The teaching case is based on two teams that were tasked with the design of two different digital products: a planned five-month project (known internally as Seasonal Sales Team; SST), in view of the forthcoming sales season; and an impromptu 24-hour project (known as Elec24) in response to unexpected national elections. Despite their similarities, the two projects differ in terms of their degree of virtuality (hybrid vs virtual) and temporality (long vs short lifespan). By focussing on Lorena, an experienced product designer who has taken on the responsibility for the two projects, the case explores how virtuality and temporality influence the teams’ coordination plan and creative process.
Abi SaadEAgoguéM (2023) Creativity in virtual teams: systematic review, synthesis and research agenda. Creativity and Innovation Management32(1): 117–140. DOI: 10.1111/caim.12540.
2.
ChamakiotisPDekoninckEAPanteliN (2013) Factors influencing creativity in virtual design teams: an interplay between technology, teams and individuals. Creativity and Innovation Management22(3): 265–279. DOI: 10.1111/caim.12039.
3.
Abi SaadEAgoguéM (2023) Creativity in virtual teams: systematic review, synthesis and research agenda. Creativity and Innovation Management32(1): 117–140. DOI: 10.1111/caim.12540.
4.
AmabileTMContiRCoonH, et al. (1996) Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal39(5): 1154–1184. DOI: 10.5465/256995.
5.
ChamakiotisPDekoninckEAPanteliN (2013) Factors influencing creativity in virtual design teams: an interplay between technology, teams and individuals. Creativity and Innovation Management22(3): 265–279. DOI: 10.1111/caim.12039.
6.
ChamakiotisPBoukisAPanteliN, et al. (2020) The role of temporal coordination for the fuzzy front-end of innovation in virtual teams. International Journal of Information Management50: 182–190. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.04.015.
7.
ChamakiotisPPanteliN (2017) Leading the creative process: the case of virtual product design. New Technology, Work and Employment32(1): 28–42. DOI: 10.1111/ntwe.12081.
8.
ChamakiotisPPanteliN (2023) Engendering creativity in temporary virtual project teams: the case of a product design firm. In: GilsonLLO’NeillTMaynardMT (eds) Handbook of Virtual Work. Edward Elgar Publishing, 347–360. DOI: 10.4337/9781802200508.00028.
9.
DriskellTFunkeGTolstonM, et al. (2023) Fluid and virtual teams. Small Group Research55: 680–705. DOI: 10.1177/10464964231216367.
10.
GilsonLLCostaPO’NeillTA, et al. (2021) Putting the “TEAM” back into virtual teams. Organizational Dynamics50(1): 100847. DOI: 10.1016/j.orgdyn.2021.100847.
11.
KimuraT (2024) Virtual teams: a smart literature review of four decades of research. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies2024: 1–20. DOI: 10.1155/2024/8373370.
12.
NemiroJE (2002) The creative process in virtual teams. Creativity Research Journal14(1): 69–83. DOI: 10.1207/S15326934CRJ1401_6.
13.
OckerRJ (2005) Influences on creativity in asynchronous virtual teams: a qualitative analysis of experimental teams. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communications48(1): 22–39. DOI: 10.1109/TPC.2004.843294.
14.
Reiter-PalmonRKramerWAllenJA, et al. (2021) Creativity in virtual teams: a review and agenda for future research. Creativity. Theories – Research - Applications8(1): 165–188. DOI: 10.2478/ctra-2021-0011.
