Talk:Virtual team/Archives/2013
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Virtual team. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Merge with Geographically Dispersed Team
I agree that GDT should be merged into the Virtual Teams page, or simply deleted and redirect GDT links here. Geographically Disbursed Team (GDT) is already offered as a synonym. However, there appear to be links to GDT which should be re-directed here.
I don't know how long the comment has been up regarding merging these items, and I'm not senior enough here to feel comfortable taking it upon myself to make these changes. I'll check back in a few weeks and if no other comments are made I'll make this change, presuming agreement.Lricci 15:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I've made the redirect. This was the only article linking to the GDT one. --McGeddon (talk) 23:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Types of Virtual Teams
I am researching on the types and have came across some relevant material to post. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anupbhandari (talk • contribs) 15:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Technologies used by virtual teams
Skype: Skype is a software technology that helps to replace the need for face-to-face communication between virtual team members.[1] Skype works by presenting peer-to-peer VoIP features (voice over Internet Protocol) that gives a virtual team the ability to be able to make telephones calls from computers that are geographical dispersed.[1] This translates into reduced expenses because telephone calls made with Skype travel over the company's data network rather than the phone company's network.
TelePresence: TelePresence is the brand name of an enterprise videoconferencing system that was created by Cisco Systems.[2] In 2006, after reviewing the TelePresence 3000 series enterprise videoconferencing system, Sumner Lemon, a journalist for IDG News Service wrote, "With life-size, high-definition video of meeting participants from a second location, the screens create the illusion of a "virtual table," with up to 12 participants seated around the same table.[2] In early 2010, Cisco Systems began marketing a newer, enhanced version of its TelePresence 3000 series enterprise videoconferencing system called, The Cisco CTS 3210, "that seat up to 18 participants on one side of the virtual table."[3]
Zoho Creator: Zoho Creator provides the capabilities to build a shareable online database system that collects and stores data in cyberspace. [4] According to the company's website,"Zoho Creator database software is a web based software that helps you create online database apps to organize your business information. Online database software is designed to offer an organized mechanism for storing, managing and retrieving business information over the web. Database software helps you store business critical information in the cloud, where everyone can easily access the data from anywhere, anytime. Zoho Creator's easy to use web database software provides highly intuitive drag-and-drop interface to create custom web database applications." [4] In addition, Zoho Creator is built on a web-based platform that is scalable, and this translates into a product that can easily be integrated into the existing technological infrastructure of any virtual team.[4]
- I feel Technologies used by Virtual Teams reads like a white paper far more than it does an encyclopedia. ~dee(talk?) 15:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
This section has been updated to reflect changes to the original entry.Cmarti75 (talk) 07:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Cmarti75
- Reads better now. I think more secondary reliable sources should be added, though. Especially to Zoho Creater and Skype sections. ~dee(talk?) 09:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Partially Virtual Teams
In my experience fully virtual teams work much better than partially virtual teams, i.e. teams where some are co-located and others are remote. This is particularly true if most of the people are co-located. Problems include:
- People speaking to each other locally do not direct their voices toward the microphone and may take less care in speaking since the people they are speaking to locally can hear them just fine.
- People speaking locally can tell much more quickly when they can comfortably interject a thought and can signal their desire to do so with a look or a gesture; this means that in a vibrant discussion remote participants often either miss the opportunity to contribute or risk appearing rude.
- Remote participants cannot see the reactions of people in the room to what they are saying.
- There is a temptation to use hand gestures, facial expressions, whiteboards, etc. with local participants, the content of which is invisible to remote participants.
- All of the above can lead to remote participants feeling that they are at a significant handicap in a conversation, which reduces the motivation to participate.
When all participants are remote, the playing field is level, and everyone communicates in a manner which works well for remote participants.
I wonder whether something about this could be added to the main page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmigoNico (talk • contribs) 06:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)