A

STUDY ON
“SUPPORT FOR INFORMATION MANAGEMENT IN VIRTUAL
ORGANAIZATION”
ZENSOR TECHNOLOGY
 ABSTRACT
Organizations are developing alliances with the enterprises they interact with in a virtual environment. The
key factor in such virtual organizations is information systems. Concerns about quality of information systems may
be compounded within the virtual organization. This paper considers possible issues that might affect the quality of
information systems within the virtual organization. Making decisions is an integral part in the f functioning of any
organization. To f facilitate Decision making in this ever- competitive world it is imperative that managers have the
right information at the right time to bridge the gap between need and expectation. For better f low of information an
adequate Management Inf ormation Systems (MIS) is the need of this age. Thus it is important to have an
understanding of the MIS f ollowed in an organization by all levels of management in order to take eff ective and
appropriate
A management inf ormation system collects and processes data (inf ormation) and provides it to managers at all
levels who use it f or decision making, planning, program implementation, and control. The MIS has many roles to
perf orm like the decision support role, the perf ormance monitoring role and the f unctional support role.
To get a realistic view of the MIS, I’ve gone through the MIS of AC Limited. For the purpose of getting in depth
understanding of particular f unctions of the company, I f ocused the needs, uses and benef its of MIS with respect to
the Material Department of the company. For the preparation of this report, Inventory Management has primarily
been f ocused.
 
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE:NO
CHAPTERS CONTENTS
 INTRODUCTION
1  OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
 NEED FOR THE STUDY
 SCOPE OF THE PROJECT
 PROJECT METHODOLOGY

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

2

3 COMPANY PROFILE
INDUSTRY PROFILE

DATA ANALYSIS
4

5
FINDINGS
SUGGESTIONS
CONCLUSIONS
References
 CHAPTER-1
INTRODUCTION
 INTRODUCTION
The quality of many information systems may be questioned by the considerable amount of

effort devoted to ‘maintenance’ activities. Such maintenance activities may be the reworking of the

system to meet the original requirements or modifying the systems to incorporate new requirements.

The extent of ‘reworking’ compared to ‘modification’ is difficult to determine when requirements may

not, initially, be stated clearly or continue to evolve as the development progresses. Concerns about

quality may be further heightened in situations in which new innovative information systems

developments are being proposed. This paper will consider the virtual organization and will highlight

issues that may affect the quality of the information provision. These issues may make the attainment of

a good quality information system within a virtual organization as elusive as they have with systems in

the past.

In this paper, quality and virtual organization are defined as follows. Quality is the extent to which the

information provision meets the needs of an organization. Virtual organization is defined as the

application of internet technology to create an electronic environment in which independent parties can

work together to achieve common business objectives [2, 5, 6, 10, 19, 21, 23]. This electronic

environment permits partner organizations to readily create new organizational structures to address

new market opportunities in a timely fashion. Such new organizational structures will be composite

collections of necessary competencies to offer unique products or services to gain competitive

advantage. Having the facility to readily change (or create) new organizational structures could help in

the achievement of a sustained competitive advantage. This facility to change organizational structures

has been heralded as revolutionary as it permits the creation of new business models, which can change

conventional relationships and transcends across organizational boundaries.

Organizations are now beginning to develop alliances with the enterprises they interact with in the

virtual environment [1-5, 7-9, 11-13, 21, 24, 29]. Some alliances may be project-based and of a

temporal nature. But many alliances may be longer term as organizations cooperate to gain sustained

competitive advantages by beginning to deliver unique, keenly priced, integrated products and services.

The critical success factor in these systems is the information provision across the virtual organization.
Virtual Organizations

A virtual organization provides a network of beneficial alliances for an organization, its partners and

other organizations . The virtual organization has also been defined as a series of value chains in which

a variety of participants can contribute, either to strategic or operational activities. Venkatraman and

Henderson (1999) reject the virtual organization as a distinct structure and view virtuality as a strategic

characteristic, which can be instantiated as one of three distinct vectors. The first vector dealing with

customers interactions within a virtual environment and is termed the ‘virtual encounter’. The second

vector is the vertical integration of all parties involved in the creation of a product or service and is

referred to as ‘virtual sourcing’. The final vector is concerned with the leveraging of knowledge across

organizational boundaries and is called ‘virtual expertise’.

Six models of virtuality have also been proposed in an attempt to classify the various forms that virtual

organizations could take, although it is admitted that some of these are, in essence, an electronic re-

implementation of traditional forms of doing business [6]. These various definitions permeate the

literature. Marshall and McKay (2000) however have proposed defining characteristics for virtual

organizations to include responsiveness, dispersion, empowerment of staff, stewardship of expertise,

low bureaucracy, opportunistic behavior, and high infusion of IT.

A lack of commonality in defining a virtual organization is not surprising. Internet technology enables a

variety of organizational structures to be created and in the future there may be organizational structures

that have yet to be conceptualized. The availability of a virtual dimension has initiated changes in how

and where organizations perform work. Business processes and information flows are changing and

business models are changing dramatically as witnessed by the phenomenal growth of collaborative

ventures on the Internet.

INFORMATION SYSTEMS

Traditional information systems are synonymous with data processing activities in which interrelated

components collect, manipulate and disseminate data and information with a feedback mechanism, to

meet particular business objectives . The types of information systems include strategic, management

and operations levels and cover functional areas such as sales & marketing, manufacturing, finance,
accounting and human resources [18]. During the late 1980s and 1990s there was a growing awareness

that information systems were a corporate asset and should be linked to strategic planning to facilitate

the achievement of strategic business objectives [16, 28]. To achieve this link required the planning and

development of strategic information systems (SIS) to match business objectives. An SIS is an

information system that enables an organization to change goals, operations, products and services to

gain a competitive advantage [18]. Competitive advantages are based on the established generic

strategies of cost leadership, product differentiation, and market focus [14]. Ward (1990) developed a

three-era model depicting the evolution of information systems. The eras covered the 60s, the 70s &

80s, and the 80s & 90s. Each era was typified as follows: the first by standalone data processing; the

second by management information systems; the third by strategic information systems (SIS). The latter

was characterized as follows: networked and integrated systems, which were available and supportive

to users and were business driven. In the 80s & 90s when organizations were attempting to align their

IS/IT strategy with the business strategy, more often than not, it was the strategic application of IT that

occupied the attention of organizations rather than the provision of information to support the

achievement of strategic objectives.

Information Issues in Virtual Organizations

The traditional objective of information systems has been to provide the right information of the desired

quality and quantity to the right person in a timely fashion. In the era of the virtual organization this

traditional objective is under review. Current information systems store a static representation of an

organization’s information within its software systems and databases or data warehouses. Mathotra

(2000) considers traditional systems to be inflexible due to the static nature of their information, which

is unhelpful in the dynamic and changing environment of the virtual organization [22]. In this situation

it is necessary to review the Information System paradigm in reaction to the dynamic and changing

environment of the new millennium. The determination of requirements for information systems has

always been a difficult task with varying degrees of success and is dependent on the experience of staff

and their familiarity with the application area. This difficulty is deemed to be further compounded by
the characteristics of a virtual organization, which include being adaptable, flexible and responsive to

changing requirements and conditions

Virtual organizations are information dependant and their success depends on the efficient use of

information and information systems [. A basic premise in a virtual organization is that the relevant

information is available to all parties. But Marshall and McKay (2000) view a virtual organization as

being problematic in terms of managing the relationships and the difficulty in defining the information

systems requirements . An additional problem with many web applications, like the virtual

organization, is that the information systems’ developers do not always know exactly who are going to

be the users and what are their information needs and expectations [26]. The virtual organization could

provide participants with access to multiple systems which raises concern about information exposure

and whether participants within enterprises are adequately trained to exercise sound control practices

[15, 26]. Such concerns about security may discourage enterprises from participating in the virtual

organization.
 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

 The objective of this report is to study the MIS implementation at AC Ltd. and with the help of this
domain, to get an insight into the needs of MIS in business setups on a big scale, various f unctions
perf ormed by the MIS, benef its derived out of such a system and the risks involved.
 I intend to aim my study at analyzing the business needs of the organization, key challenges or
desired f unctional requirements of the MIS, the IT solution that is currently implemented and the
outcome of such a system. AC Ltd. requires MIS to map internal processes and interaction with the
external environment to the technology and ensure the solution delivers real benef its to the business.
 NEED FOR THE STUDY

The determination of information systems (IS) requirements within a virtual organization

may necessitate wider participation, than in the traditional organization, because of the cross-
organizational dimension. This breadth of consultation may result in requirements that are too
flexible and perhaps lacking precision. Conversely with wider participation any possible creativity in
determining the IS requirements might be constrained by concerns about the practicalities of
implementation.
 SCOPE OF THE PROJECT
The dynamic nature of virtual organizations may result in continual change requests to the
IS requirements which may lead to system degradation. Determining IS requirements of a virtual
organization would require knowledge of the inter-organizational processes and the attributes
associated with these processes. To do this would require collaboration across the organization to
collate and document information on processes and attributes. The integrity of this documentation is
dependent upon the degree of change in processes and the associated attributes in partner
organizations whilst the IS requirements’ exercise is ongoing.
 LIMITATION

 Still lack of system integration af ter a level. Though inventory management module is integrated
well with all the other modules like f inancial system, thus reducing the redundancy. But still there is
need of paper work and manual intervention when reordering is required. System cannot be conf
igured to reorder automatically, even f or the f ast moving raw material.

 Lack of Web Integration. AC hasn’t still employed the concept of taking orders or ordering through
web and have no integration of its system to its website.

 Legacy Network Support. Backbone network used by AC is still the same, which they used in 1993.
They haven’t upgraded the network support f rom then, which has started creating problems f or
them already. As MIS of the company is improving day- by- day including more and more f
unctionalities, the network has already become very slow.

 Lack of training to managers to ef f ectively use the decision support f unctionalities of system. This
is another problem that we f elt at the company. IT department is basically making the improvements
in the system continuously with new added f unctionalities, but there is lack of training to managers
to ef f ectively use these f unctions in way that can support them to make better decisions. For
example, on an average, a manager uses only 10- 15 types of reports out of more than 200 types of
reports available.
 CHAPTER-2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE
 REVIEW OF LITERATURE

After an exhaustive search for information on backup related projects having specifically

taken place in other states’ Cooperative Extension systems, the project manager found that the majority

were facing a situation similar to that of the Kentucky CES (prior to the completion of the project).

Some Extension Services did not have publicly available information regarding the topic. Of the ones

that did, many exhibited trends that matched the situation in Kentucky: userdriven backups, no

centralized administration, lack of redundancy, etc.

For example, the University of Arkansas, Division of Agriculture, recommends that CES personnel

perform their own individual backups using the Windows Backup Utility, and provides a limited set of

instructions for doing so (University of Arkansas, 2006). South Dakota State University also

recommends that CES users handle their own backup needs, and lists a set of best practices. When

discussing archival backup media, one instruction states, “If you require a full year’s worth of data in

your backup arsenal, use twentyone sets of media; you’ll have four dailies, five weeklies, plus twelve

monthlies” (South Dakota State University, 2007). While theoretically sound, instructions such as these

are ambiguous at best and add an unnecessary workload for nonIT oriented users.

On the other end of the spectrum, the University of NebraskaLincoln appeared to have a reliable backup

process in place for CES offices. The system, named NSave, is a universitywide resource utilizing

Tivoli Storage Manger technology to back up workstations and servers to a secure, centralized location.

Published information indicates that the system is effective, well documented, and well supported

(University of NebraskaLincoln, 2007). However, because NSave was developed for the entire campus

at the University level (not just CES offices, though CES offices appear to be welcome to participate), it

is not an entirely appropriate model for a CESonly project such as the one being addressed here. In fact,

the University of Kentucky does have a TSMbased backup resource available for on campus

workstations and servers. However, current policy restricts access to systems located on the UK wide

area network; CES offices are not.

An additional resource that provided valuable insight into an external CES program’s backuprelated

circumstances was a recent audit of Texas Cooperative Extension business

operations, performed by the Texas A&M University System Internal Audit Department. The audit’s

findings were published in a publicly available document, and included a section on current backup and

information security procedures. Many of these findings were quite familiar when compared to the

discoveries of this project own analysis, such as:

“Research data is stored on employees’ computers without systematic formal backup procedures. This

elevates the risk of data loss in the case of a hard drive crash or data theft.”

“IT personnel are generally spread so thin that backup is performed irregularly.”

“Backup tapes are kept onsite with no offsite copies for insurance in the event of an unforeseen

disaster.”

However, it is interesting to note that in response to these findings, the Texas CES still recommended a

user driven backup approach. Management specifically responded that “all units have been instructed

that all relevant or sensitive data, including research data, that is stored on personal computers must be

backed up on a systematic and regular basis; they have also been instructed to keep a

copy of the back up at a secure, offsite location” (TAMU Internal Audit Department, 2004). This

project, while sharing very similar initial circumstances, will pursue a decidedly different solution.

Literature and Research that is Specific/Relevant to the Project

In contrast to the relatively small amount of backup related research specifically pertaining to CES,

there is a vast amount of literature published on backup technologies in general. The project manager

consulted a variety of resources, including industry trade publications, technical magazines, books, and

webbased material. When narrowing down these resources to those that were relevant to this project –

i.e., concerning enterprise backup solutions for a wide user base – a few common themes arose. These

included:

Recent emergence of “snapshot” backups as an alternative to traditional full, incremental, and

differential backup types: Snapshots record complete or partial system states at regular

intervals, and essentially simulate an ongoing set of full backups (Kay, 2006).
Continued importance of secure, offsite backups

for disaster recovery: While certainly not a new concept, recent literature continues to stress offsite

backups as absolutely essential.

Furthermore, offsite disaster recovery storage must meet the same datasecurity standards as the primary

data store (Chernicoff, 2005).

Importance of choosing a backup solution that fits the situation at hand: When considering the near

limitless field of available technologies, care must be taken to choose a solution that

integrates into the current technical environment, maintains regulatory compliance, and fits applicable

requirements. For successful development of a backup and recovery strategy, it is key to ensure that the

business requirements have been properly captured and properly valued; the analysis of these business

requirements yields the technical requirements (Dow, 2004).

Increasing popularity of disktodisktotape (D2D2T) as a viable backup solution: A relatively recent

innovation, D2D2T combines the speed of diskbased backups with the capacity and

archival benefits of tape. The concept behind D2D2T is to back up from production disk to

backup disk as quickly as possible; once this "D2D" has finished, files can be backed up or migrated to

tape at a more leisurely pace (Gerber, 2004).

Summary of what is Known and Unknown about the Project Topic

As indicated above, there is a substantial amount of literature available on backup technology and

practice, thus much is known about the project topic in general.

However, also as previously indicated, very little information has been published regarding backup

solutions in use in Cooperative Extension offices. This project attempts to explore the topic from that

specific angle.

Contribution Project will Make to the Field

Based on discovered research, this project will be the first to publish a publicly available, indepth report

regarding the analysis, design, and implementation of a backup and recovery solution specifically for

CES offices. Because every county in every state in the US has a CES office, the project’s findings will
be a valuable resource for those seeking to implement similar systems for CES offices in other states, or

for other organizations with a

technical and logistical structure similar to that of CES.

An overview of available research revealed that when considering backup strategies, many states’ CES

programs are in a situation similar to that of Kentucky. While an abundance of information relating to

general backup technology is available from a variety of sources, virtually no information was

published on efforts by other universities to implement an enterprise grade backup system specifically

for CES offices. This project intends to contribute to the field by filling that void.
 CHAPTER-3
COMPANY PROFILE
INDUSTRY PROFILE
 COMPANY PROFILE
Zensar Technologies Limited is an Indian publicly traded software and services company. The
company's stock trades on the Bombay Stock Exchange and on the National Stock Exchange of India. A
subsidiary of RPG Group, the company's chairman is Forbes-listed billionaire Harsh Goenka.
History
Zensar Technologies Ltd. was incorporated in March 26 1963. The Company is a leading digital solutions
and technology services company that specializes in partnering with global organizations across industries
on their Digital Transformation journeys. It was promoted by its foreign collaborators ICL UK; Fujitsu
Japan; and Northern Telecom Canada. The Company is engaged in providing a complete range of IT
Services and Solutions. As of March 31 2019 the Company has 23 subsidiaries. Its business operations are
spread across countries with offices in 29 locations with presence in the key regions of US Europe Africa
Middle East India and APAC.The company manufactures and markets computer hardware and software. Its
chief products are digital computer systems including peripherals. The company manufactures the entire
range of hardware products ranging from PCs to mainframe computers. It has entered into collaborations
with Fujitsu Japan and Genicom US to manufacture line printers. The company tied up with Sun Micro
Systems the world leader in Unix workstations and servers.In 1988 ICL entered into an agreement with RPG
Enterprises to jointly manage the company. RPG Enterprises provides management support to ICIM. It has
changed the name of its subsidiary companies International Computer (india) ICIM International Inc & ICIL
Singapore Pte to Zenstar Technologies Zenstar Technologies Inc & Zenstar Technologies (Singapore).In
1999 the company sold SES business to Accel Ltd for a total purchase consideration of Rs 11.34 cr & also
has taken over the liabilities under various leasing agreement relating to equipment rented out to customers.
In Mar. 2001 the Board of Directors of Fujitsu ICIM and Zensar Technologies have approved the merger of
the two companies at a share swap ratio of 1:1 which translates into one share of Zensar Technologies for
each share held in Fujitsu ICIM. Hence the name of the company was changed to 'Zensar Technologies Ltd.'
As the Chinese economy is gearing up and the business opportunities are growing more and more the
company has decided to enter into a JV with New Jade Tech Ltd a subsidiary of Asia Logistics Ltd a
Hongkong SE listed company. The joint venture will operate from the Software Technology Park of Zhuhai
near Hongkong. The company is also planning to set up a branch in Finland to cater to customers in the
Scandinavian region. The process is underway and is expected to be completed shortly.The company has
signed a share purchase agreement on December 12 2005 for acquiring entire equity stake of OBT Global a
Hyderabad based company. Further Zensar Technologies Inc. the company's wholly owned US subisidiary
would be acquiring the entire common stock of OBT Global Inc USA an affiliate of OBT Globalin an all
cash transaction. The newly acquired companies are engaged in SAP solutions specifically focused on the
Indian industry verticals of textile healthcare and pharmacy.The wholly owned subsidiary company in UK
acquired one of Europe's leading experience design agencies Foolproof Limited headquartered in London
along with its two wholly owned subsidiary companies in UK and one wholly owned subsidiary Company
in Singapore in November 2016.The wholly owned subsidiary company in USA acquired Keystone Logic
Inc. a leading Omnichannel and Digital Supply Chain Company headquartered in Atlanta USA in March
2017. Further the Company entered into a definitive agreement to acquire the business of Keystone Logic
Solutions Private Limited on March 30 2017.During FY 2018 the Company incorporated three wholly
owned subsidiaries in India viz. Zensar Information Technologies Limited Zensar Software Technologies
Limited and Zensar IT Services Limited. Further wholly owned subsidiary company of the Company viz.
Zensar Technologies (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. in Singapore incorporated wholly owned subsidiary viz. Zensar
Info Technologies (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. in Singapore. The Board of Directors at its meeting held on 14th
March 2018 approved transfer of business in certain geographies to Zensar Information Technologies
Limited and Zensar Software Technologies Limited by way of slump sale. Further the Board of Directors of
wholly owned subsidiary company of the Company viz. Zensar Technologies (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. in
Singapore approved transfer of its business to wholly owned subsidiary viz. Zensar Info Technologies
(Singapore) Pte. Ltd in Singapore by way of slump sale. The relevant disclosures in this behalf were filed
with the Stock Exchanges. On 21st March 2018 the Company had entered into definitive agreement for
acquisition of Cynosure Interface Services India Pvt. Ltd. An agreement to acquire Cynosure Inc. USA was
entered into by Zensar Technologies Inc. USA a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company on the same
day.In July 2018 Zensar Technologies Inc. USA wholly owned subsidiary of the Company entered into
definitive agreement for acquisition of 100% shareholding of Indigo Slate Inc USA. In January 2019
Company along with Zensar Information Technologies Limited and Zensar Software Technologies Limited
(wholly owned subsidiaries of the Company) respectively entered in to definitive agreement(s) for sale of
100% of the share capital of these wholly owned subsidiaries to Lorhan IT Services Private Limited. (a
wholly owned subsidiary of First Tek Inc.)In February 2000, the company renamed to Zensar. Ganesh
Natarajan became CEO in 2001, beginning a 15-year tenure.[6] From 2000 to 2005, the company focused
on application management for its clients.[7] Vivek Gupta was named Zensar's Executive Chairman in
2010.[8] RPG Group, the Indian industrial conglomerate headquartered in Mumbai, Maharashtra, is the
majority shareholder in the company. The company continues to have its headquarters in Pune in Western
India.
By 2012, Zensar had approximately 11000 employees servicing 400 clients in over 20 global locations and
at the end of the 2019 financial year earned revenues of over US$550 million.
Sandeep Kishore was named Zensar's CEO in 2016, taking over from Ganesh Natarajan, with Zensar
Technology backers being RPG Enterprises. In 2015, APAX Portfolio Company acquired a stake in Zensar
from Electra Partners Mauritius.[10][5]
As of October 2018, Zensar Technologies has offices in over 20 countries.[12] It is listed on both the
National Stock Exchange of India (NSE) and the Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) and is a component of
several indices including the NSE's Nifty 500 and the S&P BSE 500. In December 2020, Ajay S. Bhutoria
was named Zensar's CEO.
PRODUCTS AND SERVICES
Zensar’s business is spread between North America, United Kingdom, parts of Europe and South Africa.
Zensar’s teams work out of 29 global locations including offices of acquired entities. Its primary business
involves providing digital and technology solutions to global customers. Its key business verticals include
high-tech manufacturing, infrastructure, and healthcare.The following is a list of acquisitions made by
Zensar since 2005.
Locations
Zensar has offices in eighteen countries.
List of subsidiaries
Name Location
Zensar Technologies UK Ltd.United Kingdom
Zensar Technologies B.V. Geneva
Zensar Technologies B.V. The Netherlands
Zensar Technologies Keizersgracht The Netherlands
Zensar Technologies Herriotstraße Frankfurt, Germany
Zensar Technologies Regus Business Centre GmbH Austria
Zensar Technologies, Inc. United States of America
Zensar (Africa) Holdings (Pty) Ltd. Johannesburg
Reception
Zensar was the innovation award winner in the "Creating an Impact-IT Skills" category at India Perspectives
2018. Gartner Magic Quadrant named the company Niche Player 2019 for managed mobility services.[29]
The company is often quoted by analysts in industry media for its expertise on enterprise IT spending,
research consulting and advisory services.
 INDUSTRY PROFILE

INDIAN IT & BPM INDUSTRY REPORT (SIZE: 646.61 KB ) (JANUARY, 2021)

The global sourcing market in India continues to grow at a higher pace compared to the IT-BPM industry.
India is the leading sourcing destination across the world, accounting for approximately 55% market share
of the US$ 200-250 billion global services sourcing business in 2019-20. Indian IT & BPM companies have
set up over 1,000 global delivery centres in about 80 countries across the world.
India has become the digital capabilities hub of the world with around 75% of global digital talent present in
the country.
Market Size
IT-BPM industry’s revenue was estimated at around US$ 191 billion in FY20, growing at 7.7% y-o-y. It is
estimated to reach US$ 350 billion by 2025. Moreover, revenue from the digital segment is expected to form
38% of the total industry revenue by 2025. Digital economy is estimated to reach Rs. 69,89,000 crore (US$
1 trillion) by 2025. The domestic revenue of the IT industry was estimated at US$ 44 billion and export
revenue was estimated at US$ 147 billion in FY20.
Total number of employees grew to 1.02 million cumulatively for four Indian IT majors (including TCS,
Infosys, Wipro, HCL Tech) as on December 31, 2019. Indian IT industry employed 205,000 new hires, up
from the 185,000 jobs added in FY19 and had 884,000 digitally skilled talents in 2019.
Investments/ Developments
Indian IT's core competencies and strengths have attracted significant investment from major countries. The
computer software and hardware sector in India attracted cumulative foreign direct investment (FDI)
inflows worth US$ 62.47 billion between April 2000 and September 2020. The sector ranked 2nd in FDI
inflows as per the data released by Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT).
Leading Indian IT firms like Infosys, Wipro, TCS and Tech Mahindra are diversifying their offerings and
showcasing leading ideas in blockchain and artificial intelligence to clients using innovation hubs and
research and development centres to create differentiated offerings.
 Some of the major developments in the Indian IT and ITeS sector are as follows:
In December 2020, Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) has expanded its business operations in Austin, Texas,
with the construction of a new facility. By 2022, TCS plans to hire an additional 130 new employees in
Austin. Over the next seven years, TCS plans to invest more than US$ 100 million in Austin.
In December 2020, Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) has expanded its strategic partnership with Star
Alliance (airline alliance) to provide predictive and real-time business analytics, improve customer
experience and accelerate digital transformation.
In December 2020, Infosys partnered with Rolls-Royce for aerospace engineering in India.
In December 2020, Wipro collaborated with Verifone for a multi-year contract to drive agility across its
(Verifone) cloud service offerings.
In December 2020, Infosys Finacle, part of EdgeVerve Systems, (a subsidiary of Infosys), and RBL Bank,
announced a collaboration to migrate the bank’s on-premise deployment to a containerised ecosystem,
which is managed by Kubernetes and has been certified by Cloud Native Computing Foundation (CNCF).
In December 2020, Infosys launched Infosys Modernisation Suite to help organisations accelerate their
cloud modernisation needs.
Government Initiatives
Some of the major initiatives taken by the Government to promote IT and ITeS sector in India are as
follows:
In 2020, the government released “Simplified Other Service Provider” (OSP) guidelines to improve the ease
of doing business in the IT Industry, Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) and IT-enabled Services.
 CHAPTER-5

FINDINGS, SUGGESTIONS AND CONCLUSION

CHAPTER 4

DATA ANALYSIS
 DATA ANALYSIS
Table 4.1: Descriptive statistics of respondents (N=520)

Count Percentage
Male 330 64%
Gender
Female 190 36%
Manager 234 45%
Team Leads 120 23%
Designation
Software 166 32%
Developer
25-35 342 66%
36-45 93 18%
Age 46-55 52 10%
above 55 33 6%
less than 1year 207 40%
1-5 235 45%
Experience of working in virtual team 6-10 71 14%
More than 10 7 1%
Less than 1year 259 50%
Experience of working in current 1-5 220 42%
virtual team 6-10 38 7%
More than 10 3 1%
Less than 10 236 45%
11-25 171 33%
No of members in team 25-50 77 15%
More than 50 36 7%
Virtual Team 303 59%
Appropriate team structure
Traditional team 217 41%

4.1 Factor Analysis to Identify the Factors Responsible for Development of

Trust, Information Sharing and Communication in Virtual Teams
4.1.1 Trust
The first set of questions from sub-section 1 of RI was on Trust and is evaluated using Factor analysis. The data
collected from the 520 respondents was subjected to a Factor analysis. The principal components method of
extraction was used for data reduction. Components with Eigen values greater than 1 were extracted. As the
communalities were all high, the extracted components represented the variables well. The rotated component
matrix helped determine
what the components represented. This was done by using the highest loading as a
determinant of the factor an attribute belonged to. The extracted solutions were as follows-
Participation (3 principal components, Table 4.2). All parameters of Trust loaded onto the
three principal components of Dependability on Each Other, Dealing with Time and Concern
for Collaboration (Figure 4.1).
Table 4.2: Rotated component matrix of trust item

Rotated Component Matrixa

Component
1 2 3
Q_VT1 0.834 0.088 0.108
Q_VT3 0.819 0.255 0.219
Q_VT2 0.803 0.177 -0.043
Q_VT4 0.732 0.327 0.022
Q_VT5 0.546 0.277 0.431
Q_VT15 0.538 0.758 -0.009
Q_VT14 0.375 0.689 0.06
Q_VT13 0.103 0.683 -0.074
Q_VT8 0.307 0.643 0.342
Q_VT7 0.225 0.592 0.42
Q_VT9 0.415 0.567 0.288
Q_VT6 0.019 0.01 0.775
Q_VT12 -0.054 -0.012 0.697
Q_VT11 0.328 0.601 0.343
Q_VT10 0.052 0.567 0.34

Figure 4.1: Parameters of Trust loaded onto three factors

To further explore the adequacy of the model, AMOS was employed. CFA of the model resulted in a good fit on
all indices CMIN/df =1.544, p < 0.001; CFI = .982; TLI= .979; RMSEA= .043. Table 4.3 provides the calculated
values for the model. Results suggest that the model obtained for the trust out performs on all indices. Thus,
these results indicate that trust is a multi-dimensional construct comprising of three theoretically and empirically
different dimensions, namely, dependability on each other, dealing with time and concern for collaboration.
Table 4.3: Model Fit Indices for Trust
CMIN/df P value RMSEA CFI TLI
Model 1.544 0.000 0.043 .982 .979

Figure 4.2 Trust Model

4.1.2 Information Sharing
The second set of questions in this sub-section was on Information sharing. They also were evaluated through
Factor Analysis. The data collected from the 520 members of virtual team was subjected to a Factor analysis.
The principal components method of extraction was used for data reduction. Components with Eigen values
greater than 1 were extracted. As the communalities were all high, the extracted components represented the
variables well. The rotated component matrix helped determine what the components represented. This was done
by using the highest loading as a determinant of the factor an attribute belonged to. The extracted solution is
shown in Table 4.4. All parameters of Information Sharing loaded onto
the two principal components of Information Penetration and Variety of Information (Figure
4.3).
Table 4.4: Rotated component matrix for Information Sharing

Rotated Component
Matrixa
Component
1 2
Q_IS2 1 0.0719
43
Q_IS3 0.8591 0.1457
57 3
Q_IS1 0.8394 0.1583
52 89
Q_IS14 0.7503 0.3588
53 79
Q_IS6 0.6464 0.3231
51 43
Q_IS5 0.6054 0.3852
12 26
Q_IS10 0.5935 0.4732
28 79
Q_IS9 0.5810 0.4373
84 8
Q_IS4 0.5725 0.3648
27 26
Q_IS12 0.2861 0.7612
99
Q_IS8 0.0469 0.7580
29 55
Q_IS13 0.4380 0.7083
08 04
Q_IS11 0.4355 0.5951
74 29
Q_IS15 0.4639 0.5683
63 29
 Figure 4.3: Parameters on Information Sharing were loaded onto two factors
To further explore the adequacy of the model, AMOS was employed. CFA of the model resulted in a
good fit on all indices CMIN/df =2.792, p < 0.001; CFI = .966; TLI= .960;
RMSEA= .059. Table 4.5 provides the calculated values for the model. Results suggest that the model
obtained for the information sharing out performs on all indices.
Table 4.5: Model Fit Indices for Information Sharing
CMIN/df P value RMSEA CFI TLI
Model 2.792 .000 .059 .966 .960

Figure 4.4: Information Sharing Model

4.1.3 Communication
The third set of questions in this sub-section was on communication and these were also evaluated through
Factor analysis. The data collected from the 520 respondents was subjected to a Factor analysis. The principal
components method of extraction was used for data reduction. Components with Eigen values greater than 1
were extracted. As the communalities were all high, the extracted components represented the variables well.
The rotated component matrix helped determine what the components represented. This was done by using the
highest loading as a determinant of the factor an attribute belonged to. The extracted solutions are emphasized in
Table 4.6. All parameters of Communication loaded onto the three principal components of Reliability on
Technology, Tools used for Communication and Implementation of Results (Figure 4.5).
Table 4.6: Rotated component matrix for communication
Rotated Component Matrixa
Component
1 2 3
Q_C1 0.832 0.244 -0.048
Q_C13 0.819 0.293 0.189
Q_C2 0.809 0.336 0.106
Q_C14 0.806 0.333 0.084
 Q_C3 0.778 0.284 0.008
Q_C8 0.644 0.26 0.284
Q_C11 0.088 0.81 0.157
Q_C6 0.385 0.748 0.1
Q_C4 0.368 0.724 0.059
Q_C5 0.485 0.609 0.005
Q_C9 0.43 0.592 0.01
Q_C7 0.51 0.584 0.024
Q_C15 0.26 0.395 0.604
Q_C12 -0.076 0.226 0.845
Q_C10 0.282 -0.068 0.806

Figure 4.5: Parameters on communication were loaded onto three factors

To further explore the adequacy of the model, AMOS was again implemented. CFA of the model resulted in a
good fit on all indices CMIN/df =2.483, p < 0.001; CFI = .999; TLI= .987; RMSEA= .071. Table 4.7 provides
the calculated values for the model. Results suggest that the model obtained for the communication out performs
on all indices. Thus, these results also indicate that communication is a multi-dimensional construct comprising
of three theoretically and empirically different dimensions, namely, tools used for communication, reliability on
technology and implementation of results.
 Table 4.7: Model Fit Indices for Communication
CMIN/df P value RMSEA CFI TLI

Model 2.483 .000 .071 .999 .987

Figure 4.6: Communication Model

4.1.4 Results of Factor Analysis
The study has shown the following results:

 Dependability on each other: Our findings suggest that members in virtual teams
depend upon each other for the completion of tasks. An individual needs to establish a
regular and consistent connection among them for the development of trust.
 Dealing with time: Time has emerged as the crucial factor in developing trust in
virtual teams. Bringing members across different zones is a great team building tool.
Involvement and discussion across time with each and every member ensures that
members are bonding together.
 Concern for collaboration: The process of building trust is essential in virtual settings.
Trust within a virtual group is essential for collaboration, communication,
coordination and increased team performance.
 Information penetration: Penetration of information within a team becomes a necessity
in absence of regular and constant personal interaction for building trust in virtual
environment.
 Variety of information shared: Effective utilization of knowledge in virtual team
depends on the perception of the task assigned and understanding of the reality of the
task. This makes sharing of all information compulsory for everyone. Be it clarity on
team norms, roles and responsibilities of individuals, or escalation methods.
 Reliability on technology: Use and reliability on technology for achieving
effectiveness of work, increase locational and time flexibility of work and promote
sensible use of resources in virtual environment.
 TABLE 4.8:
RELIABILITY STATISTICS OF EACH FACTOR

S.No Factor Name Cronbach’s Alpha Number of items

1. Dependability on each other .862 5
2. Dealing with time .814 6
3. Concern for collaboration .620 3
4. Information penetration .915 9
5. Variety of information .812 6
6. Reliability on technology .918 7
7. Tools used for communication .877 6
8. Implementation of Results .655 2

4.1.5 Pictorial Representation

The set of 8 factors that impact effectiveness of virtual teams can be exemplified in Figure 4.7.
Figure 4.7: Factors determining effectiveness of virtual teams

Dependability on Each Other

Trust Dealing with Time
Concern for Collaboration

Information Information Penetration

Sharing Variety of Information

Reliability on Technology
Communication Tools Used for Communication
Implementation of Results
 Creation of “The TIC Employee Segmentation Framework”
This research also aims to explain that it is vital for any organization to identify employee skills and
abilities which would help them to grow better in their team as well as their career. Virtual teams are the set of
talented, highly capable and experienced individuals spread across various locations, who work together for the
completion of a particular task, without being in close physical proximity to each other. Hence both
organizations and members need to continuously analyse and introspect their current position. This framework
helps members of virtual teams to do the needful analysis of the skills they possess and enhance the same
if required. Also, it can help individuals identify their different skills, knowledge & capability which add to
the competitive advantage of the organizations.
“The TIC Employee Segmentation Framework”, is an important entity for the members of virtual teams as they,
along with their managers can freely judge their skills on their current position, assessment of the individuals can
be done, expectations of the job can be identified and future prospects can be shared with them. All the clusters
and their explanations are elaborated in Table 4.10
4.1.6 Results of K-means Cluster Analysis to Identify the Profiles of the
Employees Based on the Skills
This cluster profile of the employees is built up after performing k-means cluster analysis on a sample size of
520 professionals using the questionnaire designed after studying the literature. First and last cluster is divided
into three cases, and all the cases are mutually exclusive. Second cluster is divided into two cases, and both the
cases are mutually exclusive. The K- means cluster analysis results are shown below (Table 4.9).
Table 4.9: Number of cases in each cluster

Number of Cases in each

Cluster
Trust. 1 198.000
Trust 2 232.000
3 90.000
Valid 520.000
Missing .000
 Number of Cases in each
Cluster
IS 1 378.000
Information Sharing 2 142.000
Valid 520.000
Missing .000

Number of Cases in each

Cluster
Comm. 1 273.000
2 147.000
Communication
3 100.000
Valid 520.000
Missing .000

This was used to segregate employees based on their skill typology. The 8 clusters viz. Unfailing
abiders, Differentiator, Fervent Certainers, Eminent assorters,
Ace Comprehenders, Proficient users, Tech-adapters, Facilitators are
representing the different set of people with varied skills (Figure 4.8). This holistic charter
gives a comprehensive insight into the individual who is part of a virtual team and can help in
making an organization more competitive and effective.
4.1.7 Cluster Profiles of Employees

Figure 4.8 The TIC Employee Segmentation

Framework (Bhat, Ahuja, Pande, 2016)

4.1.8 Explanation of Cluster Profiles:

Table 4.10 shows the detailed cluster profile, representing different skills of the employees working in the IT
industry. This cluster profile of the employees can be a benchmark while selecting people for various jobs in
the organizations.
Table 4.10: Explanation of cluster profiles

Variable Cluster Implication

Unfailing People with high sense of association, sincerity,
Abiders understanding, punctuality and dedication who believe in
performing desired groundwork for the task. These people
are sociably conscious and concerned about feelings of
other members.
Differentiators People who want to work in accordance with the skills and
Trust

abilities they possess. They are diligent, efficient and

organized enough to complete the task and attain
satisfaction.
Fervent Employees in this cluster have the ability to share their
Certainers thoughts with the team. They try to identify the key issues,
have clarity about their own role in their assigned job and
endeavor to mitigate the day to day contingencies as early
as possible.
Eminent These are persons who have specific characteristics of
Assorters gaining insight of every matter. They believe in grasping
Information

knowledge. Individuals express their views and opinions

sharing

with colleagues fluently and spontaneously.

Ace They are the people who believe in having in-depth and
Comprehenders consistent knowledge about everything. They are
trustworthy and realistic when it comes to execution of
tasks.
 Proficient Users Employees are well-organized and clear plan is required for
communication. They are the people who believe in using
Communication

communication tools for development.

Tech-Adapters These people are highly technology driven. They believe in
building bonds using the electronic medium. They use
emails and conferences as the medium for sharing and
learning.
Facilitators These people are highly intellectual and optimistic. These
people are always on their foot to help fellow mates.

4.2 T-test for Studying the Perceived Differences of Virtual Team Members
on Gender and Prior Working Experience
4.2.1 Gender
Hypothesis 1: Gender has no influence on the factors identified earlier
Of all the variables, it was found that penetration of information, variety of information shared,
reliability on technology and tools used for communication significantly differentiate males from
females in virtual teams and it may be observed from the table 4.11
. Since t-test is used to for the comparison of groups.
Table 4.11: Group Statistics for Gender
Std. Error
Factor Identified Gender N Mean Std. Deviation
Mean
Dependability on Male 330 2.1159 .80979 .04607
each other Female 190 2.0313 .68542 .05320
Male 330 2.0444 .76265 .04346
Dealing with time
Female 190 1.9869 .62280 .04834
Concern for Male 330 2.3344 .90008 .05112
Collaboration Female 190 2.2209 .74450 .05778
Penetration of Male 330 1.8728 .81592 .04634
information Female 190 1.6941 .54782 .04252
Variety of Male 330 2.3054 .74144 .04211
information Female 190 2.0813 .62731 .04869
Reliability on Male 330 1.7726 .90316 .05130
technology Female 190 1.6014 .49160 .03816
Tools used for Male 330 1.9898 .81715 .04641
communication Female 190 1.8454 .60624 .04705
Implementation of Male 330 2.8226 1.07448 .06103
results Female 190 2.6386 1.03518 .08035
 Table 4.12: Independent samples for gender

Levene's Test for

T-test for Equality of Means
Equality of Variances
Factor Identified
F Sig. T Df Sig. (2-tailed)
Dependability on
5.074 .025 1.143 473 .254
each other
Dealing with time 3.832 .051 .832 472 .406
Concern for
4.464 .035 1.390 474 .165
collaboration
Penetration of
7.672 .006 2.531 474 .012
information
Variety of
.676 .411 3.310 474 .001
information
Reliability on
24.71 .000 2.268 474 .024
technology
Tools used for
4.270 .039 2.001 474 .046
communication
Implementation of
.005 .943 1.803 474 .072
results

4.2.2 Working Previously with Virtual Teams

Hypothesis 2: Prior work experiences have no impact on the factors identified earlier.
The t-test conducted, compared the means of the variables that set apart working in virtual
teams. Of all the variables, it was found that Dependability on each other, reliability
on technology and motivation for results have significantly differentiated the members
with understanding of working in virtual teams and which may be observed from the Table
4.13.

Table 4.13: Group statistics for prior work experience in virtual teams
Have you ever
Std. Std. Error
Factor Identified been member N Mean
Deviation Mean
of VT
Dependability on Yes 386 2.3306 .74777 .03806
each other No 88 2.0182 .81516 .08690
Yes 385 2.0290 .75631 .03854
Dealing with Time
No 88 2.0000 .51541 .05494
Concern for Yes 387 2.2791 .86324 .04388
Collaboration No 88 2.3636 .79532 .08478
Penetration of Yes 387 1.7956 .75249 .03825
information No 88 1.8763 .67501 .07196
Variety of Yes 387 2.2313 .70035 .03560
 information No 88 2.1989 .75762 .08076
Reliability on Yes 387 1.6714 .80400 .04087
technology No 88 1.8845 .68990 .07354
Tools used for Yes 387 1.9190 .78112 .03971
communication No 88 2.0152 .60206 .06418
Implementation of Yes 387 2.8217 1.08236 .05502
results No 88 2.4716 .93267 .09942

Table 4.14: Independent sample test for prior work experience in virtual team
Levene's Test for
Factor Identified T-test for Equality of Means
Equality of Variances
F Sig. T Df Sig. (2-tailed)
Dependability on each
1.294 .256 -3.201 472 .001
other
Dealing with time 6.753 .010 .342 471 .733
Concern for
.580 .447 -.841 473 .401
collaboration
Penetration of
.349 .555 -.925 473 .356
information
Variety of information .050 .824 .386 473 .700
Reliability on
.316 .574 -2.300 473 .022
technology
Tools used for
3.638 .057 -1.083 473 .279
communication
Implementation of
3.335 .068 2.806 473 .005
results

4.3 Descriptive Analysis to identify the Most Preferred Communication Tool

Used by the Members of Virtual Team.
4.3.1 Usage of Tool by Virtual Team Member
Interpretation: It can be seen in Table 4.15 that almost all the respondents are aware of the communication tool
and also have used them in their day to day events and actions. Skype and Hangout are the most famous and
known tool in virtual environment. Figure 4.9 clearly shows that respondents are responsive towards the tool
and have used them in their teams.
Table 4.15: Tool used by members of virtual team
Descriptive Statistics
Tool Name N Mean Std. Deviation Variance
MS Communicator 520 1.46 0.499 0.249
Live Meeting 520 1.52 0.5 0.25
 Blackboard 520 1.78 0.418 0.175
Dropbox 520 1.12 0.327 0.107
Google Drive 520 1.12 0.324 0.105
SharePoint 520 1.53 0.499 0.249
GoToMeeting 520 1.67 0.471 0.222
Skype 520 1 0 0
Lync 520 1.46 0.499 0.249
Doodle 520 1.68 0.465 0.216
Schedule Once 520 1.81 0.394 0.156
Cisco Video 520 1.37 0.483 0.233
Conferencing
Hangout 520 1 0 0
ActiveCollab 520 1.84 0.368 0.136
Redbooth 520 1.91 0.284 0.081

Tools
100 Used
80

60

40

20

0
PERCENT

Ms_comm Live_meet Black_board Drop_box Google_Drive

Share_pointGoToMeetingSkypeLyncDoodle
Schedule_once CS_Co_VDOHangoutActiveCollabRedbooth
Figure 4.9: Tools used by members of virtual team

4.3.2 Feature and Tool used accordingly

Objective of this part was mainly to identify the highlighting feature of the tool for which the
virtual team member uses it. Table 4.16 highlights the details. MS Communicator is used for
the feature of Group Chat (27.1%). Live meeting ensures good video conferencing (25.2%)
amongst the members. Black Board tool is also used for video conferencing (21.2%).
Dropbox has the unique feature of file sharing management (61.5%). Google Drive is used for
document creation, editing and management (45.8%) in virtual teams by its members.
SharePoint also contributes to document creation, editing and management (25.6%).
GoToMeeting tool supports video conferencing (20.8%). Skype is mostly used by members for
video chat (49.2%). Lync provides group chat (19.4%) amongst members. Doodle also
contributes to the group chat (11.2%) of the members of virtual team. ScheduleOnce is the
tool used for schedule management (20.2%) purpose. Cisco video conferencing is used for
video conferencing (61%) part. Tool Hangout is popular for the group chat (45.8%).
ActiveCollab also is used for the group chat (17.9) feature. Redbooth makes sure that good
video conferencing (10.4 %) is there amongst members.
Table 4.16: Tool and its respective feature according to respondent
Tool Feature Frequency Percent
Group Chat 141 27.1
Video meeting 58 11.2
.MS Video conferencing 83 16
Communicator
Document creating, editing 54 10.4
and management
Group chat 32 6.2
Video meeting 29 5.6
Video conferencing 131 25.2
Live Meeting Document creating, editing 56 10.8
and management
File sharing & management 24 4.6
Group chat 1 .2
Video meeting 28 5.4
Video conferencing 110 21.2
Black Board Document creating, editing 29 5.6
and management
File sharing & management 51 9.8
Video meeting 1 .2
Video conferencing 61 11.7
Document creating, editing 25 4.8
Dropbox and management
File sharing & management 320 61.5
Workload management 24 4.6
Group chat 24 4.6
Video conferencing 32 6.2
Document creating, editing 238 45.8
Google Drive and management
File sharing & management 116 22.3
Workload management 28 5.4
Group chat 28 5.4
Video meeting 27 5.2
SharePoint Video conferencing 31 6.0
Document creating, editing 133 25.6
 and management
File sharing & management 54 10.4
Workload management 1 .2
Group chat 1 .2
Video meeting 76 14.6
Video conferencing 108 20.8
GoToMeeting Document creating, editing 5 1.0
and management
File sharing & management 2 .4
Schedule management 27 5.2
Video chat 256 49.2
Video conferencing 144 27.7
Skype File sharing & management 54 10.4
Schedule management 1 .2
Group chat 101 19.4
Video meeting 10 1.9
Video conferencing 87 16.7
Lync Document creating, editing 27 5.2
and management
File sharing & management 29 5.6
Workload management 25 4.8
Group chat 58 11.2
Video conferencing 27 5.2
Document creating, editing 25 4.8
Doodle and management
File sharing & management 28 5.4
Workload management 55 10.6
Schedule management 26 5.0
Group chat 32 6.2
Video conferencing 25 4.8
Document creating, editing 28 5.4
Schedule Once and management
File sharing & management 25 4.8
Workload management 2 .4
Schedule management 105 20.2
Group chat 31 6.0
Video conferencing 317 61.0
Cisco Video Document creating, editing 1 .2
Conferencing and management
File sharing & management 1 .2
Schedule management 30 5.8
Group chat 238 45.8
Video meeting 105 20.2
Hangout Video conferencing 96 18.5
Document creating, editing 51 9.8
 and management
Schedule management 1 .2
Group chat 93 17.9
Video meeting 4 .8
Video conferencing 53 10.2
ActiveCollab Document creating, 27 5.2
editing
and management
File sharing & 25 4.8
management
Workload management 30 5.8
Group chat 33 6.3
Video meeting 50 9.6
Video conferencing 54 10.4
Document creating, 52 10.0
Redbooth editing
and management
File sharing & 1 .2
management
Workload management 1 .2
Schedule management 30 5.8

Tool and Feature

350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0

Figure 4.10: Percentage and frequency of the tool used according to its respective feature

4.3.3 Feature of Tool and its Usage for Information Sharing, Communication or Both
The objective of this question was to know the contribution of specific features towards
information sharing and communication in virtual teams. Members were asked to indicate
their choice for information sharing, communication or both, against the particular feature of
the tool. The contribution of a particular feature towards information sharing, communication
or both in virtual teams has been tabulated in Table 4.17.
Results are highlighted in table below. Communication amongst virtual team members
happens strongly in the presence of Group chat (55.2%), Video chat (43.5%) and video
conferencing (38.5%) feature. For the process of information sharing to happen a tool need
to have Document creating, editing and management (56.9%), File sharing and management
(66.5%) and workload management (50.6%) feature in it. It is communication that happens
when a tool has a schedule management (58.8%) feature in it.
Table 4.17: Feature and its contribution to information sharing and communication
S.no Feature Contribution Frequency Percent
Information Sharing 74 14.2
1. Group Chat Communication 287 55.2
Both 159 30.6
Information Sharing 78 15.0
2. Video Chat Communication 226 43.5
Both 216 41.5
Information Sharing 44 8.4
Video Communication 200 38.5
3.
Conferencing Both 276 53.1
Document Information Sharing 296 56.9
4. create, edit Communication 135 26.0
Management Both 89 17.1
Information Sharing 346 66.5
File Sharing Communication 57 11.0
5.
Management Both 117 22.5
Information Sharing 263 50.6
Workload Communication 175 33.7
6.
Management Both 82 15.8
Information Sharing 140 26.9
Schedule Communication 306 58.8
7.
Management Both 74 14.2

Feature and its use

350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Information Sharing

Information Sharing

Information Sharing

Information Sharing

Information Sharing
Both

Communication
Both

Communication
Both

Communication
Both

Communication
Both

Communication
Both

Communication
Both
Information Sharing

Information Sharing
Communication

Group Chat Video Chat Video ConfDoc MgtFileSharingWorkloadSchedule

MgtMgtMgt
Figure 4.11: Usage of feature
4.3.4 Most Preferred tool according to Experts
20 managers who actually work in a virtual set up were shortlisted. The above set of features was shared with
them and they were asked to select their preferred communication tool. Data, using interview method has been
collected from these managerial level people to know their opinions for the various preferred communication
tool and its respective feature. The questions used in this survey were close ended, having only two options
“Yes” or “No”. The results of the analysis have been shown in Table 4.18.
Table 4.18: Viewpoint of experts
Feature Preferred Tool Yes No

Group Chat MS 15 5
Communicator
Video Chat Skype 12 8

Video Conferencing GoToMeeting 13 7

Document creation, editing and Google Drive 18 2

management
File sharing and management Dropbox 16 4

Workload management SharePoint 11 9

Schedule management Schedule Once 12 8

Most preferred tool according to

20
18
feature
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
Dropbox

SharePoint
MS Communicator

Skype

GoToMeeting

Google Drive

Schedule Once

2
0

GrpChatVdoChatVdoConfDocMgt FileMgt WorkloadMgtScheduleMgt

Figure 4.12: Experts opinion

4.6. The Equations Used to generate the “Employee Profile Configurator”
for Virtual Teams.
This Employee Profile Configurator is analogous to the ‘Health Chart’, having information about the present
skill set of the employees. It gives a complete snapshot about the employee’s present state and the future
projections. Figure 4.14, Figure 4.15, Figure 4.16 are the screen shots of the configurator interface. I have used
visual basic 10 for creating the front end of the configurator. The configurator works on the numerical limits.
Manager’s input for factor is multiplied by the TrustScore, ISScore and CommScore respectively. Here,
TrustScore is calculated by computing mean of all trust items. Similarly, “ISScore” and “CommScore” were also
calculated for information sharing and communication respectively. The sum of all the values of factors and
constant are compared to the predefined weights. Tf = t1*ti1+t2*ti2+t3*ti3 is the formula used for calculating
the values. Where t1, t2, t3 are values of TrustScore, ISScore and CommScore and ti1, ti2 and ti3 are the
manager’s input. Now the value of Tf is compared to the predefined numeric weights.
4.7.1 Working of Employee Profile configurator

Figure 4.13: Flow chat of working of employee profile configurator

4.7.2 Screen Shots of Working of Employee Profile Configurator
 Figure 4.14: Employee profile calculator-the Interface
Figure 4.14 depicts the Interface of the Employee Profile configurator. A manager is supposed to rate his
employees here on the scale of 1 to 5 (1 lowest and 5 highest). Managers enter the score of every team member
in this tool using the screen. These scores are given on the basis of the personal assessment done by the manager
for that team member.

Figure 4.15: Manager filling score of team member

Figure 4.15 is an example of the score given by the manager to his team members. This scoring is entirely based
on the evaluation done by the manager for that team member.
 Figure 4.16: Employee assigned the respective cluster by configurator
Figure 4.16 is the last screen of the tool. An individual has been allocated the respective cluster for each
parameter.

4.8 Model for Effectiveness of Virtual Teams

Figure 4.17: Model for effectiveness of virtual teams

4.9 Validation of Model
The research model was tested qualitatively. Model and tool was given to virtual teams for implementation
and check its relevance and potential. 15 respondents out of them found that this can transmute the general
perception about the effectiveness of virtual teams and can metamorphose the overall results and the
productivity. Similarly, the “Employee Profile Configurator” was also tested on different virtual teams.
Teams found the tool effective and were ready to use it in their organizational set-up. The VTEM has the
potency to change the general reactions of people towards working in virtual environments. Since the tool
and model have been made in compliance with every attribute required in individuals, contextual and
situational, needed in the virtual environment of IT industry; it would give precision in structuring the teams
according to the needs of employees and their job profiles.
 CHAPTER-5
FINDINGS, SUGGESTIONS AND CONCLUSION
 FINDINGS

 The first sub-section, reports the factor analysis used to identify various factors that impact trust,
information sharing and communication in virtual teams.

 The second sub-section, reports the generation of “The TIC Employee Segmentation framework”.
Cluster analysis was used to group the employees on the basis of the distinct characteristics of
each virtual team member.

 Details of the respondents are clearly highlighted in Table 4.1. Among the participants, 330
(64%) were Males and 190 (36%), Females. There were 234 (45%) Managers, 120 (23%) Team
Leads and 166 (32%) software developers.

 After collecting the data, the demographics were analysed for Age.

 The sample was divided into four brackets of age, 25-35 years, 342 (66%) respondents; 36-45
years 93 (18%) respondents; 46-55years, 52 (10%) respondents and above 55 years, 33 (6%)
respondents.

 In case of experience of working in a virtual team, the brackets were from less than 1 years, 207
(40%) respondents; 1-5 years, 235 (45%)

 respondents; 6-10 years, 71 (14%) respondents and more than 10 years, 7 (1%) respondents. For
experience of work in current virtual teams the age brackets are: less than 1 years, 259 (50%)
respondents; 1-5 years, 220 (42%) respondents; 6-10 years, 38 (7%) respondents and

 more than 10 years, 3 (1%) respondents. For the category of number of members in virtual team
the brackets are: less than 10, 236 (45%) respondents; 11-25, 171 (33%) respondents;

 25-50, 77 (15%) respondents and more than 50, 7 (1%) respondents. Amongst the respondents
303(59%) respondents felt that virtual teams were good to work in and 217 (41%) respondents
found traditional set up to be more convenient for working.
 SUGGESTIONS

 One of the most important challenges in the transition of the organization towards virtualness is
changing the Mindset of the organization to accept virtualness as a strategic variable.
 The new business models and the IT based systems call for a change in the processes, for the
introduction of the systems to be effective.
 Technology introduction without changing the processes to align harmoniously will not lead to
any perceptible change.

 The development of virtual alliances requires the development of interpersonal and team skills in
a virtual environment.
 The third sub-section talks about the equations used to generate the “Employee Profile
Configurator” for virtual teams.

 In fourth sub-section, descriptive analysis was conducted to identify the most preferred
communication tools used by the members of a virtual team.

 In last sub-section a t-test was applied to study the perceived differences of virtual team members
on gender, prior working experience and team structure
 CONCLUSION
The Application Virtualization, instead, addresses the separation of concerns be-
tween application provision and SOl operational management. The virtualized ap- plication is
exposed via a Gateway and the configuration of infrastructure services (potentially provided
by third parties) for managing non-functional aspects of the application is done in a
transparent way for the application consumer. So, the added
value is mainly in the automatic configuration of third party management services such as
SLA and seeurity. The adoption of the Gateway avoids direct access to the resources of a SP
and access is controlled by the security services.
In terms of business impact, the Application Virtualization allows ASPs to ex- pose tbeir
applications in a simple and manageable way without being involved in the management of
the enabling infrastructure. This increases flexibility and allows a separation of concerns
between application provision and management, and en- ables the transition towards a SaaS
model.
In terms of exploitation opportunities, the VO Set Up component can be used in combination
with components of the security area of the Being RID project to manage the life-cycle of
circles of trust between providers targeting the Federated Identity Management market.
For the Application Virtualization, the selected strategy for this component is to be used in
combination with components of the security and SLA areas of the BEinGRID project to
coordinate different service execution environments to allow secure and manageable
application exposure.
The idea behind this strategy is to exploit this component as a brokerage solution for different
cloud providers.

53
 REFERENCES

 Mr. Sam Joseph (Deputy Manager, IT Department), AC Limited. Secondary Sources

 Management Inf ormation Systems – A Managerial Perspective, D.P.

 Goyal www.tcs.com

 www.sap.com

54