Dynamic Hypothesis

In dynamic environments typified by virtual software projects, the author expects that:

H1:

Shorter “Average Daily Manpower Per Staff Member” in virtual teams as they are “assembled and dissembled according to need” (Lipnack and Stamps 2000) and “often consist of inter-organizational participants.” (Wong and Burton 2000)

H2:

A shorter “Hiring Delay” in virtual teams than in traditional software project teams because the virtual workforce is not limited by geographic boundaries and “transcends towns, states, countries, and continents.”(Igbaria, Shayo et al. 1999)

H3:

Longer “Average Employment Time” due to increased employee satisfaction because virtual teams “exhibit more open boundaries, flexible role structures, and self managing qualities.” (Bemmel and Essens 2005)

H4:

Less “Training Overhead” by experienced workforce because virtual software project teams are more likely to use internet-based e-learning services that “can make training programs more accessible for participants from different world regions, and may support the transfer of experiences and best practices.” (Munkvold 2005)

H5:

Longer “Average Assimilation Delay” in virtual software project teams than in traditional teams because of the added complexity of working in a virtual environment. “Virtual teams are complex. They have all the complexity of any group –and then some, magnified by their distributed nature.”(Lipnack and Stamps 2000)