th Annual Conference, pp 177-191, 2005.
11. Mark Archibald, Michelle Clauss, and James Dupree (2005). Entrepreneurship in Capstone Design Using Interdisciplinary Teams and a Business Plan Competition. Proceedings of the 2005 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, 2005.
12. M. Thomas Arnold, Claire Cornell, and George Vozikis (2005). The Legal Bridge between Business and Engineering. Proceedings of the NCIIA 9th Annual Conference, pp 249-261, 2005.
13. Lawrence Aronhime (2005). Creating Entrepreneurial Opportunities by Educating for Technology Commercialization at Johns Hopkins University. Proceedings of the NCIIA 9th Annual Conference, pp 239-248, 2005.
14. Arthur, Diane (1998). Recruiting, Interviewing, Selecting and Orienting New Employees New York: AMACOM 1998.
15. Semra F. Ascigil (2006). Fostering Entrepreneurship Through Incubators: Challenges in Management. USASBE/SBI 2006 Joint Conference Proceedings, 2006.
16. Charles E. Bamford, Garry D. Bruton, and Yvonne L. Hinson (2006). Founder/Chief Executive Officer Exit: A Social Capital Perspective of New Ventures. Journal of Small Business Management, 44(2):207-220, April 2006.
17. David Barbe, Sarah Djamshidi, Scott Magids, and Karen Thornton (2004). The Development of a Technology Entrepreneurship Culture And Lessons Learned. Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, 2004
18. David Barbe, Karen Thornton, James Green, Tony Casalena, Matt Weinstein, Borna Ghavam, and Blake Robertson (2004). Hinman CEOs Student Ventures. Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, 2004.
19. Mark Barker and David Hall (2004). Teaching Innovative Product Development Skills to Freshmen Engineering Students. Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, 2004.
20. Susan Bartholomew and Anne D. Smith (2006). Improving Survey Response Rates from Chief Executive Officers in Small Firms: The Importance of Social Networks. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 30, No. 1, pp 83-96, January 2006.
21. Anuradha Basu (2006). The Silicon Valley Neat Ideas Fair: An initiative to encourage entrepreneurship among university students. Proceedings of the NCIIA 10th Annual Conference, pp 271-277, 2006.
22. Andrew Batta, Aaron Capizzi, Jonathon Fruchte, Ron Zuckerman, and Dan Moore (2004). Engenius Solutions: Changing How Undergraduates Think. Proceedings from the NCIIA 8th Annual Conference, pp 33-36, 2004.
23. France Belanger, Mary Beth Watson-Manheim, and Dianne H. Jordan (2003). Aligning IS research & practice: A research agenda for virtual work. in Advanced Topics in Information Resources Management, Idea Group Publishing, Hershey, PA, 2003.
24. E. Berthelette and F. Kresen, editors. The Entrepreneur's Fast Trac I Handbook, 1996 revised edition, Premier Entrepreneur Programs, Inc, Denver, Co, 1996.
25. E. Berthelette and F. Kresen, editors. The Entrepreneurs' Planning Handbook, Entrepreneurial Education Foundation, 1997.
26. W. Biemans (1992) Managing Innovations within Networks. Routledge, London, 1992.
27. Tora K. Bikson, Susan G. Cohen, and Don Mankin (1998). Information technology and high-performance teams, in Supporting Work Team Effectiveness: Best Management Practices for Fostering High Performance, Eric Sundstrom & Associates, Jossey-Bass, 1998.
28. Blaskowski, Laddie (2006). Business Truths: Developing a Board of Advisors. Colorado Springs:BusinessTruths Consulting, Inc., Online. Accessed: July 2006.
29. B. Bloom, D. Krathwohl. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain, New York: Longman, Green, 1956.
30. Tim Blumentritt (2006). The Relationship Between Boards and Planning in Family Businesses. USASBE/SBI 2006 Joint Conference Proceedings, 2006.
31. Don B. Bradley III and Tchiko Ngbichi (2006). Entrepreneurial Opportunities in West Africa. USASBE/SBI 2006 Joint Conference Proceedings, 2006.
32. Kathy Vrital Brockway and Greg Spaulding (2004). Technology and Business: The Complete Entrepreneurial Experience. Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, 2004.
33. J. Brooke. (1992) User interfaces for CSCW systems, in D. Diaper & C. Sanger (eds) CSCW in Practice: An Introduction and Case Studies, Springer Verlag, 1992.
34. Frederick P. Brooks (1995). The mythical man-month: Essays on software engineering (20th anniversary edition) Addison Wesley, 1995.
35. Scott Browne and Rich Harms (2004). Entrepreneurial Learning (Not Teaching) And Informatics (Not Computer) Support: Using Appropriate Learning Styles and Tools to Support the Entrepreneurial Community. Proceedings of the NCIIA 8th Annual Conference, pp 195-199, 2004.
36. Peter T. Bryant (2006). Improving Entrepreneurial Education through Self-Regulatory Skills. Proceedings of the NCIIA 10th Annual Conference, pp 279-289, 2006.
37. Dean Burton and Ashbjorn Osland (2005). San Jose State University’s University Based Incubators: Loosely Coupled Elements in Silicon Valley’s Entrepreneurial System. Proceedings of the 2005 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, 2005.
38. W. Bygrave, editor. The Portable MBA in Entrepreneurship, second edition, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1997.
39. Patricia A. Carlson and Frederick C. Berry (2005). Calibrated Peer Review (CPR): A tool for integrating meaningful writing assignments into technical courses. Proceedings of the NCIIA 9th Annual Conference, pp 269-276, 2005.
40. Patricia A. Carlson, Frederick C. Berry, and David Voltmer (2005). Incorporating student peer-review into an introduction to engineering design course. 35th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, 2005.
41. Shawn M. Carraher and Sarah H. Carraher (2006). Attitudes Towards Benefits Among SME Owners in Eastern Europe: A 30-Month Study in Belarus, Poland, & Ukraine. USASBE/SBI 2006 Joint Conference Proceedings, 2006.
42. Gary J. Castrogiovanni, James G. Combs, and Robert T. Justis (2006). Resource Scarcity and Agency Theory Predictions Concerning the Continued Use of Franchising in Multi-outlet Networks. Journal of Small Business Management, 44(1):27-44, January 2006.
43. John James Cater (2006). Long Life in the Family Firm: An Exploratory Study of Business and Family Success. USASBE/SBI 2006 Joint Conference Proceedings, 2006.
44. Yolande E. Chan, Niraj Bhargava, and Christopher T. Street (2006). Having Arrived: The Homogeneity of High-Growth Small Firms. Journal of Small Business Management, 44(3):426-440, July 2006.
45. Hsu Tze Chi and Han Bee Shan (2004). Coupling Engineering and Entrepreneurship Education through Fuel Cell Product Development. Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, 2004.
46. David Y. Choi and Arturo Perez (2006). Online Piracy and the Emergence of New Business Models. USASBE/SBI 2006 Joint Conference Proceedings, 2006.
47. Andreas Christoforou, Mohammad Al-Ansary, and Ahmet Yigit (2004). Improving Engineering Programs at Kuwait University Through Continuous Assessment: Preliminary Results. Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, 2004.
48. Wayne Chung (2004). The Method and Mode of Research: Letting People's Aspirations Drive Innovation and Team Collaboration. Proceedings of the NCIIA 8th Annual Conference, pp 237-240, 2004.
49. Wayne Chung (2005). Applying Appropriate Problem Sets for Innovation: Low-tech and high-tech product design challenges. Proceedings of the NCIIA 9th Annual Conference, pp 85-92, 2005.
50. Wayne Chung (2006). Understanding How the Environment and Tools Affect Effective Collaboration in Higher Education. Proceedings of the NCIIA 10th Annual Conference, pp 171-177, 2006.
51. W. Andrew Clark and Andrew J. Czuchry (2004). Technology-Based Business Incubators: Living Laboratories for Entrepreneurial Students. Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, 2004.
52. W. Andrew Clark, J. Paul Sims, Craig A. Turner, and Jon L. Smith (2006). Embedding Innovation Process and Methodology in Engineering Technology and Business Management and Marketing Coursework. Proceedings of the 2006 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, 2006.
53. Kim B. Clark and Steven C. Wheelwright (1993) Managing New Product and Process Development: Text and Cases. The Free Press, 1993.
54. Kim B. Clark and Steven C. Wheelwright (editors) (1995) The Product Development Challenge Harvard Business School Press, 1995.
55. Suzanne Clinton and Sylvia Burgess (2006). Cameron University Leaders and Entrepreneurs (C.U.L.E.) Camp Makes Leaders and Entrepreneurship Education Cool. USASBE/SBI 2006 Joint Conference Proceedings, 2006.
56. R. Wilburn Clouse, Ph.D. Entrepreneurs in Action!: An On-line Cross-discipline Problem-based Learning Environment for Entrepreneurship. Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, 2004
57. David Coleman (editor) (1997). Groupware: Collaborative Strategies for Corporate LANs and Intranets. Prentice Hall PTR, 1997.
58. Susan Coleman (2006). Women Owned Firms and Growth. USASBE/SBI 2006 Joint Conference Proceedings, 2006.
59. Chris V. Conley (2005). A Proposed Method for Innovation. Proceedings of the NCIIA 9th Annual Conference, pp 61-74, 2005.
60. Martha Connolly, David Barbe, Peter Hudson, Judith Mays, Herbert Rabin, and Eric Schurr (2004). The Maryland Industrial Partnerships: A Model for Academic-Industrial Technology Commercialization. Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, 2004.
61. Melvin Conway (1968). How do committees invent?Datamation, April 1968.
62. R. G. Cooper (1994) New products: The factors that drive success. International Marketing Review 11(1):60-76, May 1994.
63. Robert G. Cooper (2001) Winning at New Products: Accelerating the Process from Idea to Launch, 3rd ed. Perseus Books, 2001.
64. Robert G. Cooper (2003) Maximizing the value of your new product portfolio: Methods, metrics, & scorecards. Strategic Issues in Technology Management 1(7) Winter 2003.
65. Robert G. Cooper, Scott J. Edgett, and Elko J. Kleinschmidt (1998,2001) Portfolio Management for New Products, 2nd ed. Perseus Publishing, 2001.
66. Claire P. Cornell and George S. Vozikis (2006). The Value of Participation in an Innovation Program: Student experiences at University of Tulsa's Innovation Institute. Proceedings of the NCIIA 10th Annaul Conference, pp 235-242, 2006.
67. Jeffery R. Cornwall (2006). TAG. USASBE/SBI 2006 Joint Conference Proceedings, 2006.
68. Jeffery R. Cornwall (2006). Bongo Bob. USASBE/SBI 2006 Joint Conference Proceedings, 2006
69. Jeffrey G. Covin, Kimberly M. Green, and Dennis P. Slevin (2006). Strategic Process Effects on the Entrepreneurial Orientation–Sales Growth Rate Relationship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(1):57-81, January 2006.
70. E.J. Coyle, S. Martin, and R.J. Steuterman (2004). Practical Applications as Part of Interdisciplinary Entrepreneurship Training: The IRL-EPICS Practicum. Proceedings of the NCIIA 8th Annual Conference, pp 275-279, 2004.
71. Patrick E. Crago and A. Dale Flowers (2004). Integrated Engineering and Management Masters Program in Biomedical Engineering Entrepreneurship. Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, 2004.
72. M. Crawford and A. DiBenedetto. New Products Management, 8th Edition, McGraw-Hill, 2006.
73. Carmo D'Cruz, Clifford Bragdon, Dennis Kulonda, and Kenneth Ports (2006). Critical Success Factors for Technopolis Creation. Proceedings of the 2006 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition, 2006.
74. Carmo D'Cruz and Thomas O'Neal (2004). Turning Engineers into Entrepreneurs – And Transforming a Region. Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, 2004.
75. Carmo D'Cruz and Ken Ports (2006). Space Coast Innovation and Technology Commercialization Outreach. USASBE/SBI 2006 Joint Conference Proceedings, 2006.
76. Carmo D'Cruz, Ken Ports, and Muzaffar Shaikh (2004). Commercialization of Senior Design Projects at Florida Tech. Proceedings of the NCIIA 8th Annual Conference, pp 241-247, 2004.
77. Carmo D'Cruz, Muzaffar Shaikh, and Wade Shaw (2006). Taking Engineering Entrepreneurship Education to The Next Level with Systems Engineering Entrepreneurship at Florida Tech. Proceedings of the NCIIA 10th Annual Conference, pp 159-170, 2006.
78. Carmo D'Cruz, Muzaffar Shaikh, and Wade Shaw (2006). Engineering Entrepreneurship: A Killer App for Systems Engineering? Proceedings of the 2006 American Society Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, 2006.
79. Burton Dean, Asbjorn Osland, and Michael Solt (2004). Lessons Learned in a First Business Plan Competition at San Jose State University. Proceedings of the NCIIA 8th Annual Conference, pp 291-295, 2004.
80. D. Debelak. How to Bring a Product to Market for Less than $5,000, John Wiley and Sons, 1992.
81. Donna Marie De Carolis and Mel Baiada (2006). Red Oak Software, 1999. USASBE/SBI 2006 Joint Conference Proceedings, 2006.
82. David Deeds, William Schulze, and Cyrus Taylor (2006). Educating for the Third Mission: Lessons from the Science Entrepreneurship Program at Case Western Reserve University. USASBE/SBI 2006 Joint Conference Proceedings, 2006.
83. Nathan Delson (2004). Creating a Positive Introductory Design Experience. Proceedings of the NCIIA 8th Annual Conference, pp 59-65, 2004.
84. Tom DeMarco and Tim Lister (1999). Peopleware: Productive projects and teams. Dorset House.
85. Daniel R. Denison, Robert Hooijberg, and Robert E. Quinn (1995). Paradox and performance: Toward a theory of behavioral complexity in managerial leadership. Organization Science 6(5):524-540, Sept-Oct 1995.
86. William J. Dennis, Jr. (2005). Traning Employees. NFIB National Small Business Poll, Vol. 5, Issue 1, 2005.
87. William J. Dennis, Jr. (2005). The Use of Lawyers. NFIB National Small Business Poll, Vol. 5, Issue 2, 2005.
88. Alan R. Dennis, and Susan T. Kinney (1998). Testing media richness theory in the new media: The effects of cues, feedback, and task equivocality. Information Systems Research 9(3):256-274, 1998.
89. Alex F. DeNoble, Sanford B. Ehrlich, Massoud Saghafi, and Gangaram Singh (2006). Views on Self-Employment Among Mid-Career Executives in the People's Republic of China. USASBE/SBI 2006 Joint Conference Proceedings, 2006.
90. Gerardine DeSanctis and Marshall Scott Poole (1997). Transitions in teamwork in new organizational forms, Advances in Group Processes 14:157-176, 1997.
91. G. DeSanctis, M. Wright, and L. Jiang (2001). Building a Global Learning Community, Communications of the ACM, 44(12):80-82.
92. David Desplaces, Susan Coleman, and Margery Steinberg (2006). A Service Learning Approach to Inner City Economic Development: The Case of the Upper Albany Micro Business Incubator. USASBE/SBI 2006 Joint Conference Proceedings, 2006.
93. William J. Doll and Qingyu Zhang (2001) Clarifying the fuzziness in the concept of front end fuzziness: A dual theoretical rationale. Working Paper, University of Toledo, Ohio, 2001.
94. R. Dorf and T. Byers. (2005) Technology Ventures, From Idea to Enterprise, McGraw-Hill, 2005.
95. Peter F. Drucker (1993). Innovation and Entrepreneurship. HarperCollins: New York, 1993.
96. Deborah L. Duarte and Nancy Tennant Snyder (2001). Mastering Virtual Teams, Jossey-Bass, 2001.
97. Dubé, L. and Paré, G. (2001). Global Virtual Teams, Communications of the ACM 44(12):71-73, 2001.
98. Thomas Duening and William Sherrill (2006). Teaching Entrepreneurship to Engineers: A Logico-Deductive Review of Leading Curricula. Proceedings of the 2006 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, 2006.
99. Paul Dunn and Chyi-lyi (Kathleen) Liang (2006). Women Entrepreneurs in Northeast Louisiana - Demographics, Challenges, and Learning Experiences. USASBE/SBI 2006 Joint Conference Proceedings, 2006.
100. J. Emerson and F. Twersky, editors. New Social Entrepreneurs: The Success, Challenge and Lessons of Non-Profit Enterprise Creation: A Progress Report on the Planning and Start-Up of Non-Profit Businesses from the Roberts Foundation Homeless Development Fund, 1996.
101. Daniel Evans (2004). Entrepreneurship Education in Germany: Teaching Risk Ventures in a Risk-Averse Society. Proceedings of the NCIIA 8th Annual Conference, pp 115-119, 2004.
102. Robert Evans (2006). Doctoral Student Co-Founders: A Case Study of Advanced Laser Materials, L.L.C. Proceedings of the 2006 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition, 2006.
103. Robert Evans, Jennifer Parks, and Steven Nichols (2006). I2P® International Competition: A Global Education Forum for Technology Entrepreneurship. Proceedings of the 2006 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition, 2006.
104. Uei-Jiun Fan, Jawaharlal Mariappan, and Saeed Monemi (2005). Engineering Service Learning and Entrepreneurship Opportunities. Proceedings of the NCIIA 9th Annual Conference, pp 219-226, 2005.
105. John Farris, Paul Lane (2006). Where to begin and what to do next? Stages and gates for an interdisciplinary student population. Proceedings of the NCIIA 10th Annual Conference, pp 189-198, 2006
106. John Farris and Paul Lane (2006). Cooperatives as Means for Organizing Interdisciplinary Entrepreneurship Teams. Proceedings of the 2006 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, 2006.
107. John Farris, Nancy Levenburg, and Paul Lane (2004). In Search of Innovators in the University Community. Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, 2004.
108. Fast Trac. Planning and Growing a Business Venture, Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership, 2001.
109. June Ferrill (2004). Developing E-Team Cultures to Support Ethical Responsibility. Proceedings of the NCIIA 8th Annual Conference, pp 187-192, 2004.
110. N. Finck, M. Hodder, and B. Stone (2005). Enhancing Internal Communications with Blogs, Wikis, and More.
111. David R. Finley, Thomas J. Enneking, and Dolores Tichenor (2004). Developing an Entrepreneurial Framework at Tri-State University. Proceedings of the NCIIA 8th Annual Conference, pp 149-153, 2004.
112. Robert A. Fiore and Robert N. Lussier (2006). The Development and Statistical Testing of a Nascent Organization Structure Sequence Model. USASBE/SBI 2006 Joint Conference Proceedings, 2006.
113. Alan Flury, Bradley Kirkman, Christina Shalley, and Marie Thursby (2004). Technological Innovation: Generating Economic Results: An Immersion Approach to Graduate Education in Engineering. Proceedings of the NCIIA 8th Annual Conference, pp 99-106, 2004.
114. Daniel P. Forbes, Patricia S. Borchert, Mary E. Zellmer-Bruhn, Harry J. Sapienza (2006). Entrepreneurial Team Formation: An Exploration of New Member Addition. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 30, No. 2, pp 225-248, March 2006.
115. R. Ford and C. Coulston. Design for Electrical and Computer Engineers, McGraw-Hill, 2005.
116. Barbara J. Frazier and Linda S. Niehm (2006). Predicting the Entrepreneurial Intentions of Non-Business Majors: A Preliminary Investigation. USASBE/SBI 2006 Joint Conference Proceedings, 2006.
117. Eugene Fregetto (2006). Do Entrepreneurially-Inclined Students Learn More from Simulations? USASBE/SBI 2006 Joint Conference Proceedings, 2006.
118. Carlos Vignolo Friz, Sergio Spoerer, Claudia Arratia, and Sebastian Depolo (2004). Forming Innovative Leaders: The Leadership Skills Certification Program of the Bio Bio Region, Chile. Proceedings of the NCIIA 8th Annual Conference, pp 179-186, 2004.
119. Fry, Ron W (2000). Ask the Right Questions, Hire the Best People Franklin Lakes, NJ: Career Press 2000.
120. Stacie Furst, Richard Blackburn, and Benson Rosen (1999). Virtual team effectiveness: A proposed research agenda, Information Systems Journal 9(4):249-269, 1999.
121. Ernesto C. Gamboa (2006). Market Risk, Attractiveness, and International Franchising. USASBE/SBI 2006 Joint Conference Proceedings, 2006.
122. Abigail Garner, Christine Kurihara, and Paul Yock (2005). Development of the BMBSource.org Portal. Proceedings of the NCIIA 9th Annual Conference, pp 227-237, 2005.
123. Connie J. G. Gersick (1988). Time and transition in work teams: Toward a new model of group development, Academy of Management Journal 31(1):9-41, 1988.
124. Michael Gertner (2005). Biomedial Innovation, Surgical Innovation, and Beyond. Proceedings of the NCIIA 9th Annual Conference, pp 277-286, 2005.
125. Lisa Getlzer-Linn and June Ferrill (2006). Creating a Brand of Ethics Specific to Entrepreneurship Education and Embedding It in the Curriculum. Proceedings of the NCIIA 10th Annual Conference, pp 129-142, 2006.
126. Lisa Getlzer-Linn, John P. Ochs, and Todd A. Watkins (2006). Program and Student Performance Assessment in Team-Based Project Courses with Focus on Technical Entrepreneurship and Product Development. USASBE/SBI 2006 Joint Conference Proceedings, 2006.
127. J. Gibson, D. Tesone,C. Blackwell, and R. Hodgetts (2000). Cyberteaming: Developing the Online Educational Team, IEEE Professional Communication Society International Professional Conference 2000, Cambridge, MA pp. 87-92, 2000.
128. Jay R. Goldberg, and Phil Weilerstein (2006). BMEidea Biomedical Engineering Innovation Design, and Entrepreneurship Award National Student Design Competition. Proceedings of the NCIIA 10th Annual Conference, pp 265-269, 2006.
129. Jacob Goldenberg and David Mazursky (2002). Creativity in Product Innovation. Cambridge University Press: New York.
130. Bradley L. Golish and Mary E. Besterfield-Sacre(2006). The Differences in the Innovation Process between Academic and Coporate Investors. Proceedings of the NCIIA 10th Annual Conference, pp 151-158, 2006.
131. James V. Green, David F. Barbe, Anik Singal, and Karen S. Thornton (2006). Bringing Student Innovations to Market: A Hinman CEOs Success Story. Proceedings of the 2006 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition, 2006.
132. Greer, Charles R. (2001). Strategic Human Resource Management: A General Managerial Approach. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 2nd Ed., 2001.
133. Abbie Griffin (1997) PDMA research on new product development practices: Updating trends and benchmarking best practices. Journal of Product Innovation Management 14(6):429-458, Nov 1997.
134. Elissa B. Grossman (2006). You Schmooze, You Lose? Extracting Value from Entrepreneurial Networks and Entrepreneurial Networking. USASBE/SBI 2006 Joint Conference Proceedings, 2006.
135. D. Gumpert. How to Really Create a Successful Business Plan, 4th Edition, Inc. Magazine Press, 2003.
136. A. Gupta, D. Wilemon (1988) The Credibility co-operation connection at the R&D-marketing interface. Journal of Product Innovation Management 5:20-31, 1988.
137. A. Gupta, D. Wilemon (1990) Improving R&D-marketing relations: R&D's perspective. R&D Management 20(4):4, 1990.
138. R. Haas (200X). Cultural Online Databases - an Instrument to Promote Common Ground for Global Virtual Teams - An Application for the Global Seminar, University of Applied Life Sciences, Vienna, Austria.
139. Peter H. Hackbert (2006). Changing Landscapes in Native American Entrepreneurship. USASBE/SBI 2006 Joint Conference Proceedings, 2006.
140. Peter H. Hackbert (2006). Integrating Active Learning and Cases in Undergraduate Entrepreneurship Classes Across the Curriculum. USASBE/SBI 2006 Joint Conference Proceedings, 2006.
141. C. Handy (1995). Trust and the virtual organization, Harvard Business Review 73(3):40-50, May-June 1995. Also in Creating value in the network economy, 1999 (pp 107-120).
142. Ralph M. Hanke, Elizabeth C. Kisenwether, and Anthony Warren (2005). A Scalable and Adaptable Problem-Based Learning Course in Entrepreneurship. Proceedings of the NCIIA 9th Annual Conference, pp 103-118, 2005.
143. La Verne Abe Harris (2006). The IDeaLab: Creative and Innovative Problem Solving with Technology-based Solutions. Proceedings of the NCIIA 10th Annual Conference, pp 65-74, 2006.
144. La Verne Abe Harris (2006). The IDeaLaboratory Needs Assessment of Today’s Industry Professionals. Proceedings of the 2006 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, 2006.
145. Michael Harris, W. Lee Grubb, and William I. MacKenzie (2006). Business Students' Perceptions of Employment in Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises Versus Multinational Corporations: Investigating the Moderating Effects of Academic Major, Gender, and Personality. USASBE/SBI 2006 Joint Conference Proceedings, 2006.
146. Susan J. Hart (1993) Dimensions of success in new product development: An exploratory investigation. Journal of Marketing Management 9:23-41, 1993.
147. Susan J. Hart, Michael J Baker (1994) The multiple convergent processing model of new product development. International Marketing Review 11(1):77-92, 1994.
148. M. Hause, M. Petre, and M. Woodroffe (2003). Performance in international computer science collaboration between distributed student teams, Frontiers in Education 2003.
149. Gordon E. Haym (2006). An Entrepreneurial Approach to Entrepreneurship Education: Active Teaching. USASBE/SBI 2006 Joint Conference Proceedings, 2006.
150. James C. Hayton (2006). Explaining Competitive Advantage in Family Firms: The Effectuation Paradox. USASBE/SBI 2006 Joint Conference Proceedings, 2006.
151. J. Hencke, A. Krachenberg, and T. Lyons (1993). Cross-Functional Teams: Good Concept, Poor Implementation!, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 10(3):216-229, June 1993.
152. L. Gregory Henley, Melissa Tihor, and Michael W. Fountain (2006). The Impact of Life Cycle Stage on Locational Dynamics in the Life Sciences Industry. USASBE/SBI 2006 Joint Conference Proceedings, 2006.
153. Kevin Henry, Heikki Jylhä-Vuorio, Kristian Venalainen (2006). The Future Classroom: A case study in designing for the emerging academic landscape. Proceedings of the NCIIA 10th Annual Conference, pp 111-118, 2006.
154. Kirk C. Heriot and Noel D. Campbell (2006). A Discursive Agreement of the Impact of a US-Andean Free Trade Agreement on Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises in Colombia. USASBE/SBI 2006 Joint Conference Proceedings, 2006.
155. Cornelius Herstatt, Birgit Verworn, Christoph Stockstrom, Akio Nagahira, and Osamu Takahashi (2004) "Fuzzy front end" practices in innovating Japanese companies. Proceedings of R&D-Management Conference 2004 (Portugal).
156. A. Hoag and T. Baldwin (2000). Using Case Method and Experts in Inter-University Electronic Learning Teams, Educational Technology and Society, 3(3) 2000.
157. K. Hoagland, N. Abraham, C. Otto. The role of primarily undergraduate institutions in the nation's scientific endeavor, 1998.
158. Hoefling, Trina (2001). Working Virtually: Managing the Human Element for Successful Virtual Teams and Organizations. Sterling: Sylus Publishers, 2001.
159. Jay Hoffman (2005). A Master of Science Program in Management of Technology. Proceedings of the NCIIA 9th Annual Conference, pp 263-268, 2005.
160. Maurice F. Holmes and R. B. Campbell, Jr (2003) Product development processes: Three vectors of improvement. Center for Innovation in Product Development, MIT, 2003.
161. Peter Hriso, W. Andrew Clark, Tara Maxwell, and Cher Cornett (2006). Linking the University with the Community: An Experimental Learning Project to Promote Arts Entrepreneurship. USASBE/SBI 2006 Joint Conference Proceedings, 2006.
162. Chihmao Hsieh, Jack A. Nickerson, and Todd R. Zenger (2006). Problem Solving and the Entrepreneurial Theory of the Firm. USASBE/SBI 2006 Conference Proceedings, 2006.
163. Paul Hudnut, Tim Bauer, and Nathan Lorenz (2006). Appropriate Organizational Design: A hybrid business model for technology transfer to the developing world. Proceedings of the NCIIA 10th Annual Conference, pp 81-90, 2006.
164. Hughes, G.D.; Chafin, D.C. (1996) Turning new product development into a continuous learning process. Journal of Product Innovation Management 13(2):89-104, March 1996.
165. C. Iacono and S. Weisband. (1997). Developing trust in virtual teams, Proceedings of the Thirtieth Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, vol 2, 412-420.
166. Christopher C. Ibeh, Oliver Hensley, Marjorie Donovan, Shyang Wang, and Andrey Beyle (2006). CUES-AM Online: A program assessment protocol. Proceedings from the NCIIA 10th Annual Conference, pp 225-233, 2006.
167. Christopher C. Ibeh, Oliver Hensley, and Marjorie Donovan (2004). An EKE (Essential Knowledge Elements) Based Assessment of the Interdisciplinary Materials Research Program at Pittsburg State University. Proceedings of the NCIIA 8th Annaul Conference, pp 213-217, 2004.
168. Magid Igbaria and Margaret Tan (editors) (1998). The Virtual Workplace. Idea Group Publishing, 1998.
169. Dr. Rafiqul Islam (2004). Vision for Preparing the Engineering and Technology Students Concerning Entrepreneurship and International Accreditation for Tomorrow and Beyond Around the Globe. Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, 2004.
170. Paul J. Jackson (1999). Organizational change and virtual teams: Strategic and operational integration, Information Systems Journal 9(4):313-332, 1999.
171. Zella Jackson and John Lloyd (2006). Visionary Engineering Innovation for Entrepreneurs. Proceedings of the NCIIA 10th Annual Conference, pp 143-150, 2006.
172. Peter Mark Jansson, Michael Muhlbaier, Sebastian Blicharz, and Greg Digneo (2004). Undergraduate Entrepreneurs: Novel LED Taillight Assembly Design, Prototyping and Market Tests. Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition, 2004.
173. S. L. Jarvenpaa, K. Knoll, and D. E. Leidner (1998). Is anybody out there?: The implications of trust in global virtual teams, Journal of Management Information Systems 14(4), 1998.
174. Sirkka L. Jarvenpaa and Dorothy E. Leidner (1999). Communication and trust in global virtual teams, Organization Science 10(6):791-815 (June 1999). Also in JCMC 3(4) June 1998.
175. Dale W. Jasinski, Matthew O’Connor, Chad Nehrt, and Kathleen Simione (2004). An Integrative Approach to Teaching Entrepreneurship to Non-Business Majors. Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, 2004.
176. James D. Bell, Judy Diertert, Larry Herring, and Bob Hill (2006). A 'Hands On' Trilogy - Our University, Local Businesses, and SBDC: A Partnership That Can Help Fill the Gap Between Theory and Practice. USASBE/SBI 2006 Joint Conference Proceedings, 2006.
177. Guillermo Jimenez, Shahram Taj, Jonathan Weaver (2005). Design for Testability. Proceedings from the NCIIA 9th Annual Conference, pp 75-84, 2005.
178. Orn D. Jonsson (2006). An Appetite for Detail. USASBE/SBI 2006 Joint Conference Proceedings, 2006.
179. Anthony Joseph and Mabel Payne (2005). An Interpretation of Collaborative Groups as Innovative and Entrepreneurial Enterprises. Proceedings of the NCIIA 9th Annual Conference, pp 167-176, 2005.
180. Musa Jouaneh, Ying Sun, and Robert Comerford (2004). Assistive Technology Devices: A Multidisciplinary Course. Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, 2004. #Kenneth B. Kahn, editor (2005) The PDMA Handbook of New Product Development. John Wiley & Sons, 2005.
181. Paula R. Kaiser, William L. Tuller, and Diana McKowen (2000). Student team projects by Internet. Business Communication Quarterly 63(4):75-82, 2000
182. Barbara Karanian and Gül Okudan (2006). Entrepreneurial Leadership, Gender and Teams in the Engineering and Science Context: Men and Women Tell Stories About Leadership. Proceedings of the 2006 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, 2006.
183. Dale Walter Karolak (1998). Global software development: Managing virtual teams and environments. IEEE Computer Society Press, 1998.
184. Katzenbach, Jon R. and Douglas K. Smith (1993). The Wisdom of Teams: Creating the High-Performance Organization. New York: Harper Business, 1993.
185. Kauffman Foundation, eVenturing, http://www.eventuring.org Accessed January 2006.
186. G. Kawasaki. The Art of the Start: The Time-Tested, Battle-Hardened Guide for Anyone Starting Anything, Portfolio Hardcover - The Penguin Group, 2004.
187. Timothy R. Kayworth and Dorothy E. Leidner (2000). The global virtual manager: A prescription for success, European Management Journal 18(2):183-194, April 2000.
188. Timothy R. Kayworth and Dorothy E. Leidner (2002). Leadership effectiveness in global virtual teams, Journal of Management Information Systems 18(3):7-40 Winter 2001-2002.
189. Roland E. Kidwell and Alan J. Fish (2006). High-Performan Human Resource Practices in Australian Family Businesses: Preliminary Evidence from the Wine Industry. USASBE/SBI 2006 Joint Conference Proceedings, 2006. #Chris Kimble, Barlow Alexis, and Feng Li (2000). Effective virtual teams through communities of practice. Strathclyde Business School Management Science Working Paper No. 2000/9. (September 2000).
190. Elizabeth C. Kisenwether, Anthony Warren, and Chintan Parekh (2004). Progress Report: Using Intercollege Student Teams for Market-Pull Technology Commercialization. Proceedings of the NCIIA 8th Annual Conference, pp 87-91, 2004.
191. John A. Kleppe (2004). Developing Collaborative Relationships for Education Relating to Invention, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship. Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition.
192. K. Knoll and S. L. Jarvenpaa (1995). Learning to work in distributed teams: Learning virtual team collaboration. Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Conference Proceedings 4:92-101, 1995.
193. Ashok K Kochhar and Mark Williams (2001) Modelling the front end Of the new product introduction process for rapid product development. Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Conference of the Production and Operations Management Society 2001.
194. Lucyna Kornecki (2006). The Importance of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in the Polish Economy. USASBE/SBI 2006 Joint Conference Proceedings, 2006.
195. Kossek, Ellen Ernst and Richard N. Block (2000). Managing Human Resources in the 21st Century: From Core Concepts to Strategic Choice. Cincinnati: South-Western College Publishing, 2000.
196. Jaclyn Kostner (1996). Virtual leadership: Secrets from the round table for the multi-site manager. Warner Books, 1996.
197. Sascha Kraus, Gyorgy Malovics, and Eva Malovics (2006). Strategic Planning in Smaller Enterprises - Does it really make sense? USASBE/SBI 2006 Joint Conference Proceedings, 2006.
198. A. L. Kristof, K. G. Brown, H. P. Sims Jr., and K. A. Smith (1995). The virtual team: A case study and inductive model. In M. M. Beyerlein, D.A. Johnson and S. T. Beyerlein (Eds.), Advances in interdisciplinary studies of work teams: Knowledge work in teams, vol 2:229-253. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1995.
199. Norris Krueger and Jill Kickul (2006). So You Thought the Intentions Model Was Simple? Navigating the Complexities and Interactions of Cognitive Style, Culture, Gender, Social Norms, and Intensity on the Pathway to Entrepreneurship. USASBE/SBI 2006 Joint Conference Proceedings, 2006.
200. Donald F. Kuratko, R. Duane Ireland, Jeffrey G. Covin, and Jeffrey S. Hornsby (2005). A Model of Middle-Level Managers' Entrepreneurial Behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 29, No. 6, pp 699-716, November 2005. #Christine Kurihara, Abigail Garner, Paul Yock, and John Linehan (2006). Biomedical Engineering Portal, biosource.org. Proceedings of the NCIIA 10th Annual Conference, pp 257-264, 2006.
201. Christine Q. Kurihara, Elizabeth D. Mellins, William R. Overall, and Paul G. Yock (2005). Entrepreneurial Courselet for PhD Students in Medicine. Proceedings of the NCIIA 9th Annual Conference, pp 53-60, 2005.
202. Christine Kurihara and Paul Yock (2004). BMESource.org: A National Student Biomedical Engineering Portal. Proceedings of the NCIIA 8th Annual Conference, pp 67-72.
203. Clifton Kussmaul (2004). Agile Project Development: Lessons from Industry. Proceedings of the NCIIA 8th Annual Conference, pp 125-129, 2004.
204. C. Kussmaul, S. Howe, D. Arion, J. Farris, J. Goodrich, P. Lane, M. Lehman, N. Levenberg, M. Kundrat, M. Secor, C. Twitchell, L. Way, and R. Weissbach. Institutionalizing entrepreneurship at primarily undergraduate institutions, Proceedings of the NCIIA 10th Annual Meeting, 2006.
205. Clifton Kussmaul, John Farris, Jana Goodrich, Susannah Howe, and Robert Weissbach (2006). Facilitating Entrepreneurship Education at Primarily Undergraduate Institutions (PUIs): Proposed Functional and Temporal Models. Proceedings of the 2006 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, 2006.
206. Clifton Kussmaul, Susannah Howe, Douglas Arion, John Farris, Jana Goodrich, Paul Lane, Michael Lehman, Nancy Levenberg, Mary Kundrat, Mary Secor, Colin Twitchell, Lauren Way, and Robert Weissbach (2006). Institutionalizing Entrepreneurship at Primarily Undergraduate Institutions. Proceedings of the NCIIA 10th Annual Conference, pp 217-223, 2006.
207. Clifton Kussmaul, Peter Linder, and Paul Frary (2005). Entrepreneurship in the Liberal Arts: Reflection and Change. Proceedings of the NCIIA 9th Annual Conference, pp 119-126, 2005.
208. Robert J. Lahm, Jr. (2006). Growing an Undergraduate Entrepreneurship Internship Program: Some Lessons Learned. USASBE/SBI 2006 Joint Conference Proceedings, 2006.
209. Paul Lane, Clifton Kussmaul, and John Farris (2006). Towards the Development of a General Model for Enabling Entrepreneurship Across Curriculum: Where Do You Fit? USASBE/SBI 2006 Joint Conference Proceedings, 2006.
210. Stephen Laster and B. Neal Harris, III (2004). Model-driven Design: A Sustainable Approach to Curriculum Innovation. Proceedings of the NCIIA 8th Annual Conference, pp 165-169, 2004.
211. Richard H. Lester, S. Trevis Certo, Catherine M. Dalton, Dan R. Dalton, and Albert A. Cannella, Jr. (2006). Initial Public Offering Investor Valuations: An Examination of Top Management Team Prestige and Environmental Uncertainty. Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 44, No. 1, pp 1-26, January 2006.
212. Nancy M. Levenburg (2006). Helen Nevell Studios: Improving Operations in a Small Business. USASBE/SBI 2006 Joint Conference Proceedings, 2006.
213. Wei Li (2006). Entrepreneurial Intention Among International Students: Testing a Model of Entrepreneurial Intention. USASBE/SBI 2006 Joint Conference Proceedings, 2006.
214. Jessica Lipnack (2000). Virtual teams: People working across boundaries with technology. Wiley, 2000.
215. Lipnack, Jessica and Jeffery Stamps (1997). Virtual Teams: Reaching Across Space, Time and Organizations with Technology. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1997.
216. Justin G. Longenecker, Joseph A. McKinney, Carlos W. Moore, Leslie E. Palich, and J. William Petty (2006). Ethical Attitudes in Small Businesses and Large Corporations: Theory and Empirical Findings from a Tracking Study Spanning Three Decades. Journal of Small Business Management, 44(2):167-183, April 2006.
217. Justin Longenecker, Leslie Palich, Joseph McKinney, Bill Petty, and Carlos Moore (2006). The Ethical Entrepreneur: Myth or Reality? USASBE/SBI 2006 Joint Conference Proceedings, 2006. #Arnold Lumsdaine, Frank Speckhart, Geoff Robson, Kenneth Kahn, Majid Keyhani, Dan Fant, and Rapinder Sawhney (2006). The Combined MS-MBA Program: An Integrated Engineering and Business Approach to Product Development. Proceedings of the 2006 American Society Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, 2006.
218. Jeremy S. Lurey and Mahesh S. Raisinghani (2001). An empirical study of best practices in virtual teams. Information and Management 38(8):523-544, October 2001.
219. G. Mark, J. Grudin, and S. E. Poltrock (1999). Meeting at the desktop: An empirical study of virtually collocated teams, 6th European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (ECSCW) 1999.
220. William G. Marshall, Jr., Stephen R. Budd, Paul E. Givens, and Michael W. Fountain (2006). Technology Entrepreneurship Education: The University of South Florida Philosophy, Pedagogy, and Curriculum. USASBE/SBI 2006 Joint Conference Proceedings, 2006.
221. Diane M. Martin (2006). Examining Personal Contact Network Success of the Marketing Entrepreneur. USASBE/SBI 2006 Joint Conference Proceedings, 2006.
222. Luis L. Martins, Lucy L. Gilson, and M. Travis Maynard (2004). Virtual teams: What do we know and where do we go from here?Journal of Management, 30(6):805-835, 2004.
223. Tom Mason, Dan Moore, and Fred Berry (2004). Commercialization Concepts and Engineering Design. Proceedings of the NCIIA 8th Annual Conference, pp 53-57, 2004.
224. Juan Pablo Zanlungo Matsuhiro, Gustavo Prudencio Ulloa, and Carlos Vignolo Friz (2004). Innovation As Liberation: Ten Directions For Action. Proceedings of the NCIIA 8th Annual Conference, pp 249-256, 2004.
225. Michael D. Mattei and Carolyn Hall (2006). Weaving Entrepreneurial Exercises into the Introductory Business Course to Reinforce Learning Outcomes. USASBE/SBI 2006 Joint Conference Proceedings, 2006. #Edward F. McDonough III, Kenneth B. Kahn, and Gloria Barczak (2001). An investigation of the use of global, virtual, and colocated new product development teams. Journal of Product Innovation Management 18:110-120, 2001.
226. Jack McGourty and Lemuel A. Tarshis (1998) A Prescription for Innovation. Innovation & Technology Management News 2(1) Summer 1998. Stevens Alliance for Technology Management.
227. Joseph E. McGrath (1990). Time matters in groups, in Intellectual Teamwork: Social & Technical Foundations of Cooperative Work. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1990.
228. Joseph E. McGrath (1991). Time, interaction, and performance (TIP): A theory of groups. Small Group Research 22(2):147-174, 1991.
229. Joseph E. McGrath and A. B. Hollingshead (1994). Groups Interacting with Technology. Sage Publications, 1994.
230. Kevin L. McMahan (1998). Effective communication and information sharing in virtual teams. August 1998.
231. Marc Meyer, John Friar, and Kimberly Eddleston (2006). A Model for Firm Growth in the Entrepreneurial Context. USASBE/SBI 2006 Joint Conference Proceedings, 2006.
232. D. Meyerson, K. E. Weick, and R. M. Kramer (1996). Swift trust and temporary groups, in Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1996.
233. Todd D. Mick (2006). Lori Powell and Image Body & Beauty Institute. USASBE/SBI 2006 Joint Conference Proceedings, 2006.
234. S. Miertschin and C. Willis (2005). Building infrastructure to develop electronic collaboration skill among students. Proceedings of the 2005 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition.
235. Don L. Millard, Fred Berry, and Susan Sauer Sloan (2004). Developing and Utilizing Interactive Materials and Technologies for Wireless Engineering Education Through Meaningful Collaboration. Proceedings of the NCIIA 8th Annual Conference, pp 271-274, 2004.
236. Daniel Mittleman and Robert O. Briggs (1998). Communication technologies for traditional and virtual teams, in Supporting Work Team Effectiveness: Best Management Practices for Fostering High Performance, Eric Sundstrom & Associates, Jossey-Bass.
237. M. Morris, D. Kuratko, M. Schindehutte. Towards integration: Understanding entrepreneurship through frameworks, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 2(1):35-49.
238. Steven A. Morris, Thomas E. Marshall, and R. Kelly Rainer, Jr. (2003). Trust and technology in virtual teams, in Advanced Topics in Information Resources Management, Idea Group Publishing, Hershey, PA, 2003.
239. M. Morris, M. Schindehutte, J. Allen. (2005) The entrepreneur's business model: Toward a unified perspective, Journal of Business Research, 58:726-735, 2005.
240. Robert Moussetis and Gary Ernst (2006). A Conceptual Research Domain of Entrepreneurship in the Arts. USASBE/SBI 2006 Joint Conference Proceedings.
241. Jacqueline Mozrall, Edward C. Hensel, and Paul H. Stiebitz (2004). Multidisciplinary Engineering Senior Design Program at RIT. Proceedings of the NCIIA 8th Annual Conference, pp 145-148, 2004. #Muhlfelder, Klein, Simon, Luczak (1999). Teams without trust? Investigations in the influence of video-mediated communication on the origin of trust among cooperating persons. Behaviour & Information Technology 18(5):349-360.
242. National Association for Community College Entrepreneurship. http://www.nacce.com Accessed January 2006.
243. Abbas Nadim (2004). Supportive Culture as a Co-Producer of Successful New Business Development. Proceedings of the NCIIA 8th Annual Conference, pp 227-235, 2004.
244. National Consortium of Entrepreneurship Centers (NCEC). Accessed January 2006.
245. National Center for Education Statistics. Digest of Educational Statistics, US Dept of Education, 2003. Accessed January 2006.
246. NCIIA Invention to Venture. Accessed January 2006.
247. National Content Standards for Entrepreneurship Education. Accessed January 2006.
248. Heidi Neck, John Bourne, and Stephen Schiffman (2006). The Babson-Olin Symposium for Engineering Entrepreneurship Educators: Helping Engineering Faculty Teach Entrepreneurship. Proceedings of the 2006 American Society Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, 2006.
249. Helle Neergaard and John Parm Ulhoi (2006). Government Agency and Trust in the Formation and Transformation of Interorganizational Entrepreneurial Networks. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 30, No. 4, pp 519-539, July 2006.
250. Gerald Nelson (2006). Developing Engineers with an Entrepreneurial Spirit. Proceedings of the 2006 American Society Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, 2006.
251. Linda S. Niehm and Nancy J. Miller (2006). The Impact of Managerial Role on Family Business Success: A Longitudinal Perspective. USASBE/SBI 2006 Joint Conference Proceedings, 2006.
252. Jay F. Nunamaker Jr, Robert O. Briggs, Daniel D. Mittleman, Douglas R. Vogel, and Pierre A. Balthazard (1997). Lessons from a dozen years of group support systems research: A discussion of lab and field findings. Journal of Management Information Systems 13(3):163-207, Winter 1996-1997.
253. John B. Ochs (2005). Integration of Lehigh's Entrepreneurship Minor into the Undergraduate Engineering Curricula. Proceedings of the 2005 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, 2005.
254. John B. Ochs and Todd A. Watkins (2004). Lehigh’s Entrepreneurial Network (LEN) of Alumni: Resources for Student Entrepreneurs. Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, 2004.
255. K. M. O'Conner, D. H. Gruenfeld, and J. E. McGrath (1993). The experience and effects of conflict in continuing work groupsSmall Group Research 24(3):362-382, 1993.
256. John O'del (2006). Teaching Social Entrepreneurship: (An Initial Field Report). USASBE/SBI 2006 Joint Conference Proceedings, 2006.
257. J.K. O'Grady (2006). From Craft to Strategy: Integrating design and commerce. Proceedings of the NCIIA 10th Annual Conference, pp 101-110, 2006.
258. M. O'Hara-Devereaux and R. Johansen (1994). GlobalWork: Bridging Distance, Culture, and Time. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1994.
259. Matthew W. Ohland, Sharron A. Frillman, Thomas K. Miller III, and Guili Zhang (2004). NC State's Engineering Entrepreneurs Program in the Context of US Entrepreneurship Programs. Proceedings of the NCIIA 8th Annual Conference, pp 155-163, 2004.
260. Gül Okudan, Jennifer Finelli, and Elizabeth Kisenwether (2006). Entrepreneurial Design Projects: What Type of Projects Are Effective in Improving Student Learning & Enthusiasm? Proceedings of the 2006 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, 2006.
261. Gül E. Okudan, Elizabeth Kisenwether, and Sarah Rzasa (2005). A Methodology for Curriculum Development, Revision, and Assessment for Entrepreneurial Skill Development: Stage I - Entrepreneurial Leadership course. Proceedings of the NCIIA 9th Annual Meeting, pp 193-208, 2005.
262. Outlaw, WAyne (1992). Smart Staffing New York: American Management Association 1992.
263. Joao Monney Paiva and Odete Lopes (2006). Merging Entrepreneurship into Mechanical Engineering. Proceedings of the NCIIA 10th Annual Conference, pp 179-188, 2006.
264. Eric Pappas (2004). Toward a New Philosophy of Teaching: Creating a Center for Thinking and Meta-cognition in the Integrated Science and Technology Departmetn at James Madison University. Proceedings of the NCIIA 8th Annual Conference, pp 81-86, 2004.
265. Minnie Patel and Anuradha Basu (2006). How to Weave Entrepreneurship into Engineering Education: the Experience at San Jose State University. Proceedings of the 2006 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, 2006.
266. Souren Paul, Priya Seetharaman, Imad Samarah, and Peter P. Mykytyn (2004). Impact of heterogeneity and collaborative conflict management style on the performance of synchronous global virtual teamsInformation and Management, 41(3):303-321, January 2004.
267. Boris Peltsverger, Xiang Fu, and Brian Campbell (2006). Innovative Student Recruiting Approaches for Smaller and Liberal Arts Institutions. Proceedings of the NCIIA 10th Annual Conference, pp 199-208, 2006. #Jason Pemberton-Billing, Rachel Cooper, Andrew B. Wootton, and Andrew N.W. North (XXXX). Distributed design teams as communities of practice. 5th European Academy of Design Conference.
268. Dorene Perez, Jim Gibson, and Rose Marie Lynch (2004). Making Industry Meaningful In College. Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, 2004.
269. A. Pinsonneault and O. Caya (2005). Virtual teams: What we know, what we don't know. International Journal of e-Collaboration 1(3):1-16, 2005.
270. David Pistrui, Wilfred Huang, Harold P. Welsch, and Zhao Jing (2006). Family and Cultural Forces Shaping Entrepreneurship and Private Enterprise Development in China. USASBE/SBI 2006 Joint Conference Proceedings, 2006.
271. Mark Polczynski (2006). Expanding Extracurricular Learning Opportunities through International Engineering Student and Faculty Exchange. Proceedings of the NCIIA 10th Annual Conference, pp 243-256, 2006.
272. Mark Polczynski and Stanley Jaskolski (2005). Entrepreneurial Engineering Education. Proceedings of the NCIIA 9th Annual Conference, pp 93-101, 2005.
273. Anne Powell, Gabriele Piccoli, and Blake Ives (2004). Virtual teams: A review of current literature and directions for future research, ACM SIGMIS Database, 35(1):6-36, Winter 2004.
274. Jon D. Pratt (2005). Quicksilver: A case study from Innovative Venture Research at Louisiana Tech. Proceedings of the NCIIA 9th Annual Conference, pp 155-166, 2005.
275. Jon D. Pratt and Leslie K. Guice (2004). Collaboration in Commercializing Intellectual Property: Gaining Practical Experience in InVenture Research at Louisiana Tech. Proceedings of the NCIIA 8th Annual Conference, pp 107-114, 2004.
276. Simon Priest (2001). 100 of the best Virtual Team-Building Events, Tarrak Technologies, 2001.
277. Simon Priest and Karl Rohnke (2000). 101 of the best Corporate Team-Building Activities, Tarrak Technologies, 2000.
278. Simon Priest, Sam Sikes, and Faith Evans (2000). 99 of the best Experiential Corporate Games, eXperientia, 2000.
279. Mary Beth Privitera and Edward S. Grood (2004). Medical Device Innovation and Entrepreneurship Program at the University of Cinncinnati: An Overview. Proceedings of the NCIIA 8th Annual Conference, pp 73-75.
280. Mary Raber and Michael Moore (2005). The Enterprise Program at Michigan Technological University: A Professional Development Curriculum in Action. Proceedings of the 2005 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, 2005.
281. S.M. Radke and E.C. Alocilja (2004). Development of E-Team to Commercialize Engineering Research. Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, 2004.
282. S. Rafaeli and G. Ravid (2003). Information sharing as enabler for the virtual team: an experimental approach to assessing the role of electronic mail in disintermediation, Information Systems Journal, 13(2):191, 2003.
283. Yaqub Rafiq and Hazel Fullerton (1996). Peer assessment of group projects in civil engineering. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 21(1):69-82, Mar 1996.
284. Mark Rajai, Morteza Sadat-Hossieny, and Robert Matthews (2005). Development of a Virtual Center for Product innovation and Commercialization. Proceedings of the 2005 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition, 2005.
285. Anil K. Rajvanshi (2006). Rocket Science for Rural Development: Ideas for implementation. Proceedings of the NCIIA 10th Annual Conference, pp 291-294, 2006.
286. V. Ramesh and A. Dennis (2002). The object-oriented team: Lessons for virtual teams from global software development. Proceedings of the thirty-fifth annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences, 2002.
287. Artemio Ramirez, Jr., Joseph B. Walther, Judee K. Burgoon, and Michael Sunnafrank (2002). Information-seeking strategies, uncertainty, and computer-mediated communication: Toward a conceptual model. Human Communications Research, 28:213-228, Apr 2002.
288. Andreas Rauch, Michael Frese and Andreas Utsch (2005). Effects of Human Capital and Long-Term Human Resources Development and Utilization on Employment Growth of Small-Scale Businesses: A Causal Analysis. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 29, No. 6, pp 681-698, November 2005.
289. V. Razmov and S. Vlasseva (2004). Feedback techniques for project-based courses. Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, 2004.
290. Damon A. Revelas and Besim Agusaj (2006). International Entrepreneurship: The Engine Propelling Kosovo. USASBE/SBI 2006 Joint Conference Proceedings, 2006.
291. R. Greg Bell (2006). Corporate Control and New Corporate Venture Manager Power. USASBE/SBI 2006 Joint Conference Proceedings, 2006.
292. David A. Ringholz (2006). M.A.S.H.: An Analytical Framework for Idea Generation and Evolution. Proceedings of the NCIIA 10th Annual Conference, pp 75-80, 2006.
293. K. Riopelle, J. Gluesing, T. Alcordo, M. Baba, D. Britt, et al (2003). Context, task, and the evolution of technology use in global virtual teams. in Virtual Teams that Work: Creating Conditions Team Effectiveness, Gibson and Cohen (Eds.), San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass, 2003.
294. Malu Roldan, Michael Solt, and Xiao Su (2004). Fostering Creativity and Collaboration via Cross-Functional Education. Proceedings of the NCIIA 8th Annual Conference, pp 265-270, 2004.
295. Milton D. Rosenau and John J. Moran (1993) Managing the Development of New Products. John Wiley & Sons, 1993.
296. John W. K. Rowe and Tim J. Mulroy (2004). A Qualitative Study of the Student Internship Experience. Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, 2004.
297. Philip Rufe, Gary Rodak, Scott Pollock, and Mary Finkel (2006). Bringing "Real World Business" into the Classroom: Introducing Entrepreneurship to Technical Students. Proceedings of the 2006 American Society Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, 2006.
298. Rodney C. Runyan, Cornelia Droge, and Jane Swinney (2006). The Relationship Between Small Business Strategy and Performance: Is a Small Business Orientation More Important than an Entrepreneurial Orientation? USASBE/SBI 2006 Joint Conference Proceedings, 2006.
299. Sarah Rzasa, Elizabeth C. Kisenwether, and John Wise (2004). Evaluation of Entrepreneurial Endeavors in the Classroom: The Student Perspective. Proceedings of the NCIIA 8th Annual Conference, pp 171-177, 2004.
300. L. Saito, editor. Getting started as an entrepreneur, National Collegiate Inventors and Innovators Alliance, 2002.
301. Andres C. Salazar (2006). Failure of High-Technology Firms: A Study from Near-Death Experiences. USASBE/SBI 2006 Joint Conference Proceedings, 2006.
302. Mahamouda Salouhou, James C. Seferis, and Lambros Georgoulis (2004). Global Process Design Class: A New Paradigm for Higher Education. Proceedings of the NCIIA 8th Annual Conference, pp 281-290, 2004.
303. M. Saren (1984) A classification of review models of the intra-firm innovation process, R&D Management 14(1):11-24.
304. S. Sarker, F. Lau, and S. Sahay (2001). Using an adapted grounded theory approach for inductive theory building about virtual team developmentDatabase for Advances in Information Systems 32(1):38-56, 2001.
305. S. Sarker and S. Sahay (2002). Information systems development by US-Norwegian virtual teams: Implications of time and space. Proceedings of the thirty-fifth annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences, 2002.
306. Carol Stoak Saunders (2000). Virtual teams: Piecing together the puzzle, in Framing the Domains of IT Management: Projecting the Future through the Past, 2000.
307. Minet Schindehutte and Susan Coombes (2006). Using Film to Experientially Amplify Entrepreneurial Competencies. USASBE/SBI 2006 Joint Conference Proceedings, 2006.
308. M. Schindehutte, M. Morris, D. Kuratko. Classification as a factor in the scientific evolution of entrepreneurship, Journal of Small Business Strategy, 11(2):1-20, 2000.
309. Leon Schjoedt, Michelle L. Schmitt, and John A. Lust (2006). Influence of Work and Family Conflict on Job Satisfaction of Small Business Executives. USASBE/SBI 2006 Joint Conference Proceedings, 2006.
310. Richard R. Schultz and Craig Silvernagel (2004). Building Cross-Campus Partnerships in Product Development and Entrepreneurship Education. Proceedings of the NCIIA 8th Annual Conference, pp 257-264.
311. Mary Secor and Douglas Arion (2006). Creating a Powerful Educational Experience for Entrepreneurship Students: A Model for Program and Curriculum Development. Proceedings of the 2006 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, 2006.
312. Michael Seibert and Michael Harris (2006). The Identification of Strategic Management Counseling Competencies Essential for Small Business Counselors: An Exploratory Study. USASBE/SBI 2006 Joint Conference Proceedings, 2006.
313. M. Sharples (1992). Adding a little structure to collaborative writing, in D. Diaper & C. Sanger (eds) CSCW in Practice: An Introduction and Case Studies, Springer Verlag, 1992.
314. R. B. Shaw (1997). Trust in the Balance: Building Successful Organizations on Results, Integrity, and Cohesion. Jossey-Ball, 1997.
315. David Shepard and Dan Moore (2006). Success, Failures and Next Steps for Engenius Solutions: Real World Idea Lab for Engineers. Proceedings of the 2006 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, 2006.
316. K. Sheppard, P. Dominick, and Z. Aronson (2003). Preparing engineering students for the new business paradigm of international teamwork and global orientation. 2003 ECI Conference on Enhancement of the Global Perspective for Engineering Students by Providing an International Perspective, 2003.
317. K. Sheppard, G. Korfiatis, S. Manoochehri, K. Pochiraju, E. McGrath, P. Dominick, and Z. Aronson (2004). The role of virtual student design teams in engineering education for the "new workplace". Proceedings of the 2004 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Salt Lake City, UT, USA; 20-23 June 2004.
318. Peter S. Sherman, Lester Digman, Terry Sebora, and Jan Hansen (2006). An Exploratory Look at the Role of Realistic Entrepreneurship Previews on Entrepreneurial Biases, Risk Perception, and Opportunity Evaluation. USASBE/SBI 2006 Joint Conference Proceedings, 2006.
319. Jeffrey F. Shields (2006). Adapting to a Rural Setting: Management Strategies Employed by Small Business Owners. USASBE/SBI 2006 Joint Conference Proceedings, 2006.
320. Stella F. Shields, Gisela Gil-Egui, Concetta M. Stewart (2003). Certain about uncertainty: Strategies and practices for virtual teamwork in online classrooms in The Distance Education Evolution: Issues and Case Studies edited by Dominique Monolescu , Catherine Schifter , Linda Greenwood; Temple University.
321. Milton Silver and William Deane (2004). Mentors Contribute to the Entrepreneurial Culture and Environment at Drexel University. Proceedings of the NCIIA 8th Annual Conference, pp 43-47, 2004.
322. Craig Silvernagel and Richard R. Schultz (2005). From Concept Generation to Technology Transfer within an Entrepreneurship Curriculum. Proceedings of the NCIIA 9th Annual Conference, pp 139-153, 2005.
323. Craig Silvernagel, Richard R. Schultz, Jeffery A. Stamp (2006). The Evolution of an Entrepreneurship Curriculum Based on Experience and Best Practices. Proceedings of the NCIIA 10th Annual Conference, pp 91-100, 2006.
324. P. Smith and E. L. Blanck (2002). From experience: Leading dispersed teams, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 19:294-304.
325. Jerry Smolek, Dee Hoffman, and Linda Moran (1998). Organizing teams for success, in Supporting Work Team Effectiveness: Best Management Practices for Fostering High Performance, Eric Sundstrom & Associates, Jossey-Bass, 1998.
326. D. Socha, V. Razmov, and E. Davis (2003) Teaching reflective skills in an engineering course, Proceedings of the 2003 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. #Matthew C. Sonfield (2006). America's Largest Black-Owned Companies: A Thirty-Year Longitudinal Analysis. USASBE/SBI 2006 Joint Conference Proceedings, 2006.
327. Ritch L. Sorenson, Keith H. Brigham, and Cathleen A. Folker (2006). Feminine Collaborative Networks with Stakeholders Influence on Entrepreneurial Growth in Small Business. USASBE/SBI 2006 Joint Conference Proceedings, 2006.
328. Aron S. Spencer and Bruce A. Kirchhoff (2006). Legal Infrastructure and Entrepreneurship: An International Comparison. USASBE/SBI 2006 Joint Conference Proceedings, 2006.
329. R. Keith Stanfill (2005). Establishing and Managing Stakeholder Expectations in a Start-up Multidisciplinary Technology Entrepreneurship Program. Proceedings of the NCIIA 9th Annual Conference, pp 127-138, 2005.
330. R. Keith Stanfill, Erik J. Sander, and William J. Rossi (2004). The University of Florida Integrated Technology Ventures (ITV) Program. Proceedings of the NCIIA 8th Annual Conference, pp 93-98, 2004. #Joseph Stasio and Gina Vega (2006). Urban Studies, Entrepreneurship, and Technology: A new worldview. Proceedings of the NCIIA 10th Annual Conference, pp 209-215, 2006.
331. R. Barth Strempek (2006). Academic Benefits, Practical Issues: Assessment of an Integrated Entrepreneurship Program. USASBE/SBI 2006 Joint Conference Proceedings, 2006.
332. Eric Sundstrom (1998) Supporting work team effectiveness: Best practices, in Supporting Work Team Effectiveness: Best Management Practices for Fostering High Performance, Eric Sundstrom & Associates, Jossey-Bass, 1998.
333. Eric Sundstrom and associates (1998). Supporting Work Team Effectiveness: Best Management Practices for Fostering High Performance, Jossey-Bass, 1998.
334. Paul M. Swamidass and Daniel D. Butler (2005). The Effect of Auburn University's Business-Engineering-Technology Program on the Predisposition towards Entrepreneurship in Business and Engineering Graduates. Proceedings of the NCIIA 9th Annual Conference, pp 209-218, 2005.
335. Jane Swinney and Rodney Runyan (2006). Differences in Reported Firm Performance by Gender: Does Industry Matter? USASBE/SBI 2006 Joint Conference Proceedings, 2006.
336. Shahram Taj, Jonathan Weaver, Shahrooz Kamali, and Bahman Mirshab (2004). Assessment of a Graduate Program for End-to-End Product Creation. Proceedings of the NCIIA 8th Annual Conference, pp 219-225.
337. B. Tan, K Wei, W. Huang, and G. Ng (2000). A dialogue technique to enhance electronic communication in virtual teams. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 43(2): 153-165, 2000.
338. Patricio Tapia, Kitti Manokhoon, and Dr. Fazil T. Najafi (2004). Civil Engineering Accreditation at the University of Florida and the Universidad Catolica del Norte, Chile. Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, 2004.
339. Karen S. Thornton, Sarah Djamshidi, and David F. Barbe (2004). VentureAccelerator Program: Accelerating Fledgling Technology Start-ups at University of Maryland. Proceedings of the NCIIA 8th Annual Conference, pp 37-42, 2004.
340. Lisa Collins Tidwell and Joseph B. Walther (2002). Computer-mediated communication effects on disclosure, impressions, and interpersonal evaluations: Getting to know one another a bit at a time. Human Communicatons Research, 28:317-348, Jul 2002.
341. Anthony M. Townsend, Samuel M. DeMarie, and Anthony R. Hendrickson (1998). Virtual teams: technology and the workplace of the future. Academy of Management Executive 12(3):17-29, 1968.
342. Bruce W. Tuckman (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin 63(6):384-399, 1965.
343. B. Tuckman, M. A. C. Jensen (1977). Stages of small group development revisited. Group and Organization Studies 2:419-427.
344. K. Ulrich and S. Eppinger. Product Design and Development, 3rd Edition, McGraw-Hill, 2004.
345. UVic Business (2006). Board of Advisors. University of Victoria, Faculty of Business, Online. Accessed: July 2006.
346. Iris Vanaelst, Bart Clarysse, Mike Wright, Andy Lockett, Nathalie Moray, and Rosette S'Jegers (2006). Entrepreneurial Team Development in Academic Spinouts: An Examination of Team Heterogeneity. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 30, No. 2, pp 249-271, March 2006.
347. Howard Van Auken and Antonia Madrid(2006). An Analysis of Factors Impacting Performance of Small Spanish Manufacturing Firms. USASBE/SBI 2006 Joint Conference Proceedings, 2006.
348. Craig Van Slyke, Hao Lou, John Day (2003). Intentions to use groupware: The influence of users' perceptions in Advanced topics in information resources management, Idea Group Publishing, Hershey, PA, 2003.
349. Birgit Verworn, Cornelius Herstatt (1999) Approaches to the "Fuzzy Front End" of Innovation. working paper, September 1999.
350. Ken Vickers, Ron Foster, and Greg Salamo (2004). Early Progress Indicators: an Innovation Incubator. Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, 2004. #Caisson M. Vickery, Thomas D. Clark, and John R. Carlson (1999). Virtual positions: An examination of structure and performance in ad hoc workgroupsInformation Systems Journal 9(4):291-312, 1999.
351. Robert Vinja (2003). Major challenges in multi-cultural virtual teams. Proceedings / American Institute for Decision Sciences, Southwest Region 341-346, 2003.
352. William J. Wales, Michael D. Ensley, and Jon C. Carr (2006). Aligning Entrepreneurial Strategy-Making with the External Task Environment: Do the Group Dynamics of New Venture Top Management Teams Matter? USASBE/SBI 2006 Joint Conference Proceedings, 2006.
353. Christina Wallin and Stig Larsson and Fredrik Ekdahl and Ivica Crnkovic (2002) Combining models for business decisions and software development. Euromicro Conference 2002.
354. Stephen J. Walsh and Thomas K. Miller III (2006). The Impact of Entrepreneurship on Engineering Curricula. Proceedings of the NCIIA 10th Annual Conference, pp 57-63, 2006.
355. Stephen Walsh and Thomas Miller (2006). A Comprehensive Model for Integrating Entrepreneurship Education and Capstone Projects while Exceeding ABET Requirements. Proceedings of the 2006 American Society Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, 2006.
356. J. B. Walther (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relational perspective. Communication Research 19(1):52-90.
357. J. B. Walther (1994). Anticipated ongoing interaction versus channel effects on relational communication in computer-mediated interaction. Human Communication Research 20(4):473-501, 1994.
358. J. B. Walther (1995). Relational aspects of computer-mediated communication: experimental observations over time. Organizational Science 6(2):186-203, 1995.
359. J. B. Walther (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research 23(1):1-43, 1996.
360. J. B. Walther (1997). Group and interpersonal effects in international computer-mediated collaboration. Human Communication Research 23(3):342-369, 1997.
361. M. E. Warkentin and P. M, Beranek (1999). Training to improve virtual communication. Information Systems Journal 9(4):271-289, 1999.
362. M. E. Warkentin, L Sayeed, and R. Hightower (1997). Virtual teams versus face-to-face teams: An exploratory study of a web-based conference system. Decision Sciences 28(4):975-996, 1997.
363. D. G. Wastell, P. White (1992). Using process technology to support cooperative work: Prospects and design issues, in D. Diaper & C. Sanger (eds) CSCW in Practice: An Introduction and Case Studies, Springer Verlag, 1992.
364. K. Mark Weaver and Susan Bowman (2006). Entrepreneurship and the Arts: Illusion or Reality? USASBE/SBI 2006 Joint Conference Proceedings, 2006.
365. K. Mark Weaver, Edward J. Schoen, and Dianne Dorland (2004). A Boot Camp Model Program Approach to Develop an Entrepreneurial Focus among Technology and Science Professionals. Proceedings of the NCIIA 8th Annual Conference, pp 49-52, 2004.
366. Tommy Wedlund (2000). Global Product Development Supported by Groupware at Product Models 2000, The Sixth Conference on Product Models, Collegium, Linköping, 7-8 November 2000.
367. Phil Weilerstein, Joseph Steig, David Barbe, Abigail Barrow, Thomas O’Neal, Arnold A. Heggestad, and Thomas M. Jacobius (2004). Invention to Venture: Inspiring Technology Innovation and Entrepreneurship. Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, 2004.
368. Weiss, Donald H (2000). Fair, Square and Legal: Safe Hiring MAnaging and Firing Practices to Keep You and Your Company Out of Court New York: AMACOM, American Management Association 2000.
369. Robert Weissbach and Jana Goodrich (2006). Developing Positive Teaming in a Product Development and Entrepreneurship Course Using an Off-Campus Weekend Seminar. Proceedings of the 2006 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, 2006.
370. Robert S. Weissbach, Jana G. Goodrich, and Ralph M. Ford (2004). Lessons Learned and Best Practices in Multidisciplinary Teamwork and Teaching of a Small Product Realization Course. Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, 2004.
371. C. Wheelan. Naked Economics, WW Norton and Company, New York, NY, 2002.
372. Steven C. Wheelwright and Kim B. Clark (1992) Revolutionizing Product Development: Quantum Leaps in Speed, Efficiency, and Quality. The Free Press, 1992.
373. Wheelwright, Steven C. Clark, Kim B. (1994) Accelerating the design-build-test cycle for effective product development. International Marketing Review 11(1):32-46, 1994.
374. Steven C. Wheelwright and W. Earl Sasser, Jr (1989) The new product development map. Harvard Business Review), May-June 1989. also in _The Product Development Challenge, edited by Clark & Wheelwright, 2005.
375. Douglass J. Wilde (2004). Team Creativity. Proceedings of the NCIIA 8th Annual Conference, pp 77-80, 2004.
376. Fiona Wilson and Jill Kickul (2006). For What, For Whom? Examining the Diverse Motives of Future Female and Male Entrepreneurs. USASBE/SBI 2006 Joint Conference Proceedings, 2006.
377. T. Wolf. Managing a Non-Profit in the Twenty-First Century, Fireside Publishing New York, NY, 1999.
378. James Wolff and Timothy Pett (2006). Entrepreneurial Orientation, Learning Orientation, and Information Technology Competency - Relationship to SME Performance. USASBE/SBI 2006 Joint Conference Proceedings.
379. James A. Wolff and Timothy A. Pett (2006). Small-Firm Performance: Modeling the Role of Product and Process Improvements. Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 44, No. 2, pp 268-284, April 2006.
380. Michael T. Wood, Kenneth S. Gadd, and Donald Falkenburg (2004). Entrepreneurship for Engineers. Proceedings of the NCIIA 8th Annual Conference, pp 131-135, 2004.
381. Jiunn-Chi Wu, Pei-Fen Chang (2004). Effectiveness of problem-solving and teamwork skills for cultivating technological creativity within a team-based design course. Proceedings of the 2004 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Salt Lake City, UT, USA; 20-23 June 2004.
382. Tien Hua Yim-Teo (2004). Reforming Curriculum for a Knowledge Economy: The Case of Technical Education in Singapore. Proceedings of the NCIIA 8th Annual Conference, pp 137-144, 2004.
383. Shaker A. Zahra, R. Isil Yavuz, and Deniz Ucbasaran (2006). How Much Do You Trust Me? The Dark Side of Relational Trust in New Business Creation in Established Companies. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(4):541-559, July 2006.
384. Q. Zhang, W. J. Doll (2001) The fuzzy front end and success of new product development: A causal model. European Journal of Innovation Management 4(2):95-112, May 2001.
385. Roxanne Zolin and Ira Lewis (2006). The Birth of New Enterprises: Public or Private by Genetics or by Design? USASBE/SBI 2006 Joint Conference Proceedings, 2006.

• PDF (307 KB)
• PDF Plus (298 KB)

DISCONTINUITY AND COLLABORATION: THEORY AND EVIDENCE FROM TECHNOLOGICAL PROJECTS

The Service Industries Journal

Service development in product-service systems: a maturity model

Preview

Buy now

DOI:

10.1080/02642069.2013.747513

Mario Rapaccini^a, Nicola Saccani^b*, Giuditta Pezzotta^c, Thomas Burger^d& Walter Ganz^d
Received: 13 Jul 2012
Accepted: 01 Aug 2012
Version of record first published: 28 Nov 2012

Article Views: 10

Alert me

When do we really need interpersonal trust in globally dispersed new product development teams?

Issue

R&D Management

Volume 42, Issue 1, pages 31–46, January 2012

• Abstract
• Article
• References
• Cited By

Get PDF (197K)

Abstract

Interpersonal trust refers to the willingness to make oneself vulnerable to the actions of another party. Trust is generally acknowledged as fostering knowledge exchange and thus contributing to new product development (NPD) team effectiveness. However, the conditions under which NPD teams come to rely more heavily on trust to facilitate effectiveness remain unclear. With burgeoning global collaboration on new product development, we analyze how the characteristics of global NPD teams, i.e., geographic dispersion, computer-mediated communication (e.g., e-mail, video-conferencing), team membership flexibility, and national diversity moderate the trust–effectiveness relationship. Our results show that trust is more important under the condition of geographic dispersion, computer-mediated communication, and national diversity. By specifying when trust influences NPD team effectiveness in globally dispersed teams, we discuss the theoretical implications and provide recommendations for management.

1. Introduction

Innovations depend, among other things, on the use of knowledge and the generation of new knowledge (Hoegl and Schulze, 2005). Hence, companies strive to exploit knowledge resources from inside (Ahuja et al., 2003) and outside (von Hippel and von Krogh, 2003; Lichtenthaler, 2008) by creating globally dispersed new product development (NPD) teams (Griffith et al., 2003). Among other factors, interpersonal trust has been particularly argued to be a major NPD team success factor (Bstieler, 2006). Interpersonal trust is defined as ‘the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another party based on the expectation that the other party will perform a particular action important to the trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that other party’ (Mayer et al., 1995, p. 712). In this vein, trust has been shown to foster open communication styles, constructive conflict resolution, and free information flow (Zand, 1972). By positively influencing both knowledge transfer effectiveness and efficiency (Lane et al., 2001), trust thus appears to be an important source of effectiveness in global NPD teams (Iacono and Weisband, 1997).

However, interpersonal trust does not automatically evolve in globally dispersed NPD teams. As Muethel and Hoegl (2007) argue, global teams might be confronted with initial distrust when cultural prejudices undermine the team members' perceived trustworthiness. Trust building initiatives, particularly in the initial phase of collaboration (Wilson et al., 2006), can facilitate trust development (Jones and George, 1998) but also generate considerable costs. It is thus important to gain further insights into conditions under which interpersonal trust actually fosters NPD team effectiveness. It has been empirically shown that trust might not be a panacea (Langfred, 2004), and scholars have repeatedly requested more detailed inquiries into the circumstances under which trust unfolds its beneficial potential (Szulanski et al., 2004; Krishnan et al., 2006; Gefen et al., 2008). Gefen et al. (2008), for example, point to the necessity to consider culture's moderating effects on team processes in global environments. Given the excessive costs of trust building activities and the questions that have been raised regarding trust's general favorability (Dirks, 1999; Atuahene-Gima and Li, 2002), we point to the need for a more detailed inquiry into the circumstances under which interpersonal trust unfolds its beneficial potential in global NPD teams. We thus focus on the relevance of trust for performance in globally dispersed NPD teams in this paper. While it might also be interesting to investigate the processes through which interpersonal trust evolves in dispersed teams, this is outside of our scope, as we are interested in the (conditional) outcomes of trust, rather than the antecedents of trust.

Global NPD teams are often not only associated with geographic dispersion (Gibson and Gibbs, 2006) but also with computer-mediated communication, such as e-mail and video-conferencing (Bélanger and Watson-Manheim, 2006), flexible membership (Ancona et al., 2002), and national diversity (Kankanhalli et al., 2006). However, most studies on global teams only focus on geographic dispersion (O'Leary and Cummings, 2007). Moreover, extant research has focused on global team characteristics' direct relationship with team outcomes (Gibson and Gibbs, 2006). Joshi et al. (2009), however, point to geographic dispersion as an important moderator of team processes (Webster and Staples, 2006). Bierly III et al. (2009) address this claim, but only empirically investigate geographic dispersion as a moderator of the trust–performance relationship. Other global NPD team characteristics, such as computer-mediated communication, team membership flexibility, and national diversity remain unaddressed by research.

Given this research gap, our objective is to analyze the effects of these global NPD team characteristics on the relationship between trust and effectiveness in NPD teams. Our article makes several contributions to the field. First, we advance the growing body of literature by focusing on the importance of trust for NPD team effectiveness (Bstieler, 2006; Bstieler and Hemmert, 2008). By analyzing how global NPD team characteristics affect interpersonal trust's importance in such teams, our more fine-grained analysis details when trust is particularly critical and, by the same token, when teams are less dependent on trust to achieve high levels of NPD team effectiveness. Second, we conceptually extend previous research on trust in dispersed teams, which has mainly focused on geographic dispersion (McDonough III et al., 2001; Chidambaram and Lai Lai, 2005; Cramton and Webber, 2005; Fuller et al., 2006) by considering global teams' additional characteristics. Particularly, we explore the mechanisms by which (besides geographic dispersion) computer-mediated communication, team membership flexibility, and national diversity (besides geographic dispersion) are likely to influence interpersonal trust's effectiveness in NPD teams. Moreover, this study provides empirical evidence from organizational NPD teams, thus adding significantly to prior research on global teams, which have often relied on laboratory settings and student populations (O'Leary and Cummings, 2007).

By showing that not all global NPD team characteristics lead to trust's increased benefit for NPD team effectiveness, this research acknowledges the importance of considering interpersonal trust's moderating conditions (Atuahene-Gima and Li, 2002). In the face of the investment needed to develop trust in global NPD teams, we advance research by demonstrating under which conditions interpersonal trust actually strengthens the relationship between interpersonal trust and NPD team effectiveness.

The following discussion starts off by providing a brief review of the literature that supports trust having a generally positive effect on effectiveness. Thereafter, we describe the moderators listed above, theoretically outline the hypothesized moderation mechanisms, and offer empirical evidence of their influence on the trust-effectiveness relationship. Finally, we discuss the implications for theory and practice.

2. Theory and hypothesis

2.1. Interpersonal trust and NPD team effectiveness

Following Cummings and Bromiley (1996), whose definition of interpersonal trust is most often applied with regard to dispersed teams (Jarvenpaa and Leidner, 1999; Jarvenpaa et al., 2004), we maintain that team members trust their team if they believe that all the team members make an effort to behave in accordance with their commitments, that all the team members are benevolent, and that no team member will take advantage of another, even when given the opportunity to do so.

Empirical studies have shown that interpersonal trust enhances communication and information sharing (Dirks and Ferrin, 2001), particularly in dispersed teams (Jarvenpaa and Leidner, 1999). Knowledge transfer enabled by information sharing allows external and internal knowledge to be combined (Madhavan and Grover, 1998), thus serving as the basis for the creation of new knowledge (Knudsen, 2007). In turn, new knowledge is a major driver of new product development (Brockhoff, 1998).

Since trust leads to the constructive interpretation of partner motives (Uzzi, 1997), mitigating uncertainty about partner behavior (Krishnan et al., 2006), it reduces the potential for relationship or affective conflicts (Zaheer et al., 1998), which is generally regarded as dysfunctional in respect of dispersed teams (Kankanhalli et al., 2006) and also in NPD teams (Dreu and Vianen, 2001). However, by fostering task-related problem-solving effectiveness (Zand, 1972), trust facilitates moderate levels of cognitive conflict, which are assumed to enhance NPD team effectiveness (De Dreu, 2006).

In sum, and consistent with prior work on dispersed (Iacono and Weisband, 1997; Jarvenpaa and Leidner, 1999; Coppola et al., 2004) and NPD teams (Bstieler, 2006; Bstieler and Hemmert, 2008; Bierly III et al., 2009), we surmise that trust positively influences effectiveness in dispersed NPD teams, i.e., the extent to which a team is able to achieve quality goals (Hoegl et al., 2004). Hence, we posit:

• Hypothesis 1: Interpersonal trust is positively related to NPD team effectiveness.

Building on trust's general favorability (Atuahene-Gima and Li, 2002), we argue that interpersonal trust's generally positive performance effect may be strengthened under certain conditions and diminished under other conditions. Since collaboration on innovative endeavors is becoming increasingly global (McDonough III et al., 2001; Gassmann and von Zedtwitz, 2003), we focus on global team characteristics as possible moderators and delineate the relevant conditions when interpersonal trust affects NPD teams' effectiveness more strongly.

2.2. Global NPD teams' characteristics

The central characteristic of global NPD teams is geographic dispersion. Geographic dispersion relates to the team members' physical and temporal distance (Baba et al., 2004), which can vary between the same place and global distribution (Lipnack and Stamps, 2000). Although physical dispersion does not necessarily influence the use of communication technologies – highly dispersed teams can travel and fairly colocated teams mostly communicate via e-mail or telephone (Fiol and O'Connor, 2005) – it is often assumed that more geographically distributed teams are also more electronically dependent (Kirkman et al., 2004). Computer-mediated communication can provide access to relevant expertise beyond the geographical boundaries, thus leading to cultural diversity among team members (Maznevski and Chudoba, 2000). However, team members from different cultural backgrounds could also work together in face-to-face teams. Therefore, national diversity and geographic dispersion often coincide but are not necessarily related (O'Leary and Cummings, 2007). Moreover, the convenient access to expertise that computer-mediated communication offers, supports creative and flexible responses to changing demands by facilitating flexible team membership. The latter enables the team to staff flexibly according to changes in their work assignments (Langfred, 2007). Thus, we argue that geographic dispersion, computer-mediated communication, national diversity, and team membership flexibility are central characteristics of global NPD teams. All these characteristics are considered continuous variables rather than definitional elements. Moreover, although these characteristics are all pertinent to global NPD teams, they are likely to demonstrate unique effects and, therefore, are argued to be independent of one another (Gibson and Gibbs, 2006).

2.3. Geographic dispersion

NPD teams become increasingly geographically dispersed, because companies strive to leverage specialized technical and local market knowledge from different sites (McDonough III et al., 2001) to increase innovation effectiveness (Brockhoff, 1998).

We argue that interpersonal trust's positive effects are particularly strong when geographic dispersion is high. With team members relying on one another to fulfill their work obligations (Zaheer et al., 1998), high levels of interpersonal trust lead to a decreased need for monitoring (Langfred, 2004). The positive effects of trust are particularly beneficial for team effectiveness under geographic dispersion, as face-to-face interactions are quite rare (Carson et al., 2003), making the monitoring of task activities and processes more difficult (Gibson and Gibbs, 2006). Moreover, interpersonal trust leads to the acceptance of uncertainty (Lane and Bachmann, 1996). Since global NPD teams are challenged by a decreasing awareness of one another's work status (Dennis, 1996; Tan et al., 1998), the benefits from trusting the other members are likely to increase if dispersion is high. Finally, interpersonal trust is characterized by faith in the partner's benevolence and intentions (Mayer et al., 1995), making each team member more likely to renounce control mechanisms (Fryxell et al., 2002). Thus, the team members assume that each of them is engaged in task accomplishment even if there is no control to verify this (Das and Teng, 1998). This, in turn, leads to interpersonal trust's increasing relevance for dispersed NPD team effectiveness.

These arguments emphasize the critical importance of interpersonal trust under greater geographically dispersion, and point to the latter's positive moderating effect on the relationship between interpersonal trust and effectiveness. Hence, we posit:

• Hypothesis 2: Geographic dispersion increases the positive relationship between interpersonal trust and NPD team effectiveness.

2.4. Computer-mediated communication

Developments in computer-mediated communication systems have made it feasible for NPD teams to work together despite their physical dispersion (Zack and McKenney, 1995). These systems allow digitized information to be entered, stored, processed, distributed, and received (Kahai and Cooper, 1999), as well as allowing computer conferencing systems, electronic and voice mail systems, group decision support systems, and text retrieval systems (Huseman and Miles, 1988). Computer-mediated communication is a continuum and is a question of the relative extent of computer-mediated rather than face-to-face communication (Griffith et al., 2003). A team that operates entirely through e-mail, text exchanges, and teleconferences, never meeting face-to-face, is more electronically dependent than a team whose participants have a monthly face-to-face meeting. (Gibson and Gibbs, 2006)

We argue that in NPD teams with high levels of computer-mediated communication, the relationship between interpersonal trust and team effectiveness is particularly strong. Trust leads team members to consider sources of information and the other team members' motives positively (Mayer et al., 1995). As the integration of the team members' individually unique knowledge is crucial to NPD team effectiveness (Madhavan and Grover, 1998), smooth knowledge exchange processes between the team members are very important in this context. Assuming that the other team members have positive motives, interpersonal trust also diminishes dysfunctional conflict (Jehn and Mannix, 2001). The limited media richness and social presence in electronically dependent teams lead to fewer nonverbal cues (Kahai and Cooper, 1999), less contextual information (Kankanhalli et al., 2006), and, thus, to misunderstandings among team members (Desanctis and Monge, 1999; Mortensen and Hinds, 2001). Moreover, technical expertise is often bound to a specific language, which might differ among the NPD team members (Cramton, 2001), allowing misunderstandings to arise. The positive consideration of other team members' motives thus seems to be particularly essential in settings characterized by high levels of computer-mediated communication.

Finally, trust is reflected in team members' willingness to listen to and absorb others' knowledge without verifying this information (Szulanski et al., 2004). Under conditions of strong computer-mediated communication, this willingness is particularly important because computer-mediated communication largely prevents information verification (Johnson and Lederer, 2005). Thus, the importance of trust increases. Moreover, trust implies a willingness to share one's useful knowledge (Levin et al., 2006), implies that the sources of information are considered trustworthy (Andrews and Delahaye, 2000), and that the amount of information exchanged is likely to increase. Since NPD teams continually depend on the integration of their members' unique knowledge (Espinosa et al., 2007), a willingness to rely on the information given becomes crucial to knowledge-sharing effectiveness. Information verification would increase knowledge exchanges' time and cost.

The positive effects of interpersonal trust are therefore crucial in the presence of strong computer-mediated communication, which is generally characterized by lower levels of information-sharing effectiveness than found in face-to-face teams (Kirkman et al., 2006). Therefore, we propose that if team members' computer-mediated communication increases, interpersonal trust has a stronger impact on team effectiveness:

• Hypothesis 3: Computer-mediated communication increases the positive relationship between interpersonal trust and NPD team effectiveness.

2.5. Team membership flexibility

Dynamic changes in the task, situation, and conditions are a key characteristic of new product development and demand flexibility in the team structure (Langfred, 2007). As such, NPD teams are often characterized by frequent changes in team membership (Gibson and Gibbs, 2006).

Trust's positive relationship with effectiveness is likely to be particularly strong in teams with high levels of team membership changes. Interpersonal trust leads team members to listen to problems, to pass along relevant information (Williams and Anderson, 1991), and explain the work (Van Dyne and LePine, 1998). This positive effect is likely to become even more important in the context of frequent changes in team membership, as team members tend to lack a common vocabulary and their understanding of team processes is limited (Wiersema and Bantel, 1992). These team members are thus faced with uncertainty and anxiety about socially accepted behavior (Harrison et al., 2003). Hence, trust's positive effects tend to increase in teams with flexible membership.

Moreover, interpersonal trust is associated with the willingness to allow deviances from socially accepted behavior (Lewicki and Bunker, 1996). In the belief that team members act with the best intentions and do not deliberately disregard social norms, but simply do not recognize them, deviances are not attributed to actors' lack of goodwill. These benefits become even more important under conditions of flexible membership, as, besides the problem of new members not being acquainted with team norms, shorter tenure also leads to less commitment to established norms and practices (Finkelstein and Hambrick, 1990). Thus, new team members might not feel obliged to adhere to the team norms and could provoke dysfunctional conflict. Therefore, interpersonal trust becomes increasingly relevant for NPD team effectiveness in the context of non-stable team membership. Hence, we posit:

• Hypothesis 4: Team membership flexibility increases the positive relationship between interpersonal trust and NPD team effectiveness.

2.6. National diversity

Firms increasingly take advantage of international opportunities to maximize the use of scarce knowledge resources (Cramton, 2001) and to capture comparative cost advantages. Consequently, product development activities' internationalization has shown strong growth (Moenaert et al., 2000; Björn and Bodo, 2008). The more nationally diverse an NPD team is, the more it faces cultural and linguistic differences between its members, as well as differences along broader cultural dimensions, such as individualism and collectivism (Kankanhalli et al., 2006). Culture is a set of shared symbols, norms, and values in a social collectivity (Dongsong et al., 2007), thus serving as a filter for one's perception of the surrounding environment, as guiding behavior, and as social interaction (Chudoba et al., 2005). In their conceptual piece, Nakata and Sivakumar (1996) argue that culture influences NPD team effectiveness. As such, the authors assume, for example, that individualism increases NPD team effectiveness, while power distance is argued to demonstrate negative effects.

In settings with high levels of national diversity, the importance of trust is likely to increase. Trust mitigates uncertainty about partner behavior (Krishnan et al., 2006) by facilitating mutual understanding and giving one another the benefit of the doubt (Zaheer et al., 1998). If one party encounters its partner undertaking unexpected actions, which could be ascribed to both good and bad intentions, a constructive interpretation of the partner's intentions is critical, as the first party is assumed to exhibit goodwill (Krishnan et al., 2006). Since teams with high national diversity demonstrate divergent preferences for social interaction norms (Zhang et al., 2007), this positive effect of interpersonal trust becomes particularly important. Consequently, trust's positive effects may increase in teams with high levels of national diversity. Moreover, trust fosters the predictability of the other party's behavior (Zaheer et al., 1998) by alleviating communication deficiencies. This is particularly important in highly international teams with frequent misunderstandings.

Finally, interpersonal trust increases voluntary deference (Kramer, 1999). A trusting recipient is more likely to accept advice from the other team members and to change his or her behavior. Hence, trust is particularly relevant in nationally diverse teams to overcome the downsides of social categorization and its negative consequences for knowledge exchange. In this context, trust's positive effects are particularly important, as individuals tend to categorize others according to physical cues, such as race, and to develop expectations about one another's behavior (Hogg and Terry, 2000). These cues and expectations then shape their interactions; i.e., the opportunities they assign one another to speak, and the appreciation of one another's contributions (Weisband et al., 1995). Therefore, we propose that with national diversity in NPD teams increasing, interpersonal trust has a stronger impact on team effectiveness because it strengthens the team's ability to cooperate. Accordingly, we posit:

• Hypothesis 5: National diversity increases the positive relationship between interpersonal trust and NPD team effectiveness.

3. Methods

3.1. Sample and data collection

We test our hypotheses on a sample of 80 software development teams from five software development companies' 28 different worldwide labs. Four of the companies are headquartered in Germany and one in the United States. The companies participating in our study organize their R&D in various software laboratories dedicated to the development, testing, and adaptation of basic software programs. While most software labs are proficient at the entire software development value chain, some labs are specialized in certain functionalities or development processes. Each laboratory participating in this study produced a list of projects, which also included the team leaders' names and contact information.

In a second step, the team leaders were provided with additional information about the present study and asked to complete a spreadsheet by providing descriptive details of the team and its team members (e.g., their gender, age, nationality, and the location of each team member's office). In a third step, all the team leaders and team-external managers, as well as randomly chosen team members, were contacted and asked to complete the online questionnaire. The respondents' participation in this study was strictly voluntary. A team was only included in the final data set if the team leader, the team-external manager (i.e., the manager to whom the team leader reported), and at least two team members had completed the questionnaire. The team leaders and managers' response rate was 100%, while that of the team members was 68%.

Each laboratory employed between 20 and 5,500 software developers (median = 600). All software development projects completed 12 months prior to our study's data collection and on which teams of nine or fewer members worked, were included in the study. This selection criterion ensured that the study focused on small integrated work teams, rather than on larger collectives that are often structured into multi-team projects (Hoegl et al., 2004), which often occurs in respect of software development programs (Dubé et al., 2006). Overall, our analyses are based on a total of 392 responses from 80 team leaders, 80 managers, and 232 team members. This sample contains 28% female team leaders and 24% female team members. Teams in our sample have an average of 5.9 members (median = 6, standard deviation = 1.8, min = 3, and max = 9), while the average age of the team members was 37.0 years (median = 37.0, standard deviation = 8.6).

3.2. Measures

All constructs considered in this investigation refer to the team as the unit of analysis. Accordingly, all measures were specified on the team level. Thus, the respondents were asked to evaluate the team's properties and behaviors as a whole. The questionnaire was administered in German and in English. A pretest was conducted with seven members of a software development team at a consulting and an engineering company. After this pretest, the wording of some items and the online questionnaire's layout were refined for later use in the present study. To ensure content validity and to avoid a possible common source bias, data from various respondents were used to measure the different variables. All items used in this study were drawn from published scales. These items were also discussed with the company representatives before the questionnaire went online. This process resulted in several changes to the wording of items to increase their clarity and interpretability. Table 1 provides the descriptive statistics and correlations in respect of all the variables in our study.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics and correlations (N = 80 teams)

Variables	Informanta	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
a This study used different informants for different levels of analysis: TL, team leader; TM, team member; M, manager. r > 0.17 is significant at the P < 0.10 level; r > 0.21 is significant at the P < 0.05 level; r > 0.30 is significant at the P < 0.01 level.
(1) Team size	TL	5.94	1.77	–
(2) Project length (LOG)	TL	1.14	0.29	0.04	–
(3) Task demands	TL	3.38	0.86	0.24	0.26	–
(4) Gender diversity	TL	0.23	0.19	0.10	−0.02	0.05	–
(5) Trust	TM	3.93	0.44	0.06	−0.22	−0.13	−0.14	–
(6) Geographic dispersion (LOG)	TL	1.29	1.50	0.14	−0.16	0.05	0.34	0.01	–
(7) Computer-mediated communication	TL	2.94	0.91	−0.07	−0.22	−0.08	0.01	0.10	0.43	–
(8) Team membership flexibility	TL	0.36	0.40	−0.27	−0.23	−0.49	−0.18	0.07	−0.08	0.00	–
(9) National diversity	TL	0.21	0.24	0.04	0.00	0.09	0.04	0.12	0.63	0.19	−0.13	–
(10) NPD team effectiveness	M	4.05	0.75	−0.26	−0.15	−0.34	−0.27	0.36	−0.31	−0.11	0.24	−0.25

3.2.1. Dependent variable

The measurement scale for NPD team effectiveness was based on the scale used by Hoegl and Gemuenden (2001), which was specifically designed to assess team effectiveness in software development teams. To capture NPD team effectiveness, the items assess the overall team effectiveness, such as customer satisfaction with the work output, as well as detailed measures evaluating important effectiveness dimensions, which include the product quality, reliability, and the software solution's usability. Team-external managers judged all NPD team effectiveness indicators, using a scale ranging from 1, ‘strongly disagree,’ to 5, ‘strongly agree.’ This assessment revealed a strong consistency, with all items loading on one factor (Cronbach's alpha = 0.92).

3.2.2. Independent variable

Trust was measured using Jarvenpaa and Leidner's (1999) trust scale for the dispersed team context, which has been also employed in further studies (Jarvenpaa et al., 2004). Since the benevolence-related aspects of trust have been shown to be particularly crucial for dispersed teams (Piccoli and Ives, 2003), we added Levin and Cross's (2004) item that measures benevolence. Trust was assessed on a five-point answer scale. Cronbach's alpha for this five-item measurement instrument was 0.82.

In our study, the trust scores were obtained by means of aggregated responses from multiple team members, excluding the team leaders. Prior to aggregating the team members' evaluations of trust, inter-rater agreement was assessed by means of James et al.'s (1984) proposed multiple-item estimator for within-group inter-rater reliability. This test yielded results indicating a generally very strong rating agreement in respect of the same team (r_wg = 0.89), which therefore justifies the aggregation (LeBreton et al., 2003). In addition, we calculated the agreement index that Brown and Hauenstein (2005) recently proposed to overcome scale dependency and sample size dependency's limitations, as well as possible bias through a falsely assumed uniform null distribution, all of which are inherent in the r_wg(1) family of inter-rater agreement indices. With a score of 0.75, this improved inter-rater agreement index also confirms agreement in respect of our trust measure. Given this homogeneity of within-team ratings, the data were aggregated on the team level by calculating the arithmetic mean.

3.2.3. Moderator variables

In order to test our moderation hypotheses 2 to 5, we used geographic dispersion, computer-mediated communication, team membership flexibility, and national diversity as moderator variables. To calculate the geographic distribution, we referred to the team descriptions provided by the team leaders to locate each team member's office. Building on O'Leary and Cummings (2007), we used this information to calculate the mileage index, capturing the geodesic distances between sites weighted by the number of members at these sites. The latter was based on a matrix of all possible, nonredundant, member-to-member connections. We took the natural logarithm of these scores to normalize the geographic distribution. To capture computer-mediated communication, we applied the measure used by Subramani (2004) who asked the participants to indicate the degree to which degree they relied on information technology. Consequently, computer-mediated communication was measured on a scale ranging from 0% to 100% by requesting the team leaders to indicate the degree to which the team communication was channeled through virtual media (e.g., e-mail, video-conferencing, shared collaboration space). Applying this variable, we gathered one value per team that indicates the level of virtual media usage rather than face-to-face interaction. This is of special interest in our research, since colocated teams also have a tendency to prefer virtual media to face-to-face conversation. In this sense, we capture some of the shades of gray between dispersion and colocation.

In respect of team membership flexibility, we calculated the percentage of members who spent less than 50% of their working time on the project in relation to the time spent by all the team members. Finally, we calculated Blau's index (1977) to measure the level of nationaldiversity, which was based on the team leaders' descriptive data of each team member's national background. This index is calculated as

with ‘p’ as the proportion of individuals or objects in a category, and ‘N’ as the number of categories. If all the team members are either male or female, there is maximum homogeneity, and the index is zero. If half are from one group and half from another, the index has a maximum of 0.50.

3.2.4. Control variables

Previous research on work groups suggests that team size (Hoegl, 2005), project length (Saunders and Ahuja, 2006), task characteristics (Rousseau et al., 2006), and the organizational context (Ilgen et al., 2005) may influence team effectiveness. They are therefore considered control variables in this study. The team leaders provided all the variables, with the exception of the organizational context.

First, we controlled for the size of the group and included this as a control variable in the analysis, as research suggests that even within a limited corridor of variability, team size still matters (Voelpel et al., 2008). Since some researchers claim that the development of trust in work teams is also related to the length of time team members collaborate (e.g., Jarvenpaa and Leidner, 1999), we also assessed the project length in terms of months from the beginning of the team's work to its conclusion (Mean = 17.5; Median = 12.0; SD = 16.3). After a log transformation, we included this as a control variable. Since the level of trust that is needed to succeed in NPD teams is related to the task demands (White and Steven Siu-Yun, 2005), we included the level of task demands in our analyses. We accounted for different levels of task demands within our sample and employed this variable as a five-item index (complexity, newness, time pressure, technical uncertainty, and economic risk) with good consistency (Chronbach's alpha = 0.78; all items loading on one factor).

In addition, we controlled for gender heterogeneity by using Blau's variation coefficient (1977) to avoid possible confounding effects by other relevant demographic variables (besides national diversity, which is one of our hypothesized moderators). Finally, given that this study includes data from five different software development companies, the study controlled for possible organizational effects in the analysis by including dummy variables for the respective organizations in the regression analyses. Since some of the participating companies operate globally, and the country organizations only have a slight organizational link to the headquarter organization, we assigned dummy variables to the country organizations to which the teams belonged (i.e., 11 dummy variables for 12 country organizations). A country organization incorporates one or more labs, which generally share the same infrastructure, processes, and technologies. Examining this organizational context enabled us to effectively control for all constant and unmeasured differences across the country organizations, which may explain differences in the investigated variables and relationships.

4. Results

Hierarchical multiple regression was used to test our hypotheses (Cohen et al., 2003). Using the interaction term's significance level (P-value) as the key indicator of moderation, the significance of the proposed interaction effects was assessed once all the control variables and main effects had been entered (Baron and Kenny, 1986). Due to the limited sample size, moderator analyses were run sequential. Table 2 shows the regression analysis's results, which are based on the trust–effectiveness relation and its moderators, with the numbered columns referring to our hypotheses (1 to 5).

Table 2. Multiple regression analysis predicting team innovation effectiveness (N = 80)

Variables	Hypotheses
	1	2	3	4	5	6
Direct effects are in parentheses below the standardized coefficients of the interaction terms. The significance of Delta R2 for the interaction terms pertaining to H2–H5 was calculated separately. All variables were mean-centered before entering the analyses. a P < 0.10; b P < 0.05; c P < 0.01.
11 Dummy variables for 12 country organizations
Team size	−0.22b	−0.23b	−0.25b	−0.22b	−0.22b	−0.28b
Project length	−0.04	−0.06	−0.05	−0.05	−0.05	−0.10
Task demands	0.09	0.09	0.06	0.08	0.08	0.02
Gender diversity	−0.16	−0.13	−0.14	−0.15	−0.18b	−0.16
Trust	0.33c	0.32c	0.25b	0.33c	0.32b	0.27b
Trust x
Geographic dispersion		0.17a (−0.22b)				0.10 (−0.04)
Computer-mediated communication			0.24c (−0.18a)			0.24b (−0.15)
Team membership flexibility				−0.02 (−0.04)		−0.03 (−0.15)
National diversity					0.18b (−0.27c)	0.15 (−0.21)
F	5.10c	5.39c	5.89c	4.38c	5.64c	4.48c
R2	0.54	0.60	0.62	0.55	0.61	0.50

By first examining the linear relationship proposed in hypothesis 1, we found that trust and NPD team effectiveness are strongly interrelated (β = 0.33, P < 0.01; see Table 2). As expected, our results support the numerous claims that trust is an essential component of NPD team effectiveness (Bstieler, 2006). Hypotheses 2 to 5 are largely supported with significant interaction terms (P < 0.05) in respect of computer-mediated communication (H3) and national diversity (H5), and a marginally significant interaction term (P < 0.10) regarding geographic dispersion (H2). However, our results fail to support the moderator effect proposed in respect of team membership flexibility (H4), as its interaction term was not found to be significant.

The interactions are plotted in Figure 1. The interaction plots illustrate that teams with dispersed team characteristics, such as dispersion, computer-mediated communication, and national diversity, benefit more from trust than teams with fewer of these characteristics. Teams which manage to achieve high levels of trust despite their reliance on -computer-mediated communication, outperform colocated teams with the same level of trust. In contrast, low-trust teams with high dispersion underperform far more than teams with less dispersion and the same level of trust.

Figure 1. Interaction plots with team innovation effectiveness as dependent variable.

5. Discussion

Given the study's results, we discuss the theoretical implications for dispersed teams, trust, and innovation research. Furthermore, we offer managerial implications, discuss the study's limitations, and make suggestion concerning required future research.

5.1. Theoretical implications

Our results provide substantial support for interpersonal trust's generally beneficial role with respect to NPD team effectiveness. As such, our findings integrate with those of Bstieler (2006) who demonstrates that trust enhances product development effectiveness, as well as with that of Fleming and Waguespack (2007) who argue in favor of trust's benefits for open innovation. Moreover, we tie in with Bstieler and Hemmert (2008) who have demonstrated national culture's moderating effects on the trust-effectiveness relationship in product development teams. However, we extend their research by demonstrating that also other characteristics of internationally dispersed collaboration – geographic dispersionand computer-mediated communication – moderate this relationship.

With regard to dispersed team research, we build on the work by Cummings (2004), Hoegl et al. (2007), and Joshi et al. (2009) who point to dispersion as a moderating condition of the relationship between team processes and team performance. However, we exceed existing moderator conceptualizations by applying a multidimensional dispersion concept to the interpersonal trust effectiveness relationship in NPD teams. As such, geographic dispersion, computer-mediated communication, team membership flexibility, and national diversity serve as conditions to determine when trust becomes particularly important for internationally dispersed NPD teams' effectiveness. Defining all four dimensions as continuous variables, we also tie in with Hinds and Mortensen (2005) who conceptualized dispersion as a matter of degree rather than regarding it as dichotomous.

The study shows that in respect of geographic dispersion, computer-mediated communication, and national diversity, trust's influence on effectiveness is more important. With regard to team membership flexibility, however, our findings did not provide support for trust's predicted stronger effect on team effectiveness. A possible explanation for this deviant finding could be that stability in team membership might not be a core characteristic of global NPD teams. Our data show that flexible membership has nonsignificant correlations with geographic dispersion, computer-mediated communication, and national diversity, while these three characteristics of global NPD teams all correlate significantly with one another. Hence, we speculate that team membership flexibility does not constitute an essential element, and therefore fails to demonstrate the moderator effect which we had derived from relevant prior literature.

With respect to interpersonal trust research, our results indicate that geographic dispersion, computer-mediated communication, and national diversity significantly influence the trust–effectiveness relationship. Hence, the results highlight the importance of identifying the conditions under which trust is particularly beneficial for team effectiveness. As such, our research integrates with Atuahene-Gima and Li's (2002) work on the contextual circumstances under which interpersonal trust unfolds its potential. As the illustrations of the significant interaction effects indicate, more colocated (less dispersed) teams benefit less (or not at all) from trust, while more dispersed teams are largely dependent on it.

Such findings shed new light on the trust–effectiveness relationship in NPD teams, revealing a much more differentiated picture than the often conveyed and universally positive notion that trust is always beneficial. The conceptual and empirical analyses in this paper highlight certain conditions under which trust becomes critical (high geographic dispersion, computer-mediated communication, and national diversity) and other conditions (low computer-mediated communication, and national diversity) where trust is not a driver of NPD team effectiveness.

5.2. Managerial implications

The findings from this research also have implications for managerial practice. Our study demonstrates interpersonal trust's increasing positive influence on NPD team effectiveness in the context of dispersed collaboration. However, the development and maintenance of high levels of trust is continuously challenged, particularly in dispersed NPD teams (Muethel and Hoegl, 2007), as perceived deviances from team norms, because of different mind sets (Arora et al., 2004), misunderstandings (Kankanhalli et al., 2006), and conflicting motives (Tomlinson et al., 2004), potentially threaten the existence of trust (Elangovan and Shapiro, 1998). The managerial implications therefore focus on trust building in the initial stages of collaboration and on trust repair where trust violations have occurred (Ferrin et al., 2007).

With regard to initial trust development, companies are well advised to invest in face-to-face meetings at the beginning of a project with high levels of geographic dispersion, computer-mediated communication, and national diversity. As our study shows, these conditions determine (at least in part) how critical trust is for team effectiveness, and hence, the degree to which investment in trust development is warranted. Kickoff meetings allow the team to get to know one another personally, to share information, and to openly discuss the goals, processes, and procedures (Cohen and Bailey, 1997). Content clarification (elucidating projects' scopes and requirements, gathering supportive background information, and creating work documents) and process information (outlining work plans and the associated time tables) foster the creation of a common ways of thinking and the development of commonly accepted behavioral norms within the team (Hackman, 1987). These, in turn, form the basis of trust development. This may be reinforced through further interaction during the project, besides focusing everyone's attention on trust-related matters such as trust violation and repair.

When trust is violated, NPD teams need procedures to repair trust to secure team effectiveness. Possible solutions are targeted at either obtaining an apology from the trust violator (Ferrin et al., 2007) or at third party trust facilitators (Mesquita, 2007).

An apology can include the offender accepting responsibility for the trust violation. Furthermore, it should convey the perpetrator's desire to reconcile with his or her fellow team members and to continue the collaboration (Kim et al., 2004). A sincere apology contains explicit statements of remorse; it is characterized by the offender's wish to shape the victim's impressions of his or her intent and motives (Tomlinson et al., 2004). For an apology to restore a trusting relationship, it should be offered soon after the violation, as it signals that the offender recognizes his or her deviant behavior (Lewicki and Bunker, 1996).

Besides the offender offering an apology, third parties could be engaged to facilitate trust reparation (Smith and Blanck, 2002). Trust facilitators employ two sets of trust-building abilities: first, those related to leading NPD teams, and second, those targeting mediation (Mesquita, 2007). Trust facilitators understand the leadership tasks in NPD teams and are able to help team leaders create a trusting environment by, for example, developing and including measures of trustworthiness in effectiveness evaluations (Abrams et al., 2003). Moreover, as mediators, trust facilitators function or intervene in cases of conflict and help the disputants achieve an agreement (Ross and Conlon, 2000). Consequently, trust facilitators mediate the negotiation of rules by disentangling and shielding new, potentially trustful, relationships from tainted existing disputes (Mesquita, 2007). Thus, managers build a trusting environment, request apologies from trust violators, and engage trust facilitators to restore trust relationships.

5.3. Limitations and outlook

A few of this study's limitations should also be noted. First, the data used in this research are cross-sectional rather than longitudinal. While our study demonstrates associations between variables, it cannot establish causality. A longitudinal research design with multiple informants would probably further our knowledge in respect of whether the effects found in our study are stable over time, or may be further moderated by timing issues. Second, we consciously focused on software development teams, because this industry's digital output makes collaborating across geographical boundaries more feasible. While we do not assume that our results are specific to software development's task contexts, we encourage further research to test the transferability of our results to other industries.

With regard to further research on trust in global NPD teams, we consider two aspects as particularly interesting. First, our results highlight the importance of trust in dispersed teams, pointing to trust's compensatory effects in respect of control (Inkpen and Currall, 2004) in dispersed environments. Control mechanism incorporate formal rules, such as procedures and policies, for monitoring purposes, as well as informal or social rules, thus emphasizing organizational norms' regulatory power (Costa and Bijlsma-Frankema, 2007). As already noted above, control mechanisms are difficult to implement in dispersed environments due to the lack of face-to-face contact (Carson et al., 2003). However, the generally accepted inverse relation has recently been criticized (Das and Teng, 1998), leading to more fine-grained models (Vlaar et al., 2007). To fully understand more the relationship between trust and control in dispersed environments, future research could examine how they are related in this context.

Second, as underlined by our results, the importance of trust for global NPD team effectiveness hints at the necessity to have high levels of trust from the very beginning of collaboration. As McKnight et al. (1998) have argued, teams might not necessarily start their collaboration with low levels of trust but might demonstrate initial trust. However, Muethel and Hoegl (2007) have shown that in cross-cultural settings, global NPD teams might also be confronted with initial distrust because of negative stereotyping. Hence, further research should investigate initial trust and distrust to offer more insights into how to ensure high levels of trust in the early stages of collaboration.

References

• Abrams, L.C., Cross, R., Lesser, E., and Levin, D.Z. (2003) Nurturing interpersonal trust in knowledge-sharing networks. Academy of Management Executive, 17, 4, 64–77.
  • CrossRef
• Ahuja, M.K., Galletta, D.F., and Carley, K.M. (2003) Individual centrality and performance in virtual R&D groups: an empirical study. Management Science, 49, 1, 21.
  • CrossRef,
  • Web of Science® Times Cited: 69
• Ancona, D., Bresman, H., and Kaeufer, K. (2002) The comparative advantage of X-teams. MIT Sloan Management Review, 43, 3, 33–40.
• Andrews, K.M. and Delahaye, B.L. (2000) Influences of knowledge process in organizational learning: the psychological filter. Journal of Management Studies, 37, 6, 797–810.
  • CrossRef
• Arora, A., Jaju, A., Kefalas, A.G., and Perenich, T. (2004) An exploratory analysis of global managerial mindsets: a case of U.S. textile and apparel industry. Journal of International Management, 10, 3, 393–411.
  • CrossRef
• Atuahene-Gima, K. and Li, H. (2002) When does trust matter? Antecedents and contingent effects of supervisee trust on performance in selling new products in China and the United States. Journal of Marketing, 66, 3, 61.
  • CrossRef,
  • Web of Science® Times Cited: 71
• Baba, M.L., Gluesing, J., Ratner, H., and Wagner, K.H. (2004) The contexts of knowing: natural history of a globally distributed team. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 5, 547.
  Direct Link:

  • Abstract
  • PDF(297K)
  • References
  • Web of Science® Times Cited: 37
• Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986) The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 6, 1173–1182.
  • CrossRef,
  • PubMed,
  • CAS,
  • Web of Science® Times Cited: 16877
• Bélanger, F. and Watson-Manheim, M. (2006) Virtual teams and multiple media: structuring media use to attain strategic goals. Group Decision & Negotiation, 15, 4, 299.
  • CrossRef
• Bierly, P.E. III, Stark, E.M., and Kessler, E.H. (2009) The moderating effects of virtuality on the antecedents and outcome of NPD team trust. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26, 5, 551–565.
  Direct Link:

  • Abstract
  • Full Article (HTML)
  • PDF(170K)
  • References
• Björn, A. and Bodo, B.S. (2008) Innovation in multinational firms: does cultural fit enhance performance?Management International Review, 48, 2, 189.
  • CrossRef,
  • Web of Science® Times Cited: 3
• Blau, P.M. (1977) Inequality and Heterogeneity. New York: The Free Press.
• Brockhoff, K. (1998) Internalization of Research and Development. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
  • CrossRef
• Brown, R.D. and Hauenstein, N.M.A. (2005) Interrater agreement reconsidered: an alternative to the rwg indices. Organizational Research Methods, 8, 2, 165–184.
  • CrossRef,
  • Web of Science® Times Cited: 36
• Bstieler, L. (2006) Trust formation in collaborative new product development. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23, 1, 56–72.
  Direct Link:

  • Abstract
  • Full Article (HTML)
  • PDF(181K)
  • References
  • Web of Science® Times Cited: 28
• Bstieler, L. and Hemmert, M. (2008) Developing trust in vertical product development partnerships: a comparison of South Korea and Austria. Journal of World Business, 43, 1, 35–46.
  • CrossRef
• Carson, S.J., Madhok, A., Varman, R., and John, G. (2003) Information processing moderators of the effectiveness of trust-based governance in interfirm R&D collaboration. Organization Science, 14, 1, 45.
  • CrossRef,
  • Web of Science® Times Cited: 46
• Chidambaram, L. and Lai Lai, T. (2005) Is out of sight, out of mind? An empirical study of social loafing in technology-supported groups. Information Systems Research, 16, 2, 149–168.
  • CrossRef,
  • Web of Science® Times Cited: 28
• Chudoba, K.M., Wynn, E., Lu, M., and Watson-Manheim, M.B. (2005) How virtual are we? Measuring virtuality and understanding its impact in a global organization. Information Systems Journal, 15, 4, 279.
  • CrossRef
• Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S., and Aiken, L. (2003) Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 3rd edn. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Cohen, S.G. and Bailey, D.E. (1997) What makes teams work: group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23, 3, 239.
  • CrossRef
• Coppola, N.W., Hiltz, S.R., and Rotter, N.G. (2004) Building trust in virtual teams. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 47, 2, 95.
  • CrossRef
• Costa, C.A. and Bijlsma-Frankema, K. (2007) Trust and control interrelations: new perspectives on the trust control nexus. Group Organization Management, 32, 4, 392–406.
  • CrossRef
• Cramton, C.D. (2001) The mutual knowledge problem and its consequences for dispersed collaboration. Organization Science, 12, 3, 346.
  • CrossRef
• Cramton, C.D. and Webber, S.S. (2005) Relationships among geographic dispersion, team processes, andeffectiveness in software development work teams. Journal of Business Research, 58, 6, 758–765.
  • CrossRef,
  • Web of Science® Times Cited: 23
• Cummings, J.N. (2004) Work groups, structural diversity, and knowledge sharing in a global organization. Management Science, 50, 3, 352–364.
  • CrossRef
• Cummings, J.N. and Bromiley, P. (1996) The organizational trust inventory (OTI). In: Kramer, R.M. and Tyler, T.R. (eds), Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. pp. 302–330.
• Das, T.K. and Teng, B.-S. (1998) Between trust and control: developing confidence in partner cooperation in alliances. Academy of Management Review, 23, 3, 491.
• De Dreu, C.K.W. (2006) When too little or too much hurts: evidence for a curvilinear relationship between task conflict and innovation in teams. Journal of Management, 32, 1, 83–107.
  • CrossRef,
  • Web of Science® Times Cited: 48
• Dennis, A.R. (1996) Information exchange and use in group decision making: you can lead a group to information, but you can't make it think. MIS Quarterly, 20, 4, 433–457.
  • CrossRef,
  • Web of Science® Times Cited: 104
• Desanctis, G. and Monge, P. (1999) Introduction to the special issue: communication processes for virtual organizations. Organization Science, 10, 6, 693.
  • CrossRef,
  • Web of Science® Times Cited: 130
• Dirks, K.T. (1999) The effects of interpersonal trust on work group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 3, 445.
  • CrossRef,
  • PubMed,
  • CAS,
  • Web of Science® Times Cited: 106
• Dirks, K.T. and Ferrin, D.L. (2001) The role of trust in organizational settings. Organization Science, 12, 4, 450.
  • CrossRef
• Dongsong, Z., Lowry, P.B., Lina, Z., and Xiaolan, F.U. (2007) The impact of individualism – collectivism, social presence, and group diversity on group decision making under majority influence. Journal of Management Information Systems, 23, 4, 53–80.
  • CrossRef,
  • Web of Science® Times Cited: 17
• Dreu, C.K.W.D. and Vianen, A.E.M.V. (2001) Managing relationship conflict and the effectiveness of organizational teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 3, 309–328.
  Direct Link:

  • Abstract
  • PDF(139K)
  • References
  • Web of Science® Times Cited: 75
• Dubé, L., Bourhis, A., and Jacob, R. (2006) Towards a typology of virtual communities of practice. Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge, and Management, 1, 1, 69–93.
• Elangovan, A.R. and Shapiro, D.L. (1998) Betrayal of trust in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 23, 3, 547.
• Espinosa, J.A., Slaughter, S.A., Kraut, R.E., and Herbsleb, J.D. (2007) Team knowledge and coordination in geographically distributed software development. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24, 1, 135–169.
  • CrossRef
• Ferrin, D.L., Kim, P.H., Cooper, C.D., and Dirks, K.T. (2007) Silence speaks volumes: the effectiveness of reticence in comparison to apology and denial for responding to integrity- and competence-based trust violations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 4, 893–908.
  • CrossRef,
  • PubMed,
  • Web of Science® Times Cited: 15
• Finkelstein, S. and Hambrick, D.C. (1990) Top-management-team tenure and organizational outcomes: the moderating role of managerial discretion. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 3, 484–503.
  • CrossRef
• Fiol, C.M. and O'Connor, E.J. (2005) Identification in face-to-face, hybrid, and pure virtual teams: untangling the contradictions. Organization Science, 16, 1, 19.
  • CrossRef,
  • Web of Science® Times Cited: 59
• Fleming, L. and Waguespack, D.M. (2007) Brokerage, boundary spanning, and leadership in open innovation communities. Organization Science, 18, 2, 165–180.
  • CrossRef
• Fryxell, G.E., Dooley, R.S., and Vryza, M. (2002) After the ink dires: the interaction of trust and control in US-based international joint ventures. Journal of Management Studies, 39, 6, 865–886.
  • CrossRef
• Fuller, M.A., Hardin, A.M., and Davison, R.M. (2006) Efficacy in technology-mediated distributed teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 23, 3, 209.
  • CrossRef,
  • Web of Science® Times Cited: 11
• Gassmann, O. and vonZedtwitz, M. (2003) Trends and determinants of managing virtual R&D teams. R&D Management, 33, 3, 243–262.
  • CrossRef
• Gefen, D., Benbasat, I., and Pavlou, P.A. (2008) A research agenda for trust in online environments. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24, 4, 275–286.
  • CrossRef,
  • Web of Science® Times Cited: 19
• Gibson, C.B. and Gibbs, J.L. (2006) Unpacking the concept of virtuality: the effects of geographic dispersion, electronic dependence, dynamic structure, and national diversity on team innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51, 3, 451–495.
• Griffith, T.L., Sawyer, J.E., and Neale, M.A. (2003) Virtualness and kowledge in teams: managing the love triangle of organizations, individuals, and information technology. MIS Quarterly, 27, 2, 265.
• Hackman, J.R. (1987) The design of work teams. In: Lorsch, J.W. (ed.), Handbook of Organizational Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. pp. 315–342.
• Harrison, D.A., Mohammed, S., McGrath, J.E., Florey, A.T., and Vanderstoep, S.W. (2003) Time matters in team performance: effects of member familiarity, entrainment, and task discontinuity on speed and quality. Personnel Psychology, 56, 3, 633–669.
  • CrossRef
• Hinds, P.J. and Mortensen, M. (2005) Understanding conflict in geographically distributed teams: the moderating effects of shared identity, shared context, and spontaneous communication. Organization Science, 16, 3, 290–307.
  • CrossRef,
  • Web of Science® Times Cited: 81
• von Hippel, E. and von Krogh, G. (2003) Open source software and the ‘private-collective’ innovation model: issues for organization science. Organization Science, 14, 2, 209–223.
  • CrossRef
• Hoegl, M. (2005) Smaller team – better teamwork: how to keep project teams small. Business Horizons, 48, 209–214.
  • CrossRef
• Hoegl, M. and Gemuenden, H.G. (2001) Teamwork quality and the success of innovative projects: a theoretical concept and empirical evidence. Organization Science, 12, 4, 435–449.
  • CrossRef
• Hoegl, M. and Schulze, A. (2005) How to support knowledge creation in new product development: an investigation of knowledge management methods. European Management Journal, 23, 3, 263.
  • CrossRef
• Hoegl, M., Weinkauf, K., and Gemuenden, H.G. (2004) Interteam coordination, project commitment, and teamwork in multiteam R&D projects: a longitudinal study. Organization Science, 15, 1, 38–55.
  • CrossRef
• Hoegl, M., Ernst, H., and Proserpio, L. (2007) How teamwork matters more as team member dispersion increases. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 24, 2, 156.
  Direct Link:

  • Abstract
  • Full Article (HTML)
  • PDF(138K)
  • References
  • Web of Science® Times Cited: 23
• Hogg, M.A. and Terry, D.J. (2000) Social identity and self-categorization process in organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25, 1, 121–140.
• Huseman, R.C. and Miles, E.W. (1988) Organizational communication in the information age: implications of computer-based systems. Journal of Management, 14, 2, 181–204.
  • CrossRef,
  • Web of Science® Times Cited: 17
• Iacono, C.Z. and Weisband, S. (1997) Developing trust in virtual teams. Paper presented at Proceedings of the 30th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Science 1997, Wailea, HI, USA.
• Ilgen, D.R., Hollenbeck, J.R., Johnson, M., and Jundt, D. (2005) Teams in organizations: from input-process-output models to IMOI models. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 1, 517–543.
  • CrossRef,
  • PubMed,
  • Web of Science® Times Cited: 189
• Inkpen, A.C. and Currall, S.C. (2004) The coevolution of trust, control, and learning in joint ventures. Organization Science, 15, 5, 586.
  • CrossRef
• James, L.R., Demaree, R.G., and Wolf, G. (1984) Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 1, 85–98.
  • CrossRef
• Jarvenpaa, S.L. and Leidner, D.E. (1999) Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Organization Science, 10, 6, 791.
  • CrossRef,
  • Web of Science® Times Cited: 440
• Jarvenpaa, S.L., Shaw, T.R., and Staples, D.S. (2004) Toward contextualized theories of trust: the role of trust in global virtual teams. Information Systems Research, 15, 3, 250–267.
  • CrossRef
• Jehn, K.A. and Mannix, E.A. (2001) The dynamic nature of conflict: a longitudinal study of conflict and group performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 2, 238–251.
  • CrossRef
• Johnson, A.M. and Lederer, A.L. (2005) The effect of communication frequency and channel richness on the convergence between chief executive and chief information officers. Journal of Management Information Systems, 22, 2, 227.
• Jones, G.R. and George, J.M. (1998) The experience and evolution of trust: implications for cooperation and teamwork. The Academy of Management Review, 23, 3, 531–546.
• Joshi, A., Lazarova, M.B., and Liao, H. (2009) Getting everyone on board: the role of inspirational leadership in geographically dispersed teams. Organization Science, 20, 1, 240–252.
  • CrossRef,
  • Web of Science® Times Cited: 8
• Kahai, S.S. and Cooper, R.B. (1999) The effect of computer-mediated communication on agreement and acceptance. Journal of Management Information Systems, 16, 1, 165–188.
• Kankanhalli, A., Tan, B.C.Y., and Kwok-Kee, W.E.I. (2006) Conflict and performance in global virtual teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 23, 3, 237.
  • CrossRef,
  • Web of Science® Times Cited: 19
• Kim, P.H., Ferrin, D.L., Cooper, C.D., and Dirks, K.T. (2004) Removing the shadow of suspicion: the effects of apology versus denial for repairing competence- versus integrity-based trust violations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 1, 104.
  • CrossRef,
  • PubMed,
  • Web of Science® Times Cited: 101
• Kirkman, B.L., Rosen, B., Tesluk, P.E., and Gibson, C.B. (2004) The impact of team empowerment on virtual team performance: the moderating role of face-to-face interaction. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 2, 175.
  • CrossRef
• Kirkman, B.L., Rosen, B., Tesluk, P.E., and Gibson, C.B. (2006) Enhancing the transfer of computer-assisted training proficiency in geographically distributed teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 3, 706.
  • CrossRef,
  • PubMed,
  • Web of Science® Times Cited: 13
• Knudsen, M.P. (2007) The relative importance of interfirm relationships and knowledge transfer for new product development success. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 24, 2, 117–138.
  Direct Link:

  • Abstract
  • Full Article (HTML)
  • PDF(204K)
  • References
  • Web of Science® Times Cited: 21
• Kramer, R.M. (1999) Trust and distrust in organizations: emerging perspectives, enduring questions. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 569–598.
  • CrossRef,
  • PubMed,
  • CAS,
  • Web of Science® Times Cited: 457
• Krishnan, R., Martin, X., and Noorderhaven, N.G. (2006) When does trust matter to alliance performance?Academy of Management Journal, 49, 5, 894–917.
  • CrossRef
• Lane, C. and Bachmann, R. (1996) The social constitution of trust: supplier relations in Britain and Germany. Organization Studies, 17, 3, 365–396.
  • CrossRef,
  • Web of Science® Times Cited: 112
• Lane, P.J., Salk, J.E., and Lyles, M.A. (2001) Absorptive capacity, learning, and performance in international joint ventures. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 12, 1139.
  Direct Link:

  • Abstract
  • PDF(190K)
  • References
  • Web of Science® Times Cited: 280
• Langfred, C.W. (2004) Too much of a good thing? Negative effects of high trust and individual autonomy in self-managing teams. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 3, 385–399.
  • CrossRef
• Langfred, C.W. (2007) The downside of self-management: a longitudinal study of the effects of conflict on trust, autonomy, and task interdependence in self-managing teams. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 4, 885–900.
  • CrossRef
• LeBreton, J.M., Burgess, J.R.D., Kaiser, R.B., Atchley, E.K., and James, L.R. (2003) The restriction of variance hypothesis and interrater reliability and agreement: are ratings from multiple sources really dissimilar. Organizational Research Methods, 6, 1, 80.
  • CrossRef,
  • Web of Science® Times Cited: 37
• Levin, D.Z. and Cross, R. (2004) The strength of weak ties you can trust: the mediating role of trust in effective knowledge transfer. Management Science, 50, 11, 1477.
  • CrossRef
• Levin, D.Z., Whitener, E.M., and Cross, R. (2006) Perceived trustworthiness of knowledge sources: the moderating impact of relationship length. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 5, 1163.
  • CrossRef,
  • PubMed,
  • Web of Science® Times Cited: 33
• Lewicki, R.J. and Bunker, B.B. (1996) Developing and maintaining trust in work relationships. In: Kramer, R.M. and Tyran, C.K. (eds), Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. pp. 114–139.
• Lichtenthaler, U. (2008) Open innovation in practice: an analysis of strategic approaches to technology transactions. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 55, 1, 148–157.
  • CrossRef
• Lipnack, J. and Stamps, J. (2000) Virtual Teams : People Working across Boundaries with Technology, 2nd edn. New York: Wiley.
• Madhavan, R. and Grover, R. (1998) From embedded knowledge to embodied knowledge: new product development as knowledge management. The Journal of Marketing, 62, 4, 1–12.
  • CrossRef,
  • Web of Science® Times Cited: 201
• Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H., and Schoorman, F.D. (1995) An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 3, 709–734.
• Maznevski, M.L. and Chudoba, K.M. (2000) Bridging space over time: global virtual team dynamics and effectiveness. Organization Science, 11, 5, 473.
  • CrossRef
• McDonough, E.F. III, Kahn, K.B., and Barczak, G. (2001) An investigation of the use of global, virtual, and colocated new product development teams. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 18, 2, 110–120.
  • CrossRef
• McKnight, D.H., Cummings, L.L., and Chervany, N.L. (1998) Initial trust formation in new organizational relationships. Academy of Management Review, 23, 3, 473.
• Mesquita, L.F. (2007) Starting over when the bickering never ends: rebuilding aggregate trust among clustered firms through trust facilitators. Academy of Management Review, 32, 1, 72.
  • CrossRef
• Moenaert, R.K., Caeldries, F., Lievens, A., and Wauters, E. (2000) Communication flows in international product innovation teams. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 17, 5, 360–377.
  • CrossRef,
  • Web of Science® Times Cited: 41
• Mortensen, M. and Hinds, P.J. (2001) Conflict and shared identity in geographically distributed teams. International Journal of Conflict Management, 12, 3, 212–238.
  • CrossRef,
  • Web of Science® Times Cited: 69
• Muethel, M. and Hoegl, M. (2007) Initial distrust – on the role of perceived dishonesty in international innovation teams. Zeitschrift für Betriebwirtschaft (ZfB), 4, Special Issue, 103–124.
• Nakata, C. and Sivakumar, K. (1996) National culture and new product development: an integrative review. The Journal of Marketing, 60, 1, 61–72.
  • CrossRef,
  • Web of Science® Times Cited: 136
• O'Leary, M.B. and Cummings, J.N. (2007) The spatial, temporal, and configurational characteristics of geographic dispersion in teams. MIS Quarterly, 31, 3, 433–452.
• Piccoli, G. and Ives, B. (2003) Trust and the unintended effects of behavioral control in virtual teams. MIS Quarterly, 27, 3, 365.
• Ross, W.H. and Conlon, D.E. (2000) Hybrid forms of third-party dispute resolution: theoretical implications of combining mediation and arbitration. Academy of Management Review, 25, 2, 416–427.
• Rousseau, V., Aubé, C., and Savoie, A. (2006) Teamwork behaviors. A review and an integration of frameworks. Small Group Research, 37, 5, 540–570.
  • CrossRef,
  • Web of Science® Times Cited: 29
• Saunders, C.S. and Ahuja, M.K. (2006) Are all distributed teams the same?Small Group Research, 37, 6, 662–700.
  • CrossRef
• Smith, P.G. and Blanck, E.L. (2002) From experience: leading dispersed teams. The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 19, 294–304.
  • CrossRef
• Subramani, M. (2004) How do suppliers benefit from information technology use in supply chain relationships?MIS Quarterly, 28, 1, 45–73.
• Szulanski, G., Cappetta, R., and Jensen, R.J. (2004) When and how trustworthiness matters: knowledge transfer and the moderating effect of causal ambiguity. Organization Science, 15, 5, 600.
  • CrossRef,
  • Web of Science® Times Cited: 76
• Tan, B.C.Y., Wei, K., Watson, R.T., Clapper, D.L., and McLean, E.R. (1998) Computer-mediated communication and majority influence: assessing the impact in an individualistic and a collectivistic culture. Management Science, 44, 9, 1263–1278.
  • CrossRef,
  • Web of Science® Times Cited: 77
• Tomlinson, E.C., Dineen, B.R., and Lewicki, R.J. (2004) The road to reconciliation: antecedents of victim willingness to reconcile following a broken promise. Journal of Management, 30, 2, 165.
  • CrossRef,
  • Web of Science® Times Cited: 43
• Uzzi, B. (1997) Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: the paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 35–67.
  • CrossRef,
  • Web of Science® Times Cited: 1433
• Van Dyne, L. and LePine, J.A. (1998) Helping and extra-role behaviors: evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 1, 108.
  • CrossRef
• Vlaar, P.W.L., Van den Bosch, F.A.J., and Volberda, H.W. (2007) On the evolution of trust, distrust, and formal coordination and control in interorganizational relationships: toward an integrative framework. Group Organization Management, 32, 4, 407–428.
  • CrossRef,
  • Web of Science® Times Cited: 22
• Voelpel, S., Eckhoff, R.A., and Forster, J. (2008) David against Goliath? Group size and bystander effects in virtual knowledge sharing. Human Relations, 61, 2, 271–295.
  • CrossRef,
  • Web of Science® Times Cited: 1
• Webster, J. and Staples, D.S. (2006) Comparing virtual teams to traditional teams: an identification of new research opportunities. Personnel and Human Resources Management, 25, 181–215.
  • CrossRef
• Weisband, S.P., Schneider, S.K., and Connolly, T. (1995) Computer-mediated communication and social information: status salience and status differences. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 4, 1124–1151.
  • CrossRef,
  • Web of Science® Times Cited: 103
• White, S. and Steven Siu-Yun, L. (2005) Distinguishing costs of cooperation and control in alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 26, 10, 913–932.
  Direct Link:

  • Abstract
  • PDF(184K)
  • References
  • Web of Science® Times Cited: 27
• Wiersema, M.F. and Bantel, K.A. (1992) Top management team demography and corporate strategic change. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 1, 91–121.
  • CrossRef
• Williams, L.J. and Anderson, S.E. (1991) Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17, 3, 601.
  • CrossRef
• Wilson, J.M., Straus, S.G., and McEvily, B. (2006) All in due time: the development of trust in computer-mediated and face-to-face teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99, 1, 16–33.
  • CrossRef
• Zack, M.H. and McKenney, J.L. (1995) Social context and interaction in ongoing computer-supported management groups. Organization Science, 6, 4, 394–422.
  • CrossRef
• Zaheer, A., McEvily, B., and Perrone, V. (1998) Does trust matter? Exploring the effects of interorganizational and interpersonal trust on performance. Organization Science, 9, 2, 141–159.
  • CrossRef,
  • Web of Science® Times Cited: 569
• Zand, D.E. (1972) Trust and managerial problem solving. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 2, 229.
  • CrossRef
• Zhang, D., Lowry, P.B., Zhou, L., and Fu, X. (2007) The impact of individualism – collectivism, social presence, and group diversity on group decision making under majority influence. Journal of Management Information Systems, 23, 4, 53–80.
  • CrossRef

Biographies

• Miriam Muethel is Professor at WHU – Otto Beisheim School of Management (Germany), where she holds the Chair of Organizational Behavior. Her research interests comprise international management (particularly Confucian Asia), organizational behavior, and business ethics. She has published in the Journal of International Business Studies (2010), Journal of International Management (2010), Journal of World Business (in press), Human Resource Management (in press), and Management International Review (in press).
• Frank Siebdrat received his PhD in leadership and human resource management from the WHU – Otto Beisheim School of Management. In his dissertation, he investigated the success factors of virtual team collaboration within the context of the software development industry. He works for an international manufacturer of consumer electrics in international sales and marketing.
• Martin Hoegl is Professor at the University of Munich (Germany), where he heads the Institute of Leadership and Organization. His main research interests include leadership, collaboration, and innovation in organizations. He has published in the Academy of Management Journal, Decision Sciences, Human Resource Management, Journal of Business Ethics, Journal of International Business Studies, Journal of Management, Journal of Management Studies, Journal of Product Innovation Management, MIT Sloan Management Review, Organization Science, Research Policy, and other journals.

Get PDF (197K)

More content like this

Find more content:

• like this article

Find more content written by:

• Miriam Muethel
• Frank Siebdrat
• Martin Hoegl
• All Authors

Compromised peer review (unpublished)

Virtual Teams: a Literature Review