University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Information technology architects’ shift to remote work: an exploration of collaboration challenges

(USC Thesis Other)

Information technology architects’ shift to remote work: an exploration of collaboration challenges

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Information Technology Architects’ Shift to Remote Work: An Exploration of
Collaboration Challenges
by
Patricia Seno Fusaro
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
December 2023

© Copyright by Patricia Seno Fusaro 2023
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Your Full Name certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Dr. Anthony Maddox
Dr. Monique Datta
Dr. Robert Ramirez
Dr. Brandon Martinez, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2023

iv
Abstract
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, companies swiftly transitioned to full remote work.
This qualitative study examined how full remote work affected IT architects’ team collaboration
in large, global IT companies. Ten senior IT architects from three organizations were
interviewed, and publicly available documents were analyzed to investigate the influence of
knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors on their adaptation to remote work, focusing
on team performance and project outcomes. Findings revealed effective adaptation, with IT
architects embracing virtual methodologies, tools, and skills for effective collaboration. They
demonstrated metacognitive abilities and strategic approaches but acknowledged a need to
improve soft skills in virtual settings. While displaying confidence in internal teamwork,
challenges surfaced when dealing with external stakeholders due to limited pre-existing
relationships. Mixed feelings about remote work were reported, with positives including
flexibility and work-life balance, and negatives isolation and reduced creativity. Despite robust
virtual processes and trust-building strategies, participants stressed the need for organizations to
refine hybrid work policies for better remote and in-person collaboration balance. The study
recommends enhancing IT architects’ soft skills, expanding social networks, and promoting
regular in-person interactions among project members. Future research should explore virtual
client collaboration dynamics, investigate individual and organizational perspectives on returning
to physical offices, and conduct quantitative studies with professionals across different career
stages. This research enriches the remote work and virtual collaboration literature. It offers
insights for large, global IT companies and other organizations aiming to optimize performance,
innovation, and job satisfaction in virtual project teams.

v
Keywords: Remote work, virtual collaboration, IT projects, IT architects, large global IT
companies, qualitative study, knowledge influences, motivation influences, organizational
influences

vi
Dedication
To my parents, whose legacy lives on in the values they passed down to me. In loving memory, I
carry forward their lessons of a strong work ethic and a sense of duty, embracing the belief that
dedication, persistence, and hard work turn dreams into reality. Their wisdom has illuminated my
path, always reminding me that as we grow as a leader, our responsibilities to others grow in
kind.
To my dear husband, Vicente, and our beloved daughter, Paula, I offer my heartfelt gratitude for
the unwavering love and support that sustained me on this journey. Vicente, our insightful
discussions, and your countless reviews were key to my achievements. Paula, your continued
companionship fueled my motivation and served as an endless source of inspiration.
This dissertation is a tribute to the profound impact of my family’s love and guidance, and it
stands as a testament to the fulfillment of my academic aspirations.

vii
Acknowledgements
I want to express my sincere gratitude to the individuals who contributed to my doctoral
journey and the completion of this dissertation. First, I extend my appreciation to my esteemed
dissertation committee and fellow cohort members for their unwavering academic support and
expertise. I am particularly thankful to my committee chair, Dr. Brandon Martinez, for his
revisions, insightful feedback, and expert guidance, which played a key role in shaping the
outcome of this dissertation.
I am honored to have worked with my committee members, Dr. Anthony Maddox, Dr.
Monique Datta, and Dr. Robert Ramirez. Their insights and suggestions pushed me to strive for
excellence, allowing me to grow as a scholar and a researcher. I am also thankful for Dr. Robert
Ramirez’s invaluable mentorship since the beginning of the program. Additionally, I deeply
appreciate the knowledge shared by the Rossier faculty and the leadership qualities they role
modeled. It greatly benefited my learning experience and reinforced the importance of leaders
aligning words and actions.
My journey was enriched by the camaraderie and support of my Cohort 19 colleagues,
whose diverse backgrounds and perspectives enhanced the program. I am incredibly thankful for
the members of my study group: Francisco Isaza, Gilberto Perez, Mary Crannell, Olga Diaz,
Oyango Snell, and Warren Petty. Our shared experiences, hard work, collaboration, and
friendship greatly contributed to my journey, and I will always cherish the bonds we created.
Beyond my academic circle, I would like to acknowledge the significant contributions of
professional colleagues, friends, and family members, including Carlo Saldanha, Ênio Garbin,
Fernanda Mayol, Francisco Marcondes, Gilberto Mayor, Jaime Silveira, Marco Lauria, Maria do
Carmo Assis, Mauro D’Angelo, Nelson Borges, and Thiago Rotta. Their support was

viii
fundamental, whether through recommendation letters, inspiring ideas, participant recruitment,
insightful discussions, or continued encouragement. Finally, this dissertation would not have
been possible without the openness and insights of the ten study participants, who were inspiring
examples of leadership during the challenges of full remote work amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

ix
Table of Contents
Abstract.......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication...................................................................................................................................... vi
Acknowledgements....................................................................................................................... vii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. xi
List of Figures............................................................................................................................... xii
List of Abbreviations ..................................................................................................................xiii
Chapter One: Overview of the Study ............................................................................................. 1
Background of the Problem ............................................................................................... 2
Organization Context and Mission ..................................................................................... 4
Organizational Goal............................................................................................................ 5
Stakeholder Group of Focus and Stakeholder Goal............................................................ 6
Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................................... 7
Importance of the Study...................................................................................................... 8
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology .................................................... 9
Definition of Terms............................................................................................................. 9
Organization of the Study ................................................................................................. 11
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ........................................................................................ 13
A Brief History of Remote Work...................................................................................... 13
Collaboration in Virtual Teams ........................................................................................ 16
The Roles of IT Architects in Organizations and Project Teams ..................................... 29
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation and Organization Influences.................................. 31
Conceptual Framework..................................................................................................... 43
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 45
Chapter Three: Methodology........................................................................................................ 46

x
Research Questions........................................................................................................... 46
Overview of Methodology................................................................................................ 46
The Researcher.................................................................................................................. 48
Data Sources .................................................................................................................... 49
Data Analysis.................................................................................................................... 54
Credibility and Trustworthiness........................................................................................ 55
Ethics................................................................................................................................. 55
Chapter Four: Findings................................................................................................................. 57
Participants........................................................................................................................ 57
Evaluation of Assumed Needs.......................................................................................... 60
Findings for Research Question 1..................................................................................... 62
Findings for Research Question 2..................................................................................... 74
Findings for Research Question 3 .................................................................................... 84
Summary and Conclusion............................................................................................... 104
Chapter Five: Recommendations................................................................................................ 107
Discussion of Findings.................................................................................................... 107
Recommendations for Practice ....................................................................................... 110
Limitations and Delimitations......................................................................................... 124
Recommendations for Future Research .......................................................................... 125
Conclusions..................................................................................................................... 127
References................................................................................................................................... 129
Appendix A: Interview Protocol................................................................................................. 155
Appendix B: Document Registration Log ................................................................................. 161
Appendix C: Company Data Sheet............................................................................................. 163

xi
List of Tables
Table 1: Organizational Mission, Organizational Goal, and Stakeholder Group’s Goal 7
Table 2: Assumed Knowledge Influences 34
Table 3: Assumed Motivation Influences 37
Table 4: Assumed Organizational Influences 42
Table 5: Data Sources 48
Table 6: Participants’ Tenure and Role Characteristics 58
Table 7: Interview Participants’ Years in Organization, and Remote Work
Characteristics
59
Table 8: Thresholds and Conditions for the Validation of the Assumed Needs 61
Table 9: Techniques Used to Validate Each Assumed Need 62
Table 10: Findings of Assumed Knowledge Needs 63
Table 11: Findings of Assumed Motivation Needs 75
Table 12: Findings of Assumed Organizational Needs 85
Table 13: Summary of Findings for Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational
Influences
105
Table 14: Expected Soft Skills for IT Architects Roles and Activities 112
Table 15: Strategies for Building Social Network among Employees 117
Table 16: Strategies for Building Social Network with Clients 120
Table 17: Activities Categories with Internal and Client Activities Examples 123
Table A1: Interview Protocol Plan 156
APPENDIX B: Document Registration Log 161
APPENDIX C: Company Data Sheet 163

xii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework 44

xiii
List of Abbreviations
CEO Chief Executive Officer
CIO Chief Information Officer
CTO Chief Technology Officer
IRB Institutional Review Board
IT Information Technology
KMO Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational
SaaS Software as a Service
SWOT Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats
WFH Work from Home

1
Chapter One: Overview of the Study
During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, large, global organizations
that shifted from office to full remote work experienced weakened team collaboration (Klonek et
al., 2022; Stratone et al., 2022; Yang et al., 2022). Knowledge workers (workers whose job
involves developing and using knowledge) had their social networks eroded, impacting team
communication, knowledge flow, and trust, among other collaboration factors (DeFilippis et al.,
2020; Whillans et al., 2021). Yang et al. (2022) compared data on social network ties of more
than 60,000 Microsoft employees in the United States before and after the pandemic, discovering
that firm-wide remote work triggered a more siloed and static collaboration network, with few
connections between different units. After conducting 129 interviews with knowledge workers,
Ferreira et al. (2021) concluded that the main collaboration challenges they experienced were
related to communication, infrastructure, isolation, and technology dependency problems.
Although most organizations reported an immediate gain in productivity with the remote work
shift, after a short time, several reported a decline (Deal & Levenson, 2021). (Garro-Abarca et
al., 2021) noted that software developers’ team productivity and performance declined due to
communication and trust issues. Additionally, team communication, collaboration, and cohesion
declined, harming creativity (Chafi et al., 2022). All these issues impact teams’ well-being and
performance in the short term and organizations’ performance and innovation in the long run,
inhibiting their success and ability to compete. Leveraging Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis
model, this study aimed to uncover how remote work affected IT architects’ team collaboration
in large, global IT companies that shifted to full remote work during the COVID-19 pandemic.

2
Background of the Problem
The nature of work has been evolving since the 1970s, when the telephone made
“telecommuting” possible, allowing people to collaborate without physically being together
(Chudoba et al., 2005). The COVID-19 pandemic significantly accelerated this transition
(Brucks & Levav, 2022; Klonek et al., 2022; Vyas, 2022). Before the pandemic, 5% of U.S.
workers worked from home for more than three days per week (Bloom, 2020). By April 2020,
35% of U.S. workers shifted from primarily co-located and face-to-face interactions to virtual
and hybrid forms of collaboration within a few weeks (Rock et al., 2020). To enable remote
work and support their employees, companies and entities in various fields of activity
implemented digitalized work processes (LaBerge et al., 2020; Stratone et al., 2022).
According to a systematic literature review, the most important benefits of remote work
include more flexibility, autonomy, job satisfaction, and a better work-life balance (Chafi et al.,
2022). In contrast, adverse effects include social and professional isolation, limited supervision
by managers, and greater cognitive stress and overload. Although more than 60% of
organizations signaled at an early stage of the pandemic that they would embrace remote work
permanently (Eagle, 2020), the issues they encountered after that led them to reconsider this
intention (Flake et al., 2022; HubbleHQ, 2022). Organizations are now pursuing work conditions
that can create a flexible and productive environment for all participants in a hybrid
collaboration: a mix of face-to-face and virtual interactions (Meluso et al., 2022; Shifrin &
Michel, 2022).
The shift to remote work changed the topology of social networks, affecting the work
environment, organizational innovation, and the well-being and performance of office workers
(Kovacs et al., 2021). Moreover, organizations had their social capital eroded (Deal & Levenson,

3
2021; Yang et al., 2022). A study by Microsoft revealed that workers’ social networks became
more static and siloed, with fewer bridges between different groups, inhibiting collaboration and
innovation (Yang et al., 2022). Previous research has shown that network topology has an
important role in the success of individuals, teams, and organizations. Social networks are the
conduit of information and knowledge (Gibson & Cohen, 2003; Shin, 2021). In organizations,
relationships among group members (bonding ties) favor knowledge transfer due to trust,
collaboration, and effort. Moreover, relationships between a group member with an individual
from another group (bridging ties) provide access to new, non-redundant knowledge, which is
critical for innovation.
Recent analyses of telemetry and survey data showed that the pandemic affected both the
who and the how of collaboration in information firms (Zuzul et al., 2021). Workers attended
more meetings, communicated more by email, collaborated more with their bonding ties than
with their bridging ties, and exhibited patterns of communication that were more siloed and less
stable. A systematic literature review on agile software development argued that development
teams were affected since agile methods depend on the social aspects of communication and
collaboration with stakeholders (e.g., users and customers) to deliver expected outcomes
(Neumann & Bogdanov, 2022). Extensive prior research pointed out that the major collaboration
challenges experienced by virtual teams are related to trust, motivation driven by the presence of
others, team members’ technical competence level, technical infrastructure level, nature of work,
explicit management, competitive/collaborative culture, and alignment of goals and incentives
(Brucks & Levav, 2022; Garro-Abarca et al., 2021; Stratone et al., 2022).
Originally aiming for cost reduction, the shift away from traditional office work was
already happening before COVID-19 (Allen et al., 2015). The pandemic drastically accelerated

4
this process (Brucks & Levav, 2022; Klonek et al., 2022; Vyas, 2022). Several studies have
highlighted that there is not a one-size-fits-all office-based work structure employees (Chafi et
al., 2022; Meluso et al., 2022; Neumayr et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2022). Even companies that will
not keep full-time remote work will not return to their pre-pandemic work policies and norms.
They will switch to more customized and hybrid work models in which employees are likely to
split their time between remote and office work, or firms will be pushed to adopt a harmonic mix
of full-time remote and full-time office employees (Chafi et al., 2022; Meluso et al., 2022;
Neumayr et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2022).
Organization Context and Mission
Lund et al.’s (2020) study reported that remote work potential is concentrated in a few
sectors. Information technology is one of them. This sector has a high potential since more than
half of their employee’s time is spent on activities that can be done remotely in an effective way.
In addition, the sector has a high share of knowledge workers with a higher education level.
When the pandemic significantly accelerated the demand for information technology (IT)
solutions (LaBerge et al., 2020), large, global IT companies rapidly shifted their knowledge
workers to full remote work and set new work policies, collaborative tools, and skills
development to support them (Hern, 2020; Zeidner, 2020).
According to a survey by the IBM Institute for Business Value (IBM Institute for
Business Value, 2020), the COVID-19 pandemic accelerated digital transformation in 59% of the
surveyed organizations, and 66% reported they were able to complete initiatives that previously
encountered resistance. The demand for digital transformation projects soared at large, global IT
companies to help businesses and society innovate. However, the high demand for IT projects
increased working hours, and the increased working hours, coupled with remote work

5
challenges, impaired the collaboration, creativity, and productivity of their knowledge workers
(Ford et al., 2022; Yang et al., 2022) and their software developers (Agren et al., 2022; Neumann
& Bogdanov, 2022).
To address these issues, large, global IT companies need to understand the impact of
remote work on team collaboration to ensure their well-being and performance. Despite the
initiatives and efforts launched so far, these companies continue to pursue more effective
alternatives. As an example of this, IBM’s CIO created a guide for adapting infrastructure for
remote work and reinforced that only with a better appreciation of jobs in different environments
will it be possible to define the appropriate tools to support someone who is not working in the
office (Previn, 2020). Furthermore, Microsoft’s New Future of Work 2022 report (Ash et al.,
2022) informed that the company is currently researching how hybrid work can ameliorate some
or most of the effects of their eroded network ties.
Organizational Goal
Given the demand for new forms of work organization in the post-pandemic new normal,
work policies and workplace planning are considered key leadership priorities (Alexander et al.,
2021; Flake et al., 2022; Wigert, 2022). Therefore, the implicit goal for large, global IT
companies is that by 2024, large global IT companies will have a better understanding of the
impact of remote work on team collaboration to define a more effective work organization
strategy. As they adopt new work arrangements, these organizations will need to provide the
resources required to ensure team success, including cultural models, work policies and
processes, collaborative tools, and skills (Clark & Estes, 2008).

6
Stakeholder Group of Focus and Stakeholder Goal
While the contributions of all stakeholders impact an organization’s success, for practical
purposes, only one stakeholder group was considered in this study. IT architects were selected as
the stakeholder group of focus, among other IT knowledge workers, given the critical role they
play in the design and management of IT projects. They are responsible for creating a cohesive
technology blueprint that responds to current and future business needs (Wagter et al., 2012).
They take a leadership role in strategic business/IT relationships and build relationships with
business stakeholders to advise them (Strano & Rehmani, 2007; Thönssen & Von Dewitz, 2018;
Wagter et al., 2012). They lead teams consisting of other IT and business roles to understand the
business needs and specify an optimized solution (Strano & Rehmani, 2007; The Open Group,
2018). By allowing projects to deliver planned efficiencies and innovation, they contribute to the
organization’s performance (Gellweiler, 2021).
Although studies have discussed the consequences of full remote work in agile software
development teams, they are still few (Agren et al., 2022), and none have investigated the
adaptation of IT architects to remote work in IT projects. Recognizing this gap in the literature,
this study explored how remote work affected IT architects’ team collaboration in large, global
IT organizations that shifted to full remote work during the pandemic. Even though IT architects
may have different job descriptions and responsibilities within different companies, they share
common practices. Considering their vital technical and leadership roles in IT projects, the
stakeholder goal is that by 2024, IT architects will have a plan to improve their project teams’
performance (restoring prior pandemic levels at a minimum), observing the influence of
knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors. Table 1 summarizes the organizational
mission, the organizational goal and the stakeholder group’s goal.

7
Table 1
Organizational Mission, Organizational Goal, and Stakeholder Group’s Goal
Organizational Mission
Large, global IT companies core mission is to provide innovation to businesses and society
through digital transformation projects
Organizational Goal
By 2024, organizations will better understand the impact of remote work on team
collaboration to define a more effective work strategy, including the resources needed to
ensure team success
Stakeholder Group’s Goal
By 2024, IT architects will have a plan to improve their project teams’ performance (restoring
prior pandemic levels at a minimum) considering the influence of knowledge, motivation,
and organizational factors
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to understand how remote work affected IT architects’
team collaboration in large, global IT companies that shifted to full remote work during the
COVID-19 pandemic. The study focused on the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
factors influencing the adaptation of IT architects to remote work to improve team performance
and deliver successful projects. The research questions used to guide this study were:
1. What was the role of knowledge in the IT architects’ adaptation to remote work
collaboration during the pandemic?
2. What was the role of motivation in the IT architects’ adaptation to remote work
collaboration during the pandemic?
3. What organizational factors influenced the IT architects’ collaborative efforts to improve
team performance during the pandemic?

8
Importance of the Study
The negative aspects of remote work during the COVID-19 pandemic weakened
organizations’ productivity, performance, and innovation in different ways and degrees,
depending on the industry, company size, nature of work, and task complexity (Handke et al.,
2020; Lund et al., 2020; Whillans et al., 2021). Knowledge workers in the IT industry
experienced siloed work, less collaboration, little creativity, fewer innovations, and reduced
productivity while working on virtual project teams ( Agren et al., 2022; Ford et al., 2022;
Neumann & Bogdanov, 2022). Furthermore, knowledge workers had their wellbeing and
individual performance impacted by lost comradery, isolation, and loneliness (Chafi et al., 2022;
Kovacs et al., 2021). Health consequences such as anxiety and stress were also reported (Frick et
al., 2021; Shifrin & Michel, 2022).
There are few studies about mandatory full remote work since previous research on the
causal effects of remote work has mainly studied employees who volunteered to work remotely
in call centers or patent offices (Choudhury et al., 2021). While most knowledge workers had
engaged in some form of remote work before the pandemic, they typically did so, supported by
colleagues in centralized offices (DeFilippis et al., 2020). More recent studies describe remote
work as a complex domain, in exponential evolution, yet to be understood (Ferreira et al., 2021).
Furthermore, the ways traditional virtual teams can cohabitate have not been properly explored
(Bratianu & Bejinaru, 2021; Meluso et al., 2020; Neumayr et al., 2021). By exploring how IT
architects faced and adapted to social networks and collaboration challenges in remote work, this
study opens an opportunity for large, global IT companies, and potentially other organizations, to
reimagine work arrangements that will maximize performance, innovation, and job satisfaction
in project teams.

9
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology
Clark and Estes’s (2008) performance gap analysis framework guided this study.
According to this model, performance issues are due to gaps in knowledge, motivation, and
organizational (KMO) factors. The identification of the KMO factors influencing the adaptation
of IT architects to remote work allowed this study to explore the relative impact of each one on
team social networks and collaboration, the relationship between factors, and the identification of
potential solutions for meeting the desired performance goals.
This study used a qualitative design approach (Creswell & Creswell, 2018) to investigate
the phenomenon experienced by IT architects when they shifted to remote work at the pandemic
outbreak. Moreover, by using semi-structured interviews, it obtained information about the KMO
factors influencing the participants’ adaptation to remote work, incorporating their emerging
views (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The research participants were CTOs/senior IT architects from
large, global IT companies selected through purposeful sampling (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Data instruments included individual interviews and a series of available historical documents
from organizations in the IT industry.
Definition of Terms
To avoid misinterpretation and confusion, definitions to twelve commonly key terms
used throughout this study are listed for clarity.
• Bridging Ties denote the connections across groups. It promotes norms of openness,
diversity, popularity, respect, and cross-communication between different social groups
(Szreter & Woolcock, 2004).

10
• Bonding Ties denote the connections between people within groups. It promotes norms of
social cohesion, homogeneity, reciprocity, and cooperation within social groups (Portes,
1998).
• Collaboration refers to a process involving various individuals who may see different
aspect of a problem. They engage in a process that goes beyond their own individual
expertise and vision to complete a task or project. In contrast to cooperation,
collaboration involves creating an end product that is more than the sum of each
participant’s contribution (Shah, 2010).
• Hybrid Work is a flexible working model where employees work partly in the physical
workplace, and partly remotely – at home or from another workspace. They are also timeunconstrained – working asynchronously whenever they choose (Chafi et al., 2022;
Gratton, 2021).
• Hybrid collaboration refers to collaborative practices that involve simultaneous colocated and remote collaboration with phases of both synchronous and asynchronous
work that spans multiple groupware applications and devices (Neumayr et al., 2018).
• IT or Solution Architects design information technology solutions and services for
organizations. They specify system requirements and functions as foundations for
detailed solution or system designs, in alignment with business needs (Gellweiler, 2020).
• Knowledge Workers are high-level workers who apply theoretical and analytical
knowledge, acquired through formal training, to develop products and services (Drucker,
1959).

11
• Remote Work or Work from Home [WFH] or Telecommuting is a type of flexible
working arrangement that allows an employee to work from remote location outside of
company offices (Ferreira et al., 2021).
• Social Capital refers to the features of social organizations such as social resources,
networks, and trust that can generate individual or collective benefits (Burt, 1992; Lin,
2001).
• Social Networks are a social structure made of individuals (nodes) that are connected
(tied) by one or more specific types of interdependency (Cross et al., 2001).
• Virtual Teams collaborate toward a common goal under conditions of geographical,
temporal, or organizational dispersion, so that communication and coordination are
predominantly based on electronic communication media (Hertel et al., 2005).
• Virtuality is the degree to which a group has temporal, cultural, spatial, and
organizational dispersion and communicates through electronic means (Chudoba et al.,
2005; Shin, 2004).
Organization of the Dissertation
This research study is organized into five chapters. Chapter One provided the reader with
the key concepts and terminology commonly found in a discussion about social networks, IT
architect’s virtual collaboration, innovation, and performance in large, global IT companies.
Chapter Two provides a review of current literature surrounding the scope of the study. The
challenges faced by organizations during the COVID-19 pandemic, social networks and social
capital depletion, virtual collaboration and hybrid work considerations were highlighted. This
chapter also presents the IT architects’ knowledge, motivation and organizational influences that
were explored in the study. Chapter Three details the methodology regarding the study’s

12
participants, data collection and analysis. Chapter Four provides the results and findings to the
three research questions. Chapter Five provides recommendations based on the findings,
highlights limitations and delimitations, and recommendations for future research.

13
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
This literature review examines several aspects of remote work collaboration challenges
focusing on knowledge workers in information technology (IT) organizations during the
COVID-19 pandemic. After describing a brief history of remote work, including current debates
on the pros and cons of its permanent adoption in light of the pandemic experience, the chapter
presents the social sciences research on team collaboration challenges in the workplace. These
challenges have detrimental effects on teams’ motivation (Chafi et al., 2022; Koehne et al., 2012;
A. Smith & Sinclair, 2003), productivity (Meyer et al., 2014; Morrison-Smith & Ruiz, 2020;
Ralph et al., 2020) and performance (Handke et al., 2020; Joe et al., 2014; Smite et al., 2022).
The review then further evaluates the dichotomous experiences of software developers during the
pandemic (Bao et al., 2022; Ford et al., 2022; Miller et al., 2021) and highlights the critical role
of IT architects, who were forced to adapt quickly to lead under unprecedented conditions, in the
success of IT project teams (LaBerge et al., 2020; Njanka et al., 2021). Yet, there is little
demonstrative research on the consequences of full remote work during the pandemic on IT
teams’ collaboration and the issues faced by IT architects. The chapter concludes with a
discussion of Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis model, which supports the conceptual
framework of this study, and the assumed and assessed knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences affecting IT architects’ team collaboration during the pandemic remote
work. Identifying these influences was critical to understanding the research problem and
offering insights into how to address performance gaps of IT project teams working remotely.
A Brief History of Remote Work
The nature of work has been evolving for decades. The capability of working from home
was first recognized in the 1970s when Jack Nilles, a NASA engineer concerned with the

14
environmental impact of excessive automobile commuting, coined the term “telecommuting” to
describe work performed from home using telecommunication (Allen et al., 2015). Over next 20
years, the growth of telecommuting was prompted by technological advances (e.g., personal
computers, the internet, laptops, cell phones, and communication networks) (Allen et al., 2015;
Chudoba et al., 2005; Garro-Abarca et al., 2021; Handke et al., 2020). Moreover, it was
influenced by anti-pollution policies (e.g., Clean Air Acts) and a shift from a manufacturing
economy to an information-based one (Allen et al., 2015). In the 1990s, increased integration of
technology into work processes led companies to explore the promised benefits of
telecommuting: office space savings, global recruiting of talent, continuous operation with teams
geographically dispersed in different time zones, and individuals’ increased flexibility and worklife balance (Chudoba et al., 2005; Handke et al., 2020). During the first decade of the 2000s,
incented by different programs, telework (the new term for telecommuting) took off in both the
public and private sectors. For example, IBM was recognized in February 2010 for pioneering
and sustaining programs to reduce employee commuting (IBM, 2010). Later in the year, the U.S.
government passed the Telework Enhancement Act to make telework more secure and effective
for Federal employees (Gruber, 2010).
As organizations increasingly embraced telework, the number of teleworkers started to
soar, notably in the last two decades (Frazis, 2020). Gallup estimated an increase in the
proportion of workers who have commuted at least once from 9% in 1995 to 37% in 2015
(Jones, 2015). The American Community Survey reported a 115% increase between 2005 and
2017 in the number of workers who worked from home at least half the time (FlexJobs, 2017).
Nevertheless, despite the expansion of a work-from-anywhere movement, the last decade also
witnessed drastic reversals in telework policies by former advocates and early adopters after

15
experiencing remote work challenges (Smith, 2020). In 2013, Yahoo! canceled its telework
program, citing the desire to improve employee collaboration and workplace culture (Goudreau,
2013). By 2017, renowned brands such as Best Buy, Honeywell, Bank of America, and IBM had
followed suit in rolling back their programs to reunite employees to collaborate, solve problems
and drive innovation (Bednarz, 2013; Spector, 2017; Wright, 2017). In 2018, several government
agencies reversed course, beginning with the Department of Agriculture restricting its telework
program to one day per week to improve teamwork and operate as a single team (Haughney,
2018).
The popularity of telework programs had stalled or declined in corporate and federal
spheres when the COVID-19 pandemic hit all types of organizations (Smith, 2020). With the
start of mandatory quarantine measures, the number of organizations adopting partial or full
remote work and the number of employees’ remote work hours rose significantly (Brucks &
Levav, 2022; Klonek et al., 2022; Vyas, 2022). Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
researchers conducted a U.S. national labor force survey and revealed that 35% of the workforce
switched to remote work in the first two months of the pandemic. (Rock et al., 2020). Another
study surveyed 30,000 Americans over multiple waves between April and December 2020 and
found that telework represented 50% of the paid work hours, compared with 5% before the
pandemic (Barrero et al., 2020). The impact of remote work was not evenly distributed across
different occupations and industries (Dalton & Groen, 2022; Lund et al., 2020). Using data from
the U. S. Current Population Survey, (Dey et al., 2021) showed that in the May to June 2020
period, 33% of workers teleworked due to the pandemic. However, the percentage of workers in
suitable teleworking occupations (e.g., knowledge workers) who teleworked was 54%, and in
unsuitable ones, 10% (e.g., manual workers or face-to-face interactions-related jobs). Dalton and

16
Groen (2022) analyzed data from the U.S. 2021 Business Response Survey and concluded that
the industries with a higher percentage of jobs involving full and partial teleworking were
information, financial activities, and professional and business services. On the contrary, the
industries with the least percentage were mining, construction, retail trade, and accommodation
and food services.
Based on quick wins regarding productivity, work flexibility, and cost reductions during
the first months of the pandemic, organizations indicated their intention to maintain their WFH
programs once the quarantine restrictions were lifted (Barta, 2022; PWC, 2021). As of
September 2022, while some have kept their intentions, others have chosen to test hybrid work
models to deal with the challenges of remote work (Flake et al., 2022; HubbleHQ, 2022).
Amazon, Google, and EY are among many companies requiring employees to return to work.
Apple workers launched a petition for more flexibility after being mandated to come into the
office at least three days a week. Meanwhile, Citibank, Manpower, and McKinsey are embracing
remote and hybrid work. In summary, remote work has significantly increased before and during
the COVID-19 pandemic for several reasons, mainly due to technological advances and work
policies. Still, multiple other factors have impaired the success of several programs,
demonstrating that there is no one-fits-all solution. Organizations are now on a learning path and
are trying to create and test work arrangements that can maximize the benefits of remote work
for both their employees and themselves (Chafi et al., 2022; Meluso et al., 2022; Shifrin &
Michel, 2022).
Collaboration in Virtual Teams
While remote work evolved, different terms were created to characterize the concept.
Telecommuting, telework, and work-from-home denote work arrangements that enable

17
individuals to work remotely from a location outside of an office (Frazis, 2020; Klonek et al.,
2022; Neumann & Bogdanov, 2022). Geographically distributed or virtual teams refer to a group
of people with shared goals that collaborate across space, time, and organizations using
technologies. Moreover, these people fulfill their roles with little or no time spent meeting face
to face (El-Sofany et al., 2014; Hertel et al., 2005; Koehne et al., 2012). In contrast, the term
collocated teams was established to designate a group of people who collaborate physically at the
same location with all team members working face to face most of the time (Chudoba et al.,
2005; Whillans et al., 2021). Although the concept of collaboration is the same in both virtual
and collocated teams, indicating the interactions and tasks performed by the team to achieve
common goals, the factors needed for successful collaboration in each differ (Morrison-Smith &
Ruiz, 2019). In virtual teams, factors such as culture, time zone, collaboration tools and
processes, management styles, and team cohesion and trust have significant influence over
collaboration outcomes (Bergiel et al., 2008; Chudoba et al., 2005; Kohene et al., 2012;
Morrison-Smith & Ruiz, 2019).
Virtual teams allow organizations to engage specialists regardless of their physical
location, optimize teams with the best talents, and reduce traveling and office space costs. This
capability enables them to grow their talent pools as well as become agile and compete more
robustly in the global marketplace (Bergiel et al., 2008; Handke et al., 2020, Morrison-Smith &
Ruiz, 2019). In addition, virtual teams have more work flexibility and autonomy and may
experience higher job satisfaction and better work-life balance (Allen et al., 2015; Chafi et al.,
2022). Nevertheless, collaboration challenges over distance continue to linger, despite the
increased availability of advanced technologies (Morrison-Smith & Ruiz, 2020; Rico & Cohen,
2005). Extensive research has shown that virtuality impacts collaboration effectiveness. The

18
following sections discuss in more detail the benefits of virtual teams, the collaboration
challenges they need to face, and the full remote work experiences of software development
teams during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Benefits of Virtual Teams
Virtual teams emerged as a result of technological advancements that allowed
collaboration to move beyond face-to-face interactions to teleconferences and, later on, to virtual
meetings. Supported by work regulations and important benefits, they propagated in both private
and public organizations. Using virtual teams, companies were able to expand their operations
globally, building talent pools geographically dispersed and saving travel and office space costs.
They also became more agile by pulling resources from different places as needed and operating
continuously 24 by 7 (Bergiel et al., 2008; Handke et al., 2020; Morrison-Smith & Ruiz, 2019).
Regarding the benefits of virtual teams to individuals, studies have highlighted increased
work flexibility, enhanced worker autonomy, increased job satisfaction, and better work-life
balance. Allen et al. (2015) conducted a literature review of telecommuting to understand its
implications. They found that work flexibility positively influenced organizational commitment
and negatively influenced intention to leave the job. Moreover, job satisfaction was highest
among those working remotely for a moderate amount, and work-family conflicts were lower
among those working remotely for over a year. Ferreira et al. (2021) conducted a systematic
literature review of remote work to elicit its advantages and disadvantages and interviewed 129
remote work professionals to assess the findings. The results indicated that work-life balance and
enhanced work autonomy were the main advantages to individuals, while flexibility was the
main driving force. The April 2022 edition of McKinsey’s American Opportunity Survey
confirms that U.S. employees find value in remote work (Dua et al., 2022). A representative

19
sample of the population was built with 25,000 participants. When asked if they would accept
flexible work, 87% responded positively. Moreover, 58% revealed that they are working
remotely at least one day a week, and 35%, five days a week.
Although studies have also pointed out increased individual or team productivity benefits,
they are conditioned to specific situations and factors and cannot be generalized. For example,
productivity is highly dependent on task interdependence and complexity. After analyzing 48
studies to investigate the impact of virtuality on team effectiveness, Handke et al. (2020)
concluded that under low levels of task interdependence, virtuality is positively associated with
team effectiveness, whereas, under high levels of task interdependence, it is negatively
associated. Additionally, while lower levels of knowledge characteristics (e.g., task complexity
and frequency) improve the relationship between team virtuality and team effectiveness, high
levels are detrimental to team effectiveness. Studies that examined productivity during the
COVID-19 pandemic also found mixed results, with participants reporting stable, improved, or
lower productivity (Ford et al., 2022; Miller et al., 2021; Ralph et al., 2020; Russo et al., 2021;
Silveira et al., 2022). These studies demonstrated that some participants perceived some
conditions as a benefit, while others perceived them as a challenge. Factors such as schedule
flexibility, proximity to family members, and more time for work led to dichotomous
experiences across the participants (Ford et al., 2022; Miller et al., 2021; Silveira et al., 2022).
Challenges of Virtual Teams
Collaboration challenges in virtual teams have been extensively studied. The main issues
reported are related to weakened social relationships, constrained knowledge sharing and
transfer, communication difficulties, availability and awareness of technology, poor
management, and misalignment of goals and incentives (Arunprasad et al., 2022; Bergiel et al.,

20
2008; Morrison-Smith & Ruiz, 2020). Understanding these issues is vital to the development of
strategies to support virtual teams.
Social Challenges
Collaboration in virtual teams is affected by physical factors and is tightly coupled with
social and emotional factors. Geographical and temporal distances are examples of physical
factors (Morrison-Smith & Ruiz, 2020), while social and emotional factors encompass aspects
such as social relationships, trust, motivation, and conflicts (Allen et al., 2015; Chudoba et al.,
2005). In the absence of face-to-face interactions, feelings of social and professional isolation
emerge, decreasing team members’ motivation and contribution (Koehne et al., 2012; Russo et
al., 2021; Smith & Sinclair, 2003). Moreover, the lack of presence of others weakens their
motivation to work harder, especially in individuals that are stimulated by interactions with other
people (Bergiel et al., 2008; Koehne et al., 2012; Olson & Olson, 2006). Virtuality also inhibits
social relationship development and maintenance, which are critical to trust building, knowledge
sharing, and conflict management (Allen et al., 2015; Bergiel et al., 2008; Olson & Olson, 2006).
Studies about contemporary large-scale software engineering, where developers need to interact
across multiple geographical and socio-cultural boundaries, highlight that the social aspects of
collaboration influence productivity and software quality (Datta, 2018; Mens et al., 2019;
Wagner & Ruhe, 2018).
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the challenges mentioned above were noted. Chafi et
al. (2022) identified remote and hybrid work challenges and needs by interviewing 53
professionals from three companies. They reported that participants felt lonely and disconnected
and missed the spontaneous interactions with colleagues at the office to socialize, have fun and
increase team building. They also indicated that building trust and relationships and sharing

21
knowledge was harder. Moreover, the increased use of written communication made it more
challenging to grasp nuanced aspects of the team and the organization. Agren et al. (2022) used a
mixed methods approach to collect data during the first year of the pandemic. The responses
from 96 agile software developers from seven companies showed that the lack of social
interaction and the shift to digital communication significantly impacted their productivity. The
results also suggested that the lack of psychological safety inhibited sensitive discussions and
conflicts and may have created a group maturity gap to be felt when the teams return to the
office.
Erosion of social networks was another challenge documented by studies on team
collaboration during the pandemic. Social networks are the conduit of information and
knowledge, playing a key role in individuals, teams, and organizations’ success. In
organizations, relationships among group members (bonding ties) favor knowledge transfer due
to trust, collaboration, and effort. In contrast, relationships between a group member with an
individual from another group (bridging ties) provide access to new, non-redundant knowledge,
which is critical for innovation (Gibson & Cohen, 2003; Shin, 2021). Zuzul et al. (2021)
analyzed billions of emails within over 4,000 organizations worldwide to compare changes in
social communication networks during 2019-2020. They found that the volume of emails
increased during the pandemic and that social connections within organizational silos (bonding
ties) became more well-defined, while social connections with other groups (bridging ties) was
less tightly coupled.
With a focus on more than 61 thousand U.S. knowledge workers from Microsoft, Yang et
al. (2022) compared their 2019-2020 emails, calendars, instant messages, video/audio calls, and
workweek hours. They concluded that firm-wide remote work made workers’ collaboration

22
networks more static with fewer social connections added or deleted monthly, more fragmented,
and each fragment more clustered. In other words, both bridging and bonding ties eroded, and
bonding ties became stronger in each fragment. They also observed that asynchronous
communication increased (less rich media than synchronous communication) and synchronous
decreased. Based on previous research, they suggested that these changes in collaboration and
communication patterns would reduce productivity and the quality of workers’ output (Argote &
Ingram, 2000; Reagans & McEvily, 2003) and impede knowledge transfer, impacting innovation
in the long term (Soda et al., 2021; Uzzi & Spiro, 2005). A recent Microsoft Work Trend Index
survey revealed that although 80% of employees reported being as or more productive after
going remote, 54% of business leaders reported that productivity was impacted (Microsoft
Research, 2021). The Microsoft New Future of Work 2022 report (Ash et al., 2022) informed
that the company is currently researching how hybrid work can ameliorate some or most of the
effects of their eroded network ties.
Communication Challenges
Communication is one of the fundamental challenges in virtual spaces. In contrast to
face-to-face communication, where verbal and non-verbal cues offer feedback, transmit
subtleties, and facilitate understanding, virtual communication takes more time and effort to
convey information and misses important social cues that help establish ties between
collaborators (Bergiel et al., 2008; Ferreira et al., 2021; Morrison-Smith & Ruiz, 2020). In
addition, team members find it challenging to balance informal and formal communication using
different computer-mediated channels. Although both asynchronous and synchronous technology
tools have advanced significantly, they still offer a more constrained collaboration environment
compared to in-person meetings (Brucks & Levav, 2022; Ferreira et al., 2021; McLarnon &

23
Woodley, 2021; Morrison-Smith & Ruiz, 2020). Using paired items emailed to over 200
respondents in January 2022, Stratone et al. (2022) compared communication effectiveness in
traditional versus virtual teams in the COVID-19 pandemic context. The study confirmed that it
was significantly greater in traditional teams.
When communication challenges are avoided, productivity and team morale improve,
and virtual teams demonstrate more job satisfaction and enhanced performance (Ferreira et al.,
2021). Additionally, communication in virtual teams is a key predictor of improved trust,
increased commitment, and higher performance (Morrison-Smith & Ruiz, 2020; Sarker et al.,
2011). Sarker et al. (2011) examined how communication and trust work together to explain the
performance of globally distributed teams. After testing different models, he found that
communication influences performance through trust since it enables social action. Nevertheless,
trust is affected by the effectiveness, reliability, and usefulness of the communication technology
used by the virtual team (Morrison-Smith & Ruiz, 2020).
Technology Challenges
Computer-mediated tools, such as audiovisual, audio, and text-based tools, strongly
influence collaboration in virtual teams. Each tool provides a distinct capacity for building social
ties and conveying information despite their inherent limitations (Ferreira et al., 2021; MorrisonSmith & Ruiz, 2020; Whillans et al., 2021). Asynchronous tools (e.g., email and workflow tools)
inhibit relationship building, pause interaction over longer periods, and information overload
may happen. On the other hand, they enable team members to invest time in independent tasks,
increasing productivity. Synchronous tools (e.g., audio and audiovisual) constrain the visual field
and mask verbal and visual cues. However, they support more easily the scheduling of ad hoc
interactions and the progression of interdependent tasks, improving performance (Morrison-

24
Smith & Ruiz, 2020; Rico & Cohen, 2005). Therefore, research and practice suggest using a mix
of tools to provide more opportunities for improved communication and collaboration (Ferreira
et al., 2021; Morrison-Smith & Ruiz, 2020; Whillans et al., 2021). Furthermore, they recommend
implementing team cohesion practices such as keeping videos on, having regular meetings, and
designing meetings that enhance engagement and minimize distractions (Morrison-Smith &
Ruiz, 2020).
Technical competence of team members can be an additional challenge. Teams that are
not trained or skilled in the use of virtual tools limit their collaboration opportunities, harming
team building, productivity, and performance. Moreover, the level of technical infrastructure can
also present collaboration challenges. Without adequate tools and technical support, remote work
fails. Additionally, the technology must be reliable: it needs to be stable enough to avoid network
and connectivity issues that can interrupt interaction and block completion of tasks (Bergiel et
al., 2008; Ferreira et al., 2021; Morrison-Smith & Ruiz, 2020). Ferreira et al. (2021) conducted a
qualitative study with 129 remote workers to validate the advantages and disadvantages of
remote work. Interviewees pointed out that technology affects the quality of collaboration. Lack
of technical competence harms productivity, misuse of technology creates conflict and
coordination problems, the type of technology and how it is used influences task execution, and
availability of the right tools (organizational or personally owned) is crucial for remote work.
The study results also highlighted the issue of poor management.
Management Challenges
Effective team leadership is a prerequisite for both traditional and virtual projects. Team
leaders play pivotal roles as designers of tasks, team interactions, and organizational cultures
(Duarte & Snyder, 2006; Meluso et al., 2020). In virtual contexts, effective leadership is

25
challenging since it is difficult to establish high-quality interactions across distances. Leaders
cannot see and sense team members’ feelings and climate, so they cannot easily detect problems
arising to support their teams. (Bergiel et al., 2008; Chafi et al., 2022; Meluso et al., 2020). Chafi
et al. (2022) revealed that participants of a qualitative study on remote work during the COVID19 pandemic mentioned an increasing sense of disconnect from their managers and felt being
overly micromanaged in an attempt to control their productivity and work-life balance.
According to Morrison-Smith & Ruiz (2020) virtual projects face increased coordination
problems to regulate tasks, resources, and personnel inter-dependencies, overcome cultural
barriers and ensure even participation by team members. Furthermore, when management
challenges are improperly addressed, team cohesion may reduce, and team conflicts may
escalate.
Therefore, virtual project team leaders must adjust their face-to-face leadership styles to
meet the needs of the virtual environment. A literature review emphasized their role in ensuring
individual well-being and a positive team climate by providing support and encouragement and
creating group-level safety (Nayani et al., 2018). Virtual leaders need to dedicate enough time to
virtual walks (e.g., calls, emails, online visits) around the entire team, overseeing each team
member’s remote work capabilities and performance (Bergiel et al., 2008). Virtual leadership
should provide training, guidance, and resources to enhance collaboration (Meluso et al., 2020).
In addition, facilitate knowledge sharing and create shared mental models (e.g., abstract
concepts, task-related or teamwork-related information) to increase team effectiveness (Maynard
& Gilson, 2014). In summary, as pointed out by (Malhotra et al., 2007), a virtual team leader
should motivate a diverse, often isolated group of team members, overcome cultural barriers,

26
stimulate team’s cognition, keep sponsors updated on the team’s progress, and act
simultaneously as a leader, a coach and a role model.
Alignment of Goals Challenges
Misalignment of goals among team members can pose serious problems for collaboration
in any project. Conflicts and misunderstandings arise without common goals (Bergiel et al.,
2008), shared mental models (Maynard & Gilson, 2014), and aligned expectations (Cundill et al.,
2019; Olson & Olson, 2000), harming trust building and team cohesion. These conditions are
more difficult to establish in virtual teams than in co-located ones (Bergiel et al., 2008; Ferreira
et al., 2021; Morrison-Smith & Ruiz, 2020). In virtual teams, having common goals help
increase team members’ commitment and decreases conflicts and coordination problems (Bergiel
et al., 2008; Ferreira et al, 2021). In addition, shared mental models directly influence virtual
teams’ performance. Shared mental models indicate a team’s shared cognition of the aspects of
the team and tasks. The more team members interact, the more they learn about each other, their
tasks, and how their team works together, improving their performance (Cannon-Bowers et al.,
1993; Maynard & Gilson, 2014).
Setting clear expectations about how to best work together to undercut assumptions can
strengthen virtual collaboration (Cundill et al., 2019). Especially in multi-country team projects,
several factors have a strong influence on expectations (Holmstrom et al., 2006; Pelled et al.,
1999). For example, the perception of time may be different from a team member sitting in the
United States, who views time as a scarce resource, to a team member sitting in Japan, where
time is a cyclical, unlimited entity (Saunders et al., 2004). Moreover, work hours per day and the
meaning of hard work varies between countries (Bjorn & Ngwenyama, 2009). Other examples of
work cultures and practices differences can be found in the way project managers structure their

27
communication and the work methodologies used by team members (Agerfalk et al., 2005;
McDonough et al., 2001). There are also language barriers, where the definition of terms is tied
to methodology. For example, the definition of quality in an assessment procedure depends on
the methodology being used (Armstrong & Cole, 2002). All these differences create
misunderstandings, causing delays and conflicts that affect cooperation and collaboration
(Morrison-Smith & Ruiz, 2020, Olson & Olson, 2000).
Software Developers’ Collaboration during the COVID-19 Pandemic
The information technology sector was one of the first segments to embrace remote work
to take advantage of geographically distributed talents. Software developers have worked in
different degrees of virtuality since the 1990s (Garro-Abarca et al., 2021), and numerous studies
have contributed to understanding the pros and cons of this work arrangement. Studies have
analyzed global software development (Altaf et al., 2019; Dingsoyr & Smite, 2014; Lamersdorf
& Münch, 2010), compared distributed with co-located software development (Bird et al., 2009;
Ebrahim et al., 2009; Herbsleb & Mockus, 2003), and investigated the productivity of software
development (Meyer et al., 2014; Nguyen et al., 2011; Petersen, 2011). However, although the
concept of remote work was not new to software development teams, the abrupt and involuntary
shift from occasional or regular remote work to full work from home during the COVID-19
pandemic was unprecedented. Moreover, the mandatory social restrictions, inappropriate home
infrastructure, work-family conflicts, and the fear of developing a serious illness added unique
factors to the work environment (Bao et al., 2022; Ford et al., 2022; Miller et al., 2021; Ralph et
al., 2020; Russo et al., 2021; Smite et al., 2022).
Studies about this phenomenon are few, with most related to the challenges faced by
individuals and teams during the pandemic’s first year. In addition, they present contradictory

28
results, revealing that there is little knowledge about its long-term effects. While Ralph et al.
(2020) reported declines in work climate, developers’ productivity, and well-being, Russo et al.
(2021) indicated that working from home was not per se a challenge to software engineers. Bao
et al. (2022) and Ford et al. (2022) shared mixed experiences. Bao et al. compared 139
developers’ activity records before and after the pandemic to measure individual productivity,
finding productivity to be negative or positive depending on factors such as the programming
language, the project type, age, and size, and the individual developer. To illustrate, developers
perceived lower productivity in larger projects. Ford et al. stated that Microsoft’s employees
noted dichotomous experiences regarding productivity, well-being, ability to focus, work
environment, and meetings. Whereas some reported higher productivity due to the freedom of
remote work, others, who missed the office, mentioned lower productivity.
Challenges related to social connection, communication, and collaboration were the most
prominent issues in several studies. Miller et al. (2021) investigated how the pandemic affected
team culture and productivity. After conducting two surveys at a large software company, they
found that the difficulties in team brainstorming, communication, and social interactions
impacted team productivity. Using the combined results of 7,686 data points on developers’
perceived productivity during the pandemic, Smite et al. (2022) indicated that half of the
respondents reported being more productive. Nevertheless, the other half was affected negatively
due to challenges with collaboration, teamwork, emotional issues, distractions, and poor home
office environment and equipment. Bao’s et al. (2022) study highlighted that developers with
lower productivity were impacted by decreased team collaboration, increased home demands,
and lack of self-discipline. All these studies try to uncover the implications of the pandemic on

29
software development teams. They inspire new work policies by showing what has worked and
what has not (Ford et al., 2022; Smite et al., 2022).
The Roles of IT Architects in Organizations and Project Teams
The IT architecture adopted by organizations is a source of differentiation and
competitive advantage for organizations. It can be described as the framework and guidelines
used by the organization to acquire, build, modify and interface IT resources to pursue business
strategies (Njanka et al., 2021; Rivard et al., 2006). The main role of an IT architect is to guide
the selection and integration of IT components/services to meet business requirements in a more
effective and efficient way (Avison et al., 2004; Kettinger et al., 2010; Zhang et al., 2018). The
literature highlights several types of IT architects depending on their tasks, responsibilities, and
outcomes. Figueiredo et al. (2012, 2014) analyzed IT architects’ activities and concluded that
organizations follow a similar pattern based on three roles: enterprise, solutions, and software
architects. The widely used The Open Group Framework (TOGAF) categorizes IT architects
according to their responsibilities into enterprise, segment, and solutions architects (The Open
Group, 2018). Despite the different classifications in theory and practice, the roles of IT
architects entail three aspects: aligning business strategies and IT, driving social-related tasks,
and implementing technology (Figueiredo et al., 2012; Gellweiler, 2021; The Open Group,
2018).
Business Strategy Alignment
IT architects have a strong strategic orientation. They are responsible for creating a
cohesive technology blueprint that responds to current and future business needs (Wagter et al.,
2012). They act as change agents, making and adjusting the IT strategy towards the enterprise
business strategy (Strano & Rehmani, 2007; The Open Group, 2018). Ullrich et al. (2021)

30
highlighted the importance of IT architects driving innovation in digital transformation projects
and being solid influencers. Since architecture governance is central to this role, IT architects
develop and manage architectural frameworks, policies, processes, guidelines, and standards
(Thönssen & Von Dewitz, 2018). Gellweiler (2020) investigated IT architects’ required activities
and skills in the human resources market. By applying content analysis to job advertisements, he
found that 47% of them included the activity of ensuring business strategy alignment, and 49%
included the creation and governance of architecture.
Leadership, Collaboration and Teamwork
Considering the social aspect, IT architects engage in multiple social activities when
creating architectures and detailed designs or developing and implementing a project. They take
a leadership role in strategic business/IT relationships and build relationships with business
stakeholders to advise them (Strano & Rehmani, 2007; Thönssen & Von Dewitz, 2018; Wagter
et al., 2012). They drive collaboration and teamwork in project teams and communicate with
users and stakeholders. They act as liaisons with other organizational units. They lead teams
consisting of other IT and business roles to understand the applications and services required by
the business needs and specify an optimized solution (Strano & Rehmani, 2007; The Open
Group, 2018). According to Gellweiller’s (2020) study on the IT architects’ required activities
and skills in human resources job advertisements, 46% included leading a team or a function,
and 53% required collaborating with other roles or organizational units.
Technology Implementation
From a technical perspective, IT architects specify requirements and support
implementation of technology. They focus on the technical solutions for a specific business
segment (The Open Group, 2018) and decide on the sourcing of IT products and services

31
(Wagter et al., 2012). They create and improve models for components or solutions and technical
references. They model the integration of the multiple components: products, systems, and
services (Strano & Rehmani, 2007; The Open Group, 2018). They check architecture conformity
within each project (Thönssen & Von Dewitz, 2018). Based on Gellweiller’s (2020) study on the
IT architects’ required activities and skills in human resources job advertisements, 43% included
support projects, and 41% requested create or propose designs, developments, solutions,
products, and applications.
Since IT is not only a tool but a key business enabler for delivering value nowadays, IT
architects’ play a vital role in creating and managing the alignment between IT and the business.
They are especially important in transformational projects where massive investments in IT are
required (Njanka et al., 2021; Rivard et al., 2006). Moreover, during the COVID-19 pandemic,
technology adoption was accelerated, reinforcing the importance of IT architects’ contribution to
cost optimization and innovation in all types of projects (LaBerge et al., 2020).
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation and Organization Influences
Clark and Estes’s (2008) performance gap analysis model compares actual performance
to desired performance to determine the degree to which knowledge, motivation, or the
organization’s culture, policies, and procedures inhibit the desired performance. The model aims
to help organizations take a systematic and research-proven approach to achieve desired results
(Clark & Estes, 2008). It was used in this study as an analytical framework for exploring the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors influencing IT architects’ team collaboration
in remote work in large, global IT organizations during the pandemic with the goal of improving
performance levels. The following sections describe the assumed required knowledge, skills,
motivation, and organizational support needed for IT architects, the stakeholder of focus, to

32
achieve their planned goals successfully. Under knowledge influences, this study examined what
IT architects needed to know and the skills they needed to possess to carry out a specific task or
function. Under motivational influences, it evaluated the active commitment, persistence, and
mental effort they needed to exert. Lastly, it investigated the assumed processes, resources, and
cultural impediments that prevented their progress under organizational influences.
Knowledge Influences
Stakeholders need to enhance their knowledge and skills on two occasions: when they do
not know how to accomplish their performance goals or when future challenges require them to
develop novel problem-solving skills (Clark & Estes, 2008). The changing circumstances of the
pandemic required IT architects to learn new concepts, procedures, and strategies to collaborate
virtually and meet their goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). To assess the IT architects’ needed skills
and competencies, this study used Krathwohl’s (2002) revised model of Bloom’s knowledge
taxonomy. The model proposed four knowledge types for performance evaluation purposes:
factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive. Factual knowledge indicates basic facts,
information, and terminology about a topic. Conceptual knowledge refers to an area’s categories,
principles, structure, or theory. Procedural knowledge denotes the skills and procedures involved
in a task (techniques and methods). Metacognitive knowledge reveals the ability to reflect on and
adjust one’s own thinking, involving assessing demands, planning an approach, applying
strategies and monitoring progress. Given the importance of the procedural and metacognition
knowledge types in the IT architects’ adaptation to remote work, they were the main focus of the
knowledge gap analysis.

33
Procedural Knowledge: Tools, Methodologies and Practices in Virtual Collaboration
An IT architect’s effective design requires a project team to use adequate tools and
methodologies. Agile methodology became popular in software development and project
management due to its ability to deliver lower cost, quicker delivery, and reduced risk (ConrellaDorada et al., 2020; Neumann & Bogdanov, 2022; Smite et al., 2022). Agile software
development was originally designed to guide full or partially co-located teams (ConrellaDorada et al., 2020). The pandemic forced organizations to recalibrate agile processes in several
aspects, creating the need for IT architects, as software designers and project leaders, to learn
new tools/procedures/practices and support their teams in adopting them. For example,
organizations have found the need to document the discussions in the agile informal morning
stand-up meetings that keeps the teams informed, connected, and aligned (Conrella-Dorada et al.,
2020). Also, misuse of the available technology (virtual whiteboards, instant chat, and
videoconferencing) created conflict and coordination problems in virtual projects (Ferreira et al.,
2021). Smite et al. (2022) reported that brainstorming and problem-solving sessions became
much more challenging and required people to learn how to use virtual whiteboards and dedicate
extensive time to preparing them. Although collaboration tools support collaborative interaction,
they required teams to reconsider and adjust existing norms and procedures to maintain the agile
methodology’s co-located productivity levels (Conrella-Dorada et al., 2020; Ferreira et al.,
2021).
Metacognitive Knowledge: Strategic Thinking to Adapt to Virtual Collaboration
In times of disruptive organizational changes, such as the shift to remote work during the
pandemic, people are compelled to learn and adapt quickly. Several studies have demonstrated
that having well-developed metacognitive skills help learners improve their learning and, in turn,

34
their performance (Brown et al., 1982; Pintrich, 2000; Winne & Hadwin, 1998). If IT architects
think strategically, knowing when and where as well as why and how to use learning and
problem-solving strategies, they will be able to adapt to virtual collaboration and achieve their
goals (Ambrose et al., 2010). Moreover, when leaders regularly self-regulate, monitor, and are
aware of their thoughts and help their teams do the same, there is a greater opportunity to
improve team outcomes (Kontostavlou & Drigas, 2021). Using self-assessments and personal
reflections can scale employee satisfaction and create an environment where individuals view
themselves as self-efficacious, overcoming barriers to productivity (Mulki et al., 2008). Table 2
presents the assumed knowledge influences.
Table 2
Assumed Knowledge Influences
Knowledge Type Knowledge Influence
Procedural
IT architects need to use tools,
methodologies, and practices for effective
virtual collaboration
Metacognitive IT architects need to think strategically to
adapt to virtual collaboration
Motivational Influences
Assessing key stakeholders’ motivational influences is a critical step to closing a
performance gap in the Clark and Estes’s (2008) framework. Motivation is the process whereby
a person is instigated to initiate, continue, or terminate a goal-directed behavior (Schunk et al.,
2012). Motivation is also described as reflective of three key factors: active choice, persistence,
and mental effort (Clark & Estes, 2008). Thus, for IT architects to work collaboratively in virtual
projects, they must be motivated to choose to work towards the goal, persist and not be distracted

35
during the goal pursuit, and invest the required mental effort to accomplish the goal (Clark &
Estes, 2008). These three motivational indicators determine the stakeholder’s adequacy to
achieve the goal, desire to succeed, and underlying drivers of goal pursuit (Clark & Estes, 2008).
In this study, two motivation influences were explored to target the motivation gap analysis:
collective-efficacy and affect.
Collective Efficacy: Confidence in Team’s Ability to Collaborate Virtually
IT architects need to be confident that they can collaborate virtually to achieve an IT
project’s goals. According to Bandura’s (1997, 2000) social cognitive theory, people take action
if they believe they can produce desired effects and prevent undesired ones. This concept of
personal agency is extended to collective agency when people seek outcomes that are only
achievable through a group’s interdependent efforts (Bandura, 2000). Several studies have
shown that strong collective efficacy increases group engagement and motivation (George &
Jones, 1996; Salanova et al., 2011; Xanthopoulou et al., 2007). Salanova et al. (2011) conducted
a longitudinal study using a sample of 100 university students and studied how perceived
collective efficacy influenced the vigor, dedication, and absorption of the group’s performance
over time. They found that efficacy beliefs influenced engagement through their impact on
positive affect and created a positive “spiral” that increased results over time due to engagement
and positive emotion (especially enthusiasm).
In the context of virtual teams, studies have confirmed the importance of collective
efficacy to team performance (Fuller et al., 2006; Joe et al., 2014; McLarnon & Woodley, 2021).
Based on data collected from a series of information systems virtual team projects led by
universities, Fuller et al. (2006) found that collective efficacy was shown to be predictive of
group outcomes, which positively influence team performance. They measured the group

36
outcomes construct through satisfaction with the team, satisfaction with team outcomes, and
perceptions of team outcome quality. Drawing upon social cognitive theory, Joe et al. (2014)
analyzed virtual teams from high-tech firms. They revealed that team performance is positively
related to four antecedents (i.e., team efficacy, collective outcome expectation, emotional
intelligence climate, and procedural justice climate) directly and indirectly via the mediation of
team planning.
Affect: Positive Feeling towards Virtual Team Collaboration
In the current research, emotions are defined as several coordinated psychological
processes, including affective, motivational, cognitive, expressive, and physiological aspects
(Scherer, 2009). Since they profoundly affect people’s interest in a project, motivation to persist,
and strategies to approach a task, they are vital for individual or organizational productivity and
performance (Pekrun & Linnenbrink-Garcia, 2014). Both positive and negative emotions
consume scarce cognitive resources by shifting focus from the task to be completed to the
emotional state (Meinhardt & Pekrun, 2003). While positive emotions facilitate the retrieval of
positive self-related and task-related information, negative ones support the retrieval of negative
information (Kuhbandner & Pekrun, 2013). Furthermore, positive moods promote flexible,
creative ways of solving problems, and negative moods indicate something is wrong, calling for
cautious, analytical thinking approaches (Clore & Huntsinger, 2007).
The COVID-19 pandemic social distancing and work-from-home policy triggered several
issues related to negative emotions. Chafi et al. (2022) investigated the impact of remote work on
office workers from an occupational health and wellbeing perspective. They found that they felt
emotionally exhausted from dealing with loneliness, isolation, greater cognitive stress/overload,
and anxiety. Another study reported that software engineers experienced a decrease in

37
productivity due to a lack of positive peer pressure/stimulus, isolation, and boredom (Smite et al.,
2022). IT architects need to use self-awareness to self-regulate their negative emotions towards
remote work and imprint a positive work climate in their virtual projects. They need to believe
they can be successful and be enthusiastic about interventions that will fight feelings of
loneliness, isolation, anxiety, and stress that impact team collaboration and performance. Table 3
outlines the assumed motivation influences.
Table 3
Assumed Motivation Influences
Motivation Type Motivation Influence
Collective-Efficacy
IT architects need to believe that project team
members can collaborate virtually on a
solution design
Affect IT architects need to feel positive about
collaborating on a project remotely
Organizational Influences
Organizational influences are the work processes, material resources, and cultural models
that support an organization’s goals achievement (Clark & Estes, 2008). While material
resources refer to the design and supply of tangible materials and equipment, work processes
describe the interaction of people, equipment, and materials over time to produce some desired
result (Clark & Estes, 2008). According to Schein (2017), culture is both what people say about
the organization and how people work in the organization. He also explained that culture is a
result of the behavior of individuals and divided it into three levels of visibility. From the most
visible level to the least visible, the levels are artifacts (the visual organizational structures and
processes), espoused values (strategies, goals, philosophies), and basic underlying assumptions

38
(unconscious, taken for granted beliefs, perceptions, thoughts, and feelings, ultimate source of
values and action). Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) further extrapolated the concept of culture
into cultural models and cultural settings. They defined cultural models as shared mental schema
or understandings of how the world works, including values and group dynamics, and cultural
settings as the location and occasion where people come together to carry out a joint activity that
accomplishes something they value (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001).
The remote work during the pandemic triggered several issues related to the
unavailability of technology tools, broken decision-making processes, lost frontline leaders, and
slow-moving hierarchies and bureaucracies (Smed et al., 2021). Performance problems arise
when organizations do not provide the needed tools and materials or when their policies and
procedures are not aligned with the organizational culture (Clark & Estes, 2008). Moreover,
project teams who could not be flexible enough to find new ways to collaborate experienced less
productivity and higher turnover (Smed et al., 2021). To better understand the organizational
influences affecting the IT architects’ adaptation to remote work, this section explored
challenges in work resources, work processes, cultural models, and cultural settings.
Work processes: Virtual Collaboration Processes and Practices
When facing organizational change, planned or forced by external causes, organizations
must ensure that people are equipped with work processes and resources that help them handle
the unique challenges they encounter (Clark & Estes, 2008). The unexpected COVID-19
pandemic brought drastic changes in how organizations set, coordinated, monitored, and
controlled their work activities (Faraj et al., 2021; Gonçalves et al., 2021; Klonek et al., 2022).
The shift to remote work forced rapid digitalization of traditional processes (Faraj et al., 2021)
and the remodeling of team processes (Klonek et al., 2022) to facilitate collaboration. A study

39
based on data collected from 136 human resource managers showed significant changes in work
and safety, training, communication, work organization, recruitment and selection, and
onboarding processes (Gonçalves et al., 2021).
Team processes refer to a team’s interdependent activities that accomplish their task
demands (Marks et al., 2001). Meta-analytic studies have shown that team processes directly
influence team performance and team member satisfaction (Klein et al., 2009). Using event
system theory to evaluate team collaboration processes during the pandemic, Klonek et al.
(2022) found that virtual teams find it harder to engage in high interdependent activities. In
addition, virtual teams showed better levels of team actions and conflict management at a later
stage of the pandemic compared to earlier stages, revealing an adaptation effect of team
processes. Another study reported that participants valued the communication and interaction
processes in traditional teams (i.e., face-to-face interactions) more than those in virtual teams.
All these studies reinforce the need for IT organizations to establish remote work and team
processes that facilitate IT architects’ collaboration in virtual projects.
Work resources: Standard Virtual Collaboration Tools and Training
People can be highly motivated and skilled, but without adequate processes and
resources, they will not achieve their goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). Resources are the aspects of
the job that help teams perform their tasks. Communication technology is the most intuitive
resource in virtual work (Meluso et al., 2022). Depending on the context in which the tool is used
and if the user is skilled in the use of the tool, different technologies influence individual and
team outcomes differently. The pandemic remote work required organizations to invest in virtual
collaboration tools, but several studies reported technology gaps and issues (Agren et al., 2022;
Ford et al., 2022; Meluso et al., 2022). One of the challenges was the distraction and

40
inefficiencies brought by the use of multiple tools. Team members had to familiarize themselves
with multiple tools to complete a task, focusing more on how to use the tools than actually
completing the work (Meluso et al., 2022; Whillans et al., 2021). Thus, IT architects and their
teams cannot collaborate efficiently in virtual projects without a more standard computermediated communication platform.
Another issue experienced by virtual teams was inadequate or insufficient online training
to support the use of collaboration tools in the new interaction formats (Kshirsagar et al., 2020).
Participating in a virtual meeting involves knowing both how to use a teleconferencing tool and
the practices and ground rules of a productive meeting, such as speaking clearly, not interrupting
others, and being engaged and not distracted by side conversations. Even software developers’
teams accustomed to using collaboration tools reported that training programs neglected to coach
remote work communication styles and managing individual visibility (Ford et al., 2022). IT
organizations need to provide IT architects and their teams with online training on collaboration
tools in virtual projects to enhance their skills in remote work and speed up the learning process.
Cultural Model: Trust in the Cultural Profiles
Trust is one of the key elements required for the development of team collaboration
(Garro-Abarca et al., 2021; Manea et al., 2021; Whillans et al., 2021). Bennis and Nanus (2007)
explained that trust means being predictable or reliable, even in uncertain situations. It enables an
organizational climate that is collaborative and builds team loyalty. Trust maintains social
exchange, breaking down silos and isolated behaviors (Hughes et al., 2018). When employees
trust their team colleagues and supervisors, they are more likely to engage in risk-taking and
innovative behavior aimed at exceeding task demands (Mayer et al., 1995). Several studies have
reported that trust influences job satisfaction, team performance, organizational performance,

41
and the leader’s perceived effectiveness (Ford et al, 2022; Garro-Abarca et al., 2021; Hughes et
al., 2018; Sarker et al., 2011).
Trust in virtual teams is more difficult to establish and maintain since distance adds
communication challenges (heavily dependent on communication technologies), and connections
among team members take longer to be set (Bergiel et al., 2008; Ferreira et al., 2021 MorrisonSmith & Ruiz, 2020). This issue requires IT organizations to encourage trust-building in virtual
teams to help IT architects improve solution design collaboration and creativity. Garro-Abarca et
al. (2021) demonstrated that software developers’ team performance is determined by trust,
which is influenced by the level of communication, leadership, cohesion, and empowerment of
team members. They also highlighted the importance of organizations considering trust when
designing their initiatives to strengthen leadership, communication, and team cohesion. In
another study, Morrison-Smith and Ruiz (2021) conducted a literature review on virtual teams’
challenges and barriers. They concluded that organizations should also consider sponsoring
occasional face-to-face interactions to accelerate and strengthen relationships within the group,
promoting mutual trust and understanding.
Cultural Settings: Alignment of Goals and Incentives in a Team Project
The core beliefs of an organization’s culture should guide the definition of
goals, incentives, policies, and procedures to ensure the alignment between culture and
organizational behavior and avoid performance issues (Clark & Estes, 2008). If there is
misalignment between the broader organizational goals and the team goals or among team
members’ goals, conflicts can harm the team’s work climate, collaboration, and performance
(Schneider et al., 1996). In virtual teams, where wrong expectations or misalignments are more
difficult to detect, goals and incentives must be clearly set, communicated, and reinforced

42
(Morrison-Smith & Ruiz, 2020). In a study of 317 virtual software developers during the
pandemic, Garro-Abarca et al. (2021) found that intragroup cohesion positively influenced team
performance. One of their suggestions was for managers to use economic incentives to reward
those more strongly involved with the group’s tasks. After analyzing 48 studies on how
teamwork design impacts a virtual team’s functioning, Handke et al. (2020) emphasized the
importance of offering incentives (monetary or not) to drive collective outputs over individual
contributions. In summary, to help IT architects enhance collaboration in virtual teams, IT
organizations need to promote alignment of goals and expectations within a group and reward
expected behaviors and performance. Table 4 summarizes the assumed organizational influences.
Table 4
Assumed Organizational Influences
Organizational Influence Type Organizational Influence
Work Resources
The organization needs to provide a computermediated communication platform for IT
architects to collaborate remotely
Work Processes
The organization needs to establish remote work
processes to facilitate IT architects’ social
connections in virtual teams
Cultural Models
Trust culture: The organization needs to foster trustbuilding to help IT architects boost solution
design collaboration and creativity in virtual
teams
Cooperative culture: The organization needs to
encourage IT architects to share skills and effort
to enhance collaboration in virtual teams
Cultural Settings
Cultural setting: The organization needs to promote
alignment of goals and incentives to help IT
architects increase collaboration in virtual teams

43
Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework provides an understanding of the relationships between the
concepts, assumptions, expectations, beliefs, and theories that support and inform a study
(Maxwell, 2013). It is a combination of previous research (theoretical and empirical) with
personal experience to guide the research design of the phenomenon being studied (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018). Furthermore, it reveals the researcher’s perspectives and vantage points in how
they will approach and seek meaning through the studies they conduct (Maxwell, 2013). Thus,
the conceptual framework allows the researcher to understand central concepts that bring their
research together and serves as the outline to guide a well-planned study (Maxwell, 2013).
Informed by extensive literature and supported by Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis model,
this study’s conceptual framework explored how knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences affected IT architects’ team collaboration in remote work in large, global IT
organizations during the pandemic with the goal of improving performance levels. Figure 1
illustrates the conceptual framework with the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences of focus and their interconnectedness.

44
Figure 1
Conceptual Framework
At the center of the conceptual framework, in the orange circle, is the stakeholder goal
that all IT architects will improve project teams’ performance, restoring prior pandemic
performance levels at a minimum. The influences affecting the IT architects’ team collaboration
are nested around the stakeholder goal in the grey circle. The arrows indicate that knowledge and
motivational influences are interrelated, and both affect team collaboration. The assumed and
assessed knowledge influences were procedural and metacognition, and the assumed and
assessed motivational influences were collective efficacy and affect. Highlighted in the blue
circle, under IT organizations’ influences, are the cultural and material resources that the IT
organizations need to put in place for stakeholders to collaborate effectively and achieve their
goals.

45
Conclusion
Remote work has been evolving for decades, providing more flexible and cost-effective
work arrangements (Chudoba et al., 2005; Handke et al., 2020). Nevertheless, despite the
availability of advanced technologies, collaboration challenges in virtual teams, such as
weakened social relationships, constrained knowledge sharing, difficulties in communication,
poor management, and misalignment of goals and incentives, continued to linger (Allen et al.,
2015; Bergiel et al., 2008; Ferreira et al., 2021; Morrison-Smith & Ruiz, 2020; Olson & Olson,
2006; Rico & Cohen, 2005). The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated this trend, forcing an
unprecedented shift to full remote work, amplifying known challenges, and creating new ones.
Knowledge workers in IT companies experienced siloed work, less collaboration, little creativity,
fewer innovations, and reduced productivity while working on virtual project teams (Agren et al.,
2022; Ford et al., 2022; Neumann & Bogdanov, 2022). In addition, the increased demand for IT
projects pressured IT architects to adapt to a new environment and reinforced their critical role in
digital projects as both technical and people leaders (LaBerge et al., 2020; Njanka et al., 2021).
This dissertation explored the collaboration challenges faced by IT architects in large, global IT
organizations as they adapted to remote work during the pandemic. Using a conceptual
framework supported by Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis model, this study investigated the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that inhibited IT architects’ team
collaboration with the goal of improving project teams’ performance and restoring prior
pandemic levels. Moreover, this study offers new insights for organizations to evaluate their
current remote work challenges and reimagine work arrangements that will enable their project
teams to succeed and thrive.

46
Chapter Three: Methodology
The purpose of this study was to understand the collaboration challenges faced by IT
architects during the COVID-19 pandemic. The study uncovered how IT architects adapted to
changes to lead IT projects in unprecedented conditions. Chapter Three outlines the research
methodology. First, the research questions guiding the study are restated, and then an overview
of the study’s design is provided. Next, a declaration of the researcher’s positionality specific to
this inquiry is presented, followed by a description of the data sources considered and the
targeted participants. Right after, the chapter reports on the instruments administered for data
collection and the data collection procedures used. Lastly, the data analysis structure is outlined,
along with the measures to ensure credibility and trustworthiness, as well as appropriate ethical
considerations for the safety and confidentiality of the participants.
Research Questions
In order to understand how remote work affected IT architects’ team collaboration during
the COVID-19 pandemic, the following research questions guided this study:
1. What was the role of knowledge in the IT architects’ adaptation to remote work
collaboration during the pandemic?
2. What was the role of motivation in the IT architects’ adaptation to remote work
collaboration during the pandemic?
3. What organizational factors influenced the IT architects’ collaborative efforts to
improve team performance during the pandemic?
Overview of Methodology
This research study used a qualitative design approach to explore the problem of practice.
Creswell and Creswell (2018) described qualitative research as a method to understand the

47
meaning individuals or groups attribute to a social or human problem, such as the remote work
collaboration challenges faced by IT architects’ during the pandemic. Additionally, this
investigation adopted a phenomenological inquiry strategy to explain the lived experiences of IT
architects on the pandemic remote work phenomenon through their perspectives (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018). Using semi-structured interviews, the study assessed the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational factors influencing the participants’ remote work team
collaboration during the pandemic, incorporating their emerging views (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). Moreover, documents collected from institutional reports and organizational and social
media artifacts supported the design and findings of the interviews (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Through purposeful sampling, 10 senior IT architects from large, global IT companies
were recruited for the interviews. The interviews were conducted once the dissertation proposal
was defended and the University of Southern California (USC) Institutional Review Board (IRB)
approval was granted. The interview questions were based on three research questions, and the
assumed KMO influences of the conceptual framework. Interviews were transcribed, and their
content analyzed, using third-party software. Once the interviews were completed, transcribed,
and the statements’ accuracy verified by the participants, interview content was digitally coded
to distill participant meanings and perceptions. Measures to ensure credibility and
trustworthiness were observed during data analysis. Following ethical considerations, each
participant’s identity and organization were kept confidential, and all data collected during the
process was stored on an encrypted external drive to ensure security (Glesne, 2011). Table 5
displays the data sources for each research question in this study.

48
Table 5
Data Sources
Research Questions Documents Semi-Structured
Interviews
RQ1: What was the role of knowledge in the IT architects’
adaptation to remote work collaboration during the
pandemic?
X X
RQ2: What was the role of motivation in the IT architects’
adaptation to remote work collaboration during the
pandemic?
X X
RQ3: What organizational factors influenced IT architects’
collaborative efforts to improve team performance? X X
The Researcher
For over 30 years, I have worked in the IT industry providing services to help
organizations solve complex business problems. Most of my career was spent in a large, global
IT organization where social connections within and across units were key to effective project
collaboration. Having worked for several years in a company office building with more than
2500 people, from the lens of a woman in a male-dominated environment, I learned how formal
and informal interactions were enacted to build team collaboration. Additionally, my background
in leadership positions overlooking operations in different countries provided me insights into
managing cross-cultural virtual teams. Due to the mandatory remote work during the COVID-19
pandemic, organizations reported erosion of social capital, weakened collaboration, and mixed
results on productivity and performance (Chafi et al., 2022; Ferreira et al., 2021; Ford et al.,
2022; Morrison-Smith & Ruiz, 2020; Smite et al., 2022; Yang et al., 2022; Zuzul et al., 2021).
Considering that, my starting point was to uncover how remote work affected IT architects’ team
collaboration since they play a critical role in an IT project’s success, and I assumed that virtual

49
teams working most of the time remotely are not as productive as teams collaborating face-toface.
Although I knew some of the interview participants, I was positioned to all participants as
a researcher and graduate student from the University of Southern California. Nonetheless, my
positionality as a woman in IT and the assumptions derived from my prior experience influenced
this study. Locke et al. (2010) noted that one’s social relationships and beliefs have an influence
on the research conducted. Moreover, I have a blind spot in understanding how full remote work
impacted IT projects in large, global IT organizations since I was no longer working for one
during the pandemic. Therefore, to ensure the highest research credibility and ethicality
standards, I used the following Creswell and Creswell (2018) strategies to mitigate biases:
present biases and assumptions, apply member checking to ensure interview accuracy, use
detailed and rich descriptions to reveal the findings, and report evidence that is favorable and
contrary to the formulated hypothesis.
Data Sources
This qualitative field study used two data sources to extract insightful information for the
study’s problem of practice: semi-structured interviews and document analysis (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). Semi-structured interviews were conducted to collect the narrations of IT
architects’ challenges during the pandemic while assuring focus on guiding questions and a more
uniform approach across participants (Patton, 2002). Documents such as organizational press
releases and reports, and social media information were reviewed for several purposes. They
provided contextual data, contributed with historical understanding, verified the emerging
hypothesis, and offered comparative analysis (Bowen, 2009; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).

50
Interviews
Semi-structured interviews provide a balance between structured interviews, which elicit
forced choices to pre-determined survey questions, and unstructured interviews also called
informal conversations (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The study’s semi-structured interviews
predefined a set of challenges, the assumed KMO influences in the conceptual framework, to be
examined with each participant while allowing their perspectives and experiences to emerge
during the conversation. Given the phenomenological exploration intended, this approach was
crucial to ensuring that all pre-selected relevant topics regarding the IT architects’ collaboration
challenges were covered and documented in the interview for future analysis (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018).
Participants
The target population of this study was IT architects from large, global IT companies
selected through purposeful sampling. Purposeful sampling allows the researcher to choose
participants or sites that best provide in-depth and detailed information about the phenomenon
under investigation (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Experienced senior IT architects were targeted
to ensure a more precise and comprehensive testimonial of IT organizations’shift to remote work
phenomenon. The recruited participants had to fulfill the following conditions to be part of the
study: have at least 10 years of experience, have at least five years in the company, previously
worked in person 50% of the time before the pandemic, previously worked 80% of the time
remotely in 2020 and 2021, and be located in the United States. The initial sample size of 10
participants was reached after a few weeks through the use of a snowball recruitment process or
network sampling. In this approach, the researcher leveraged her professional network to identify
potential candidates who met the criteria. After recruiting them, each participant then identified

51
colleagues who also met the criteria and referred them for participation. This process continued
until a total of ten participants were reached.
Instrumentation
The semi-structured interview protocol (Appendix A) developed for this study consisted
of three parts, each designed for Zoom videoconference delivery. Following ethical
considerations, the first part was a brief introduction that explained the study and interview
objectives, assured participant confidentiality, and offered clarification to participants’ questions.
The second part comprised 14 interview questions, in addition to probes, each aligned with a
research question and an assumed influence outlined in the conceptual framework. The interview
questions employed techniques suggested by Patton (2002) to guide the design of a script that
enabled rich, qualitative conversations. The third part was a conclusion that thanked participants’
contribution and invited them to share any unvoiced information via email. This semi-formal
methodology was appropriate to elicit unique, contextual information specific to each
participant’s circumstances.
Data Collection Procedures
Before the research participants were purposively recruited, remote work documents
were reviewed to enrich the interview design. Additionally, a pilot test study was conducted
among ineligible IT architects from a small Brazilian IT company to ensure the interview
protocol content validity. Upon successfully recruiting the targeted sample, the participants’
organizational affiliations were documented along with demographic and professional
information. Once the sample was confirmed, rigorous data collection measures were
implemented to ensure research credibility and trustworthiness.

52
The interviews were conducted through virtual meetings over a period of 30 days. A
sixty-minute time limit was observed to respect the time and demands of a senior IT architect.
The participants received an invitation email asking if they would agree to participate in an
interview. Following ethical considerations, this email described how the interviews would be
conducted, how data would be maintained, the voluntary nature of participation, that they could
cease their participation at any point of the interview, and that all collected data would be kept
confidential and securely maintained (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Those agreeing to participate received a subsequent formal invitation for scheduling and
documentation purposes. Each session was conducted and recorded using the Zoom online
meeting platform. The Otter.ai transcript services were used to transcribe the recorded audios
and support a detailed analysis of the conversations. Before analysis began, the participants were
given a copy of their interview transcripts for review and editing to ensure the accuracy of the
online interviews (Meriam & Tisdale, 2016). At the end of interviews and upon the return of a
reviewed transcript, a thank you note was sent to the participant, thanking them for their valuable
contribution.
Documents
Documents are another data source used in qualitative research. They are often used in
combination with other data sources as a confluence of evidence to build credibility (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). Document analysis may use large data sets of pre-collected and processed data
from government or private organizations, offering a broader scope of high-quality information
(Boslaugh, 2010). This study gathered documents of three natures. Before the interviews, studies
on remote work during the pandemic were reviewed to provide background and context to the
interviews’ design and ideas for the questions. Also, LinkedIn profiles of all participants were

53
reviewed in preparation for the interviews. After the interviews, publicly available documents
discussing the remote and hybrid work strategies of the participants’ companies were analyzed to
offer supplementary research data and enable comparisons with the participants’ emerging views.
Instrumentation
The instrumentation included a document registration log (Appendix B), and a company
data sheet (Appendix C). Each provided the flexibility needed to organize the data so that the
qualitative research parts, namely, data collection, data analysis, and findings reporting, could all
happen simultaneously to allow patterns and themes to emerge (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). In
the same way, each instrument was designed to highlight the conceptual framework, gather
relevant data, verify findings, and follow standards of rigor.
Each document reviewed was registered as part of the study using a registration master
log (Appendix B) containing information about its authenticity (origin, authorship, and creation
and retrieval date) and content description (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The master log indexed
individual documents for quick reference during data analysis and was essential to the study’s
data audit trail (Lincoln et al., 1985). The IT companies’ work strategies were registered using a
registration sheet (Appendix C). The registration sheet included the KMO influences depicted in
the company’s documents and a cross-matching with the company’s participants’ emerged
views. This approach facilitated validating the KMO factors assumed in the conceptual
framework as well as interpreting the participants’ narratives.
Document Collection Procedures
Relevant documents related to remote work collaboration during the pandemic were
collected before the interviews to provide context and ideas for the interview design. In addition,
once the study participants were selected, publicly available documents about their companies’

54
work strategies were obtained. All the documents were registered individually on a master log to
strengthen the study’s audit trail. The companies’ materials were then screened to code
knowledge, motivation and organizational influences characterizing each company’s work
strategies. This information enabled organizational contextualization and two crucial frames of
reference. First, a frame against which the assumed influences for IT architects in large, global IT
organizations could be validated. Second, a way by which participants’ narratives and insights
could be verified (Bowen, 2009; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Data Analysis
This study’s data analysis aimed to discover, understand and gain insight into the
pandemic remote work through the lived experiences of IT architects (Creswell & Creswell,
2018). The data collected from the interviews and documents was analyzed to increase
descriptive richness (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Creswell and Creswell’s (2018) data analysis
recommendations were followed. The participants’ narratives were transcribed using Otter.ai
software, and the data analysis was conducted using Atlas.ti software. The latter allowed for
content searching, concept linkage, and mapping of emerging themes. Prior to the analysis, a
codebook focused on the conceptual framework’s assumed influences was developed in the tool.
Additional empirical codes were added as the data set was analyzed. Furthermore, analytic tools
and strategies recommended by Corbin and Strauss (2008) were considered, such as questioning,
paying attention to expressed emotions, and thinking in terms of metaphors and similes. The
textual data collected from the companies’ documents were analyzed using content analysis. The
themes that emerged from the analysis of the interviews and the documents were assessed on two
levels. First, the evaluation explored themes emerging from comparing a participant’s interview
with their company’s data at an individual level. Second, the evaluation examined themes across

55
the participants’ companies at an organizational level. Throughout the analysis process, analytic
memos were written to note the researcher’s reflexivity (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Credibility and Trustworthiness
This study used four strategies to maximize credibility and trustworthiness. First, the
study adopted an interactive review process with peers, faculty, and dissertation committee
during all its phases, as suggested by Merriam and Tisdell (2016). Second, triangulation of data
from qualitative interviews and historical documents was used to compare and converge
information from different sources, improving internal validity (Creswell & Creswell, 2018;
Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The third strategy used was member checking, as described by
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The researcher followed the suggested process and shared major
findings and key themes with the participants, allowing them to check the preliminary findings
accuracy and provide feedback. Lastly, the fourth strategy pursued was to use detailed, thick
descriptions to portray and illustrate the research findings, enabling the reader to be transported
to the research context. Vivid descriptions of the actors and setting, supported with quotes,
provide a solid scaffold for comparison and transferability (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Merriam
& Tisdell, 2016).
Ethics
The researcher conducted qualitative research in an effort to gather individual, unique
thoughts and perspectives from employees of the organization (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Direct
interviews were the primary source of data collection. Hence, it was imperative to consider
ethical issues in all phases of the research to develop a study with solid ethical practices
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Ensuring the safety of the participants, the study was submitted
and approved by the University of Southern California Institutional Review Board (IRB). All

56
IRB rules and guidelines regarding study participant protocol were followed throughout this
study. Prior to initiating dialogue with the participants, a study information sheet was provided to
the participants, articulating the purpose of the research, clarifying that participation was
voluntary and that all interview discussions were kept confidential and securely maintained
(Glesne, 2011). The researcher addressed biases and preconceived perceptions while analyzing
and reporting data from the interviews and created a specific interview guide in order to ask a
consistent, standard set of questions for each interview. No coercion or provision of monetary
gifts was provided as a means to collect data.

57
Chapter Four: Findings
The purpose of this study was to understand how remote work affected IT architects’
team collaboration in large, global IT companies that shifted to full remote work due to the
COVID-19 pandemic. Using Clark and Estes’s (2008) framework, the study investigated the
knowledge, motivation and organizational factors influencing IT architects’ adaptation to remote
work and their impact on team performance and project success. This chapter focuses on the
findings emerging from the analysis of semi-structured interviews conducted with 10 senior IT
architects, along with relevant artifact documents from their respective organizations publicly
sourced. The research questions were:
4. What is the role of knowledge in the IT architects’ adaptation to remote work
collaboration?
5. What is the role of motivation in the IT architects’ adaptation to remote work
collaboration?
6. What organizational factors influence the IT architects’ collaborative efforts to improve
team performance?
This chapter focuses on the findings emerging from the analysis of semi-structured
interviews conducted with 10 senior IT architects, along with relevant artifact documents from
their respective organizations.
Participants
The study involved 10 participants, who were assigned numbers from one to ten for
confidentiality purposes. The participants were part of three different large global IT
organizations, labeled from one to three, and the affiliation of each participant was not disclosed.
These participants brought a wealth of experience in the IT industry. Table 6 shows that years in

58
the IT industry ranged from 20 to 34 years, and participants had significant experience in IT
architecture, with a minimum of 10 years. Their roles were divided into Global and Local (U.S.
nationwide) positions, with six participants working in a Local role and the remaining in a
Global role. While Global roles were internally oriented, dealing with team management and
remote project support, Local roles were externally focused, with participants interacting directly
with clients.
Table 6
Participants’ Tenure and Role Characteristics
Participant Years in IT IT Architect
Experiencea
Global / Local
Role
Client-facing
Role
Participant 1 20 11 Global No
Participant 2 24 17 Local Yes
Participant 3 18 10 Global No
Participant 4 30 19 Global No
Participant 5 28 26 Local Yes
Participant 6 26 18 Local Yes
Participant 7 34 28 Local Yes
Participant 8 26 11 Local Yes
Participant 9 20 12 Global No
Participant 10 34 23 Local Yes
Note. a
The “IT Architect Experience” column includes several types of roles related to
information technology design and consulting.
The participants were part of three different large global IT organizations. Table 7
provides a glimpse into the participants’ years within their organizations and the rapidly

59
changing landscape of their work dynamics due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants’
tenures varied widely, ranging from 1.5 to 29.5 years within their respective organizations.
Before the pandemic, their remote work schedules differed significantly, going from mainly inperson to fully remote. At the onset of the pandemic, all participants shifted to fully remote
working environments. Post-pandemic, most transitioned to a primarily remote model or
included client visits, reflecting a broader shift towards more adaptable and flexible work
arrangements across the participants’ organizations.
Table 7
Interview Participants’ Years in Organization, and Remote Work Characteristics
Remote Work
Participant Years in
Organization
Pre-Pandemic During the
Pandemic
Post-Pandemic
Participant 1 4,5 Mostly in-person Fully remote Mostly remote
Participant 2 1,5 Both remote and
visiting clients Fully remote Remote except for
client visits
Participant 3 21,5 Fully remote Fully remote Fully remote
Participant 4 29,5 Both remote and inperson Fully remote Mostly remote
Participant 5 2 Both at client site
and remote Fully remote Remote except for
client visits
Participant 6 1,5 Both remote and
visiting clients Fully remote Remote except for
client visits
Participant 7 2 Mostly in-person Fully remote Remote except for
client visits
Participant 8 7 Both remote and
visiting clients Fully remote Remote except for
client visits
Participant 9 10 Mostly in-person Fully remote Remote except for
client visits
Participant 10 1,5 Mostly at client site Fully remote Remote except for
client visits

60
Evaluation of Assumed Needs
The assumed KMO needs described previously in the literature review were categorized
as validated, not validated, or partially validated, depending on the analysis of interview data and
artifacts. In the case of interview data, an assumed need was considered validated if more than
50% (six or more) of the participants expressed support for it. Conversely, if more than 50% (six
or more) of the participants did not support the assumed need, it was deemed not valid. When
considering various contexts or aspects raised by the participants, the assumed need was
considered partially validated if both conditions were met. Examining documents, when two or
more organizations supported the assumed need, it was evaluated as valid. In contrast, when two
or more organizations supported the assumed need, it was classified as not valid. For assumed
needs evaluated using both interview and document analysis methods, validation was achieved
when both methods provided support. If neither method supported the need, it was not validated.
When both methods differed in their evaluation, the need was partially validated. The following
table presents a summary of these criteria.

61
Table 8
Thresholds and Conditions for the Validation of the Assumed Needs
Thresholds / Conditions
Validation Interviews Documents Interviews and
Documents
Validated
When six or more
participants supported
the assumed need.
When two or more
organizations
supported the
assumed need.
When both validated
the assumed need.
Not Validated
When six or more
participants did not
support the assumed
need.
When two or more
organizations do
not support the
assumed need.
When both did not
validate the
assumed need.
Partially Validated
When both above
conditions occurred
due to various contexts
or aspects raised by the
participants.
Not applicable When both methods
differed in their
evaluation.
Furthermore, not every assumed need was validated by both methods of data collection.
As shown in Table 9, while all needs were evaluated using interview data, document analysis
was conducted for six assumed needs: procedural knowledge need, the affection motivational
need, and tools, processes, and culture organizational needs. The document analysis relied on
publicly available sources from the three companies, such as social media communications,
executive interviews, and reports, described in Appendix B. These sources primarily conveyed
the companies’ directions regarding return-to-the-office or hybrid work policies, with a few
reports providing deeper insights into their strategies. Due to the nature of the available
information and the confidentiality considerations of this study, the document analysis validated
assumed needs at a higher level without disclosing specific details. The following section
explores the findings for the first research question.

62
Table 9
Techniques Used to Validate Each Assumed Need
Assumed Need Sub-Category Interview Document
Analysis
Knowledge Influences
IT architects need to learn tools, methodologies,
and practices for effective virtual collaboration Procedural X X
IT architects need to think strategically to adapt to
virtual projects Metacognitive X
Motivation Influences
IT architects need to believe project team members
can collaborate virtually on a solution design
Collective
Efficacy X
IT architects need to feel positive about
collaborating on a project remotely Affect X X
Organizational Influences
The organization needs to provide a computermediated communication platform for IT
architects to collaborate remotely
Work
Resources X X
The organization needs to establish remote work
processes and policies to facilitate IT architects’
social connections in virtual teams
Work
Processes X X
The organization needs to foster trust-building to
help IT architects boost solution design
collaboration and creativity in virtual teams
Cultural
Model X X
The organization needs to encourage IT architects
to share skills and effort to enhance
collaboration in virtual teams
Cultural
Model X
The organization needs to promote alignment of
goals and incentives to help IT architects
increase collaboration in virtual teams
Cultural
Settings X
Findings for Research Question 1
The first research question focused on how knowledge influenced IT architects’
adaptation to remote work. Two assumed knowledge needs were selected to answer this research

63
question. First, to investigate the influence of procedural knowledge, IT architects need to learn
tools, methodologies, and practices for effective virtual collaboration. Second, to explore the
influence of metacognitive knowledge, IT architects need to think strategically to adapt to virtual
projects. The findings revealed that the procedural knowledge need was not validated, and the
metacognitive need was partially validated, as summarized in Table 10. A detailed analysis of
the findings for each assumed need is outlined next.
Table 10
Findings of Assumed Knowledge Needs
Knowledge Needs Sub-Category Validated Not
Validated
Partially
Validated
IT architects need to learn tools,
methodologies, and practices for
effective virtual collaboration.
Procedural X
IT architects need to think strategically
to adapt to virtual projects. Metacognitive X
Assumed Knowledge Need 1 - IT architects Need to Learn Tools, Methodologies, and
Practices for Effective Virtual Collaboration (Not Validated)
Procedural knowledge encompasses the skills and procedures involved in a task. For IT
architects to effectively fulfill their roles as IT solution designers and project leaders, they must
possess knowledge of the essential tools, methodologies, and practices required for their work
and for guiding their teams. The findings indicated that this assumed knowledge need was not
validated. IT architects were already familiar with and used remote work methodologies,
methods prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Moreover, they were used to remote work tools and
learned new tools and skills to facilitate virtual collaboration. Nevertheless, the adaption process
to full remote work required IT architects to navigate several challenges.

64
Finding 1 - IT Architects Already Knew Virtual Collaboration Methodologies and Methods
All ten participants shared that they already embraced methodologies and methods that
promoted virtual collaboration before the pandemic. Participant 5 emphasized the advantage of
their geographically dispersed teams already employing work product-driven methods, which
facilitated collaboration by focusing on tangible deliverables and streamlining team
contributions, “There are formal handoffs, so they’re good methods, methodologies, for different
teams to work on together because you kind of work on your piece.” Similarly, Participant 3
highlighted that agile methodologies and their design thinking process provided structured
exercises and templates that fostered collaboration, “There are many different types of exercises
and templates that go along with a design thinking process.” Moreover, Participant 4 mentioned
his company’s well-established solution design method, which enhanced virtual collaboration by
providing a common framework and shared understanding among team members, “It’s a method
that all architects are trained on... we have a definition for all the work products. So, it helps a lot
in a virtual environment.” These examples illustrate the methodologies and methods IT architects
already knew to facilitate virtual collaboration. Nevertheless, they had to adapt to new tools and
practices introduced during the pandemic.
Finding 2 - IT Architects Enhanced their Skills in Virtual Collaboration Tools
All participants acknowledged the benefits of already being familiar with virtual tools. In
addition, seven mentioned acquiring new tools and skills. Participant 1 highlighted the array of
tools, such as Chime, Zoom, Microsoft Teams, and WebEx, already being used for remote
collaboration before the pandemic and the adoption of whiteboarding tools during the pandemic.
Participant 4 noted that his company already embraced market tools for collaboration such as
Mural, Trello, and WebEx, stating, “Maybe ten years ago… We started to replace our internal

65
tools with market tools that help collaboration.” Participant 9 reflected on the initial struggle and
eventual adaptation to full remote work, noting the blurring of personal and professional
boundaries, as well as the evolution of skills and comfort with virtual tools, “People will
[continue to] acquire skills and get used to the way that we use tools... I don’t think we will ever
go back to a moment where we will need to be 100% physically together.” Participant 10
emphasized the effectiveness of Microsoft Teams’ well-integrated features adopted by his
company during the pandemic. These statements suggest that IT architects had been adapting to
new tools and improving their proficiency even before the COVID-19 pandemic, leading to
enhanced collaboration experiences over time.
Training played a vital role in equipping IT architects with the necessary skills for
effective virtual collaboration. Participant 8 emphasized their proactive approach to education
and enablement during the pandemic, “I took over almost 600 hours of education... when I did
have gaps in my day… I filled it with ok, how do I learn as much as I can about this client
using… all that virtual selling?” Participant 10 organized internal presentations to educate his
team about new technologies and opportunities, while Participant 4 praised his company’s
proactive approach to training and support by saying:
So, my company in these aspects is very, very quick, very keen and came up with a plan
to put everything in place so people could collaborate. Ways of helping people really get
used to the tools. So, for every collaboration tool you had a way to do this, some office
hours from the SMEs [subject matter experts], really to help people get rid of doubts that
they had about using the tools. So, I believe that the company itself, the corporation itself
did a good job of providing people with the correct enablement and the correct support
and comfort to go through the pandemic.

66
These initiatives demonstrate the efforts made by both individuals and organizations to provide
support and create a collaborative environment for IT architects to successfully adapt and
succeed. Despite the efforts, they experienced several challenges during this process.
Finding 3 - IT Architects Encountered Challenges in Adopting New Tools and Practices
Participants also shed light on several challenges they encountered while adopting new
virtual collaboration tools and practices. Participant 5 underscored the challenges arising from a
lack of agreement with clients on methods and technology, stating, “With the clients, it’s like
you ran into a brick wall. We really want to be physically in the room with the client.” He also
noted that disagreements on methods or unfamiliarity with the tools being used could lead to
technological problems. Additionally, he highlighted the limitations of virtual tools, particularly
in activities like drawing diagrams and working with networks, where physical collaboration
offers more flexibility and ease. Technical glitches, connectivity problems, and varying
proficiency levels with collaboration tools were mentioned as further barriers to effective virtual
collaboration.
Another challenge emerged in the form of limitations with available whiteboarding tools.
Participant 1 noted that while the overall project duration remained unaffected, the length of
meetings increased due to struggles with tools and whiteboarding. He stated, “Sometimes people
need to whiteboard directly, and they schedule 30 minutes, and 30 minutes is not enough because
people will struggle with the tools brutally.” Similarly, Participant 9 acknowledged the
usefulness of productivity solutions but also expressed the limitation of virtual whiteboarding
compared to physical interaction. He remarked, “None of these tools can replace that we would
all be in the same room, discussing at the same time physically, using a physical whiteboard.”

67
The limitations of virtual collaboration tools in replicating the efficiency and immediacy of faceto-face interactions impacted the speed at which good results could be achieved.
Document Analysis
The documents confirmed that all three organizations had existing virtual methodologies,
methods, and tools during the pandemic outbreak, which facilitated their employees’ transition to
full remote work. Organization 1 extended its remote work infrastructure to thousands of
employees to balance the demands of business continuity and the company’s culture, even with
employees physically separated. The organization’s CIO reported that his approach centered on
optimizing existing tools and processes that had proven effective, prioritizing agility over the
introduction of entirely new systems. The emphasis was placed on creating a seamless remote
work experience, leveraging established Software as a Service (SaaS) tools and technologies.
Furthermore, he advised fellow technology leaders to adopt tools that aligned with modern work
methods, emphasizing agility as a key factor in enabling remote work effectively. He also
suggested investments in technology that would enable employees to adapt to new tools
independently and without apprehension.
Similarly, Organization 2 indicated providing cloud applications and services such as
video conferencing, messaging platforms, cloud storage, and VPNs to support employees and
clients with virtual collaboration tools. It also highlighted the use of tools designed with intuitive
interfaces and ease of use, requiring minimal support for training and onboarding. Organization
3, on the other hand, revamped its technology platform to align it with a “digital-first” vision.
Employees had to embrace a new suite of collaboration tools designed to enhance individual
engagement in meetings, idea sharing, and global interactions. As the three organizations

68
accumulated substantial knowledge in remote work, they adapted internally and offered their
remote work platforms and services to clients.
In conclusion, IT architects already knew and used remote work methodologies, methods,
and tools and acquired new skills to adapt to full remote work, not validating the procedural
knowledge assumed need. The interviews and document analysis revealed that they streamlined
work, promoted agility, and ensured alignment using previous knowledge on virtual
methodologies and methods. Additionally, the adoption of new tools facilitated communication
and task management, while training initiatives empowered them to improve their skills.
Throughout the process, they faced challenges related to clients’ nonstandard practices and tools,
virtual tools limitations, and technological issues, which required innovative approaches and
ongoing support. They had to adapt continuously to evolving client demands and toolsets,
showcasing their adaptability and resilience while using their expertise and available resources to
promote virtual collaboration. Finally, all three organizations recognized the importance of
virtual collaboration, adapted their platforms, and extended services to clients.
Assumed Knowledge Need 2 - IT architects Need to Think Strategically to Adapt to Virtual
Projects (Partially Validated)
Metacognitive knowledge reveals the ability to reflect on and adjust one’s own thinking,
involving assessing demands, planning an approach, applying strategies and monitoring progress
(Krathwohl, 2002). If IT architects think strategically and use self-regulation, they can adapt,
achieve goals, and improve team outcomes. The participants demonstrated metacognitive ability
when creating effective strategies for virtual collaboration. Moreover, they used self-regulation
to assess goals and adapt to full remote work. However, they acknowledged the need for IT

69
architects to improve their soft skills. Since two findings did not support the assumed need and
one confirmed it, this assumed need was partially validated.
Finding 1 - IT Architects Demonstrated Metacognitive Ability When Creating Strategies for
Virtual Collaboration
The concept of metacognitive awareness is not commonly known. The interview question
and probes regarding strategic thinking skills were answered by all participants with the
strategies they created and implemented to adapt to a fully remote work environment. While the
investigated concept might not have been explicitly discussed, the participants approached the
question by combining their understanding of cognitive processes, interpersonal dynamics, and
organizational culture to devise effective methods for virtual collaboration. With that
consideration, the responses of all participants reflected their ability to think strategically and
adapt.
For example, Participant 3 used a problem-solving technique to address a challenge:
I do a SWOT analysis. What are your strengths, weakness, opportunities, and threats? So,
when you have a situation like this, what are the opportunities? … We wanted to increase
the morale. We wanted to increase the engagement of people… Employees love to be
recognized. They [recognitions] can come in many different forms.
The quote indicates that he demonstrated awareness of the need to increase the teams’ morale
and engagement in a remote work context and suggested different recognition strategies to deal
with the issue. Participants 4 and 9 provide another example. Upon facing transparency and
openness issues, they implemented one-on-one conversations with team members, indicating that
their actions stemmed from a reflective thinking process to solve a problem. Participant 4 shared,
“I really had a one-to-one with everybody … this is how we open up with more transparency,

70
and people can be truthful… I established this virtual mode where I could be very, very close to
each one.” Although the focus is on communication and support, the participant demonstrated
awareness of the need to create a safe space for individuals to express their feelings and identify
roadblocks, suggesting a metacognitive understanding of the relationship between emotional
well-being and cognitive performance.
Participant 1 described the challenges of mentoring individuals who were hired during
the pandemic and were onboarded in a virtual environment by stating, “I had to walk them
through the internal tools. I had to schedule a lot of virtual coffees with members of other
teams… Make an intro connecting dots... Yeah, the team had a kind of a reboot.” By showing an
awareness of the importance of connecting information, sharing relevant details, and promoting
collaboration, the participant displayed metacognitive abilities related to managing his own
thinking and learning. Additionally, to overcome the challenges of differing communication
skills, Participant 1 emphasized using written communication, “We write everything about our
opinions... we share this document... the best idea will win.” He recognized the value of written
expression to promote fair evaluation and the consideration of ideas, indicating a metacognitive
understanding of the cognitive biases that can arise in verbal discussions.
Although all participants had vast experience working remotely with internal teams, they
encountered a new challenge with virtual selling. The absence of face-to-face interactions with
clients required them to think strategically to change their sales approach. Participant 8 shared,
“Everybody had to find opportunities, everybody had to step up and lead... it forced me in a
sense to completely step up and take over... our community, as a whole became much bigger
leaders...” Although this quote primarily focuses on leadership during challenging circumstances,
it indirectly alludes to metacognitive aspects. The participant acknowledges the need for

71
individuals to take initiative, adapt to new situations, and assume leadership roles. This
adaptation involves metacognitive processes such as self-awareness, self-regulation, and
strategic decision-making to effectively navigate the changing environment.
Finding 2 - IT Architects Used Self-regulation to Assess Goals Achievement and Adapt to Full
Remote Work
When asked about self-regulation, eight participants shared having an official mechanism
to assess their progress against individual and collective goals regularly. During this time, they
had the opportunity to practice self-reflection. Moreover, although the evaluation mechanism and
the business metrics didn’t change due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the goals were adjusted to
align with the requirements of the virtual context. Participant 2 mentioned using an internal tool
for self-assessments, where goals around “learning, building relationships” were set and updated
every quarter. He also highlighted doing reflections on “self-directed career, motivation” and
similar topics. Furthermore, he emphasized being encouraged to share knowledge, provide
mentorship, and engage in collaborative activities through team goals, “That’s one of the reasons
I do a lot of writing and stuff, as I’m encouraged to share my point of view about particular
topics with my peers.” By setting goals, monitoring progress, and updating goals accordingly, he
demonstrated metacognitive regulation of his own learning and expertise.
Participants also exhibited self-regulation when adapting to full remote work. Participant
4 shared his ritual of changing into clothes with the company logo to suggest a transition from a
home setting to a business mindset. This simple act helped establish a psychological distinction,
fostering a sense of professionalism and focus despite working from home. Additionally,
Participant 6 used self-regulation to improve focus and engagement in a meeting. Rather than
simply asking for updates when tasks were completed, he proactively pushed for specific

72
timeframes, such as requesting completion by the end of the day or by a specific time. This
approach enabled him to take control of the situation in a meeting and influence the behavior of
others. Another common theme that emerged was the need for IT architects to sharpen their soft
skills that were inhibited during the pandemic.
Finding 3 - IT architects Need to Improve Their Soft Skills
Soft skills are vital for IT architects to effectively communicate, collaborate with
stakeholders, lead technical teams, adapt to changing environments, solve complex problems,
and manage client relationships. Six participants emphasized the importance of enhancing soft
skills in response to two key aspects of the virtual work environment: the prolonged absence of
face-to-face interactions and the continued reliance on remote collaboration with internal and
client teams. Participant 7 highlighted the need for technology professionals to adapt their soft
skills to the virtual environment, “Technology people already struggle with the people side of
skills… if you don’t practice… like any skill, you’re going to be done… you almost have to do a
refresher on how you behave in front of a client.” Effective communication, active listening, and
non-verbal cues, crucial in face-to-face interactions, require intentional practice in virtual
settings. Maintaining eye contact, demonstrating attentiveness, and utilizing visual aids can
enhance virtual communication and ensure effective collaboration.
Participant 3 underlined the need for empathy and understanding in virtual collaboration
and noted that misunderstandings could be reduced if IT architects were aware of and appreciate
team personalities, whether introverted or extroverted. Personality traits play an important role in
shaping communication styles and preferences. Moreover, he stressed the need for senior IT
architects to develop and refine their soft skills, “We still have some more work to do… giving
further education to our senior IT architects, about the areas of empathy and the personalities…

73
that’s a huge component of making a project work.” Recognizing these soft skills dynamics
allows IT architects to navigate differences, build mutual respect, and enhance team cohesion,
ensuring more successful outcomes.
In conclusion, the COVID-19 pandemic forced IT architects to adapt swiftly to virtual
project environments. The participants demonstrated metacognitive abilities by creating effective
strategies for virtual collaboration, considering cognitive processes, interpersonal dynamics, and
organizational culture. They also used self-regulation to assess goals and adapt to full remote
work, reflecting on their progress and making necessary adjustments. However, the participants
acknowledged the importance of further developing their soft skills in the virtual environment.
While two findings did not validate the assumed need for metacognitive knowledge, the need for
improvement in soft skills was brought up by six participants. Overall, IT architects exhibited
adaptability and innovation in response to the virtual collaboration challenges, but the ongoing
development of soft skills is needed for effective communication, leadership, and client
relationship management in virtual settings.
Summary for Research Question 1
The first research question focused on understanding how knowledge influenced IT
architects’ adaptation to remote work. Two distinct assumed knowledge needs were examined.
First, considering procedural knowledge (assumed knowledge need 1), it was found that IT
architects were familiar with remote work methodologies and tools and learned new tools and
skills to effectively collaborate virtually, leading to the non-validation of this need. Their journey
involved several challenges that inspired creative solutions. Second, regarding metacognitive
knowledge (assumed knowledge need 2), IT architects showcased metacognitive abilities by
developing strategic collaboration strategies and self-regulating their adaptation to remote work.

74
However, the need for enhancing soft skills was acknowledged, partially validating the need for
metacognitive knowledge. Developing soft skills can enhance IT architects’ communication,
leadership, and client relationship management in virtual settings.
According to Clark and Estes’s (2008) knowledge and motivation are interweaved. While
knowledge provides the necessary understanding and foundation, motivation acts as the driving
force that propels individuals towards their objectives. A lack of motivation, even with
knowledge, can hinder progress. The next section examines the influences of motivation,
addressing research question 2.
Findings for Research Question 2
The second research question focused on how motivation affected IT architects’
adaptation to remote work. Two motivation assumed needs were selected to answer this research
question. First, investigating the influence of collective efficacy in virtual teams, the assumed
need was to assess if IT architects needed to believe that project team members could collaborate
virtually on a solution design. Second, exploring the influence of affect in virtual teams, the
assumed need was to assess if IT architects needed to feel positive about collaborating in a
project remotely. The findings for each motivation influence are summarized in Table 11,
followed by a detailed analysis of each finding.

75
Table 11
Findings of Assumed Motivation Needs
Motivation Needs SubCategory
Validated Not
Validated
Partially
Validated
IT architects need to believe project team
members can collaborate virtually on a
solution design.
Collective
Efficacy
X
IT architects need to feel positive about
collaborating on a project remotely.
Affect X
Assumed Motivation Need 1 - IT architects Need to Believe Project Team Members Can
Collaborate Virtually on a Solution Design (Partially Validated)
Collective efficacy involves the group’s confidence in their collective abilities to
overcome challenges and succeed in specific tasks (Bandura, 2000). As the participants shared
their perspectives on whether or not they believed project team members could collaborate
virtually, they referred to two distinct contexts: team collaboration within internal teams, where
all members belong to the same organization, and client teams, consisting of members from their
organization and their clients. The interviews revealed that the assumed need for collective
efficacy was not validated within internal team settings but was indeed validated within client
team settings.
Finding 1 – IT Architects Believed in Team-Level Efficacy in Internal Team Settings
All participants mentioned that the shift to full remote did not significantly change their
internal team dynamics, and they were confident in their ability to work as a team. Participant 3
emphasized their company’s preparedness for remote work environments even before the
pandemic, stating, “I really believe based on my observations and participation… we were very
well prepared for remote, strong remote, workforce environments... I think we were at a very big

76
advantage.” Similarly, Participant 5 acknowledged the efficacy of virtual collaboration within
internal teams, saying, “Definitely internally, we can do it... we’ve been doing it for a long time.”
Additionally, the convenience of virtual collaboration in geographically dispersed teams was
noted by Participant 7, who stated, “I have many people I work with that I’ve never been with
face to face, and it’s been 15 years.” These quotes illustrate the presence of internal collective
efficacy within the teams from the three global IT organizations, highlighting the availability of
the necessary resources for developing and maintaining collective efficacy over time.
Participants also highlighted the importance of prior developed relationships in the
context of virtual collaboration. Participant 4 shared their positive, long experience collaborating
with cross-unit teams, “So my company has this type of collaboration where we work with the
teams. Myself, most of my life, I worked in a cross-unit position… I have a relationship with
them.” Participant 8 noted they were able to maintain a similar format to previous in-person
interactions due to pre-existent relationships, mentioning virtual happy hours and after-work
gatherings, “If you wanted to grab a drink, it was still at six o’clock, it was still after hours. We
didn’t get that community building, but it was as close as we could get.” The presence of
established relationships and a strong foundation of collaboration can significantly enhance
collective efficacy within a team. When team members already share a history of working
together, they develop trust, effective communication, and a shared understanding of
expectations. Thus, experiencing a more cohesive and productive virtual collaboration
interaction. While IT architects believed in team-level efficacy within internal team settings,
their confidence wavered when it came to external team settings.

77
Finding 2 – IT Architects Did not Believe in Team-Level Efficacy in External Team Settings
Five out of the seven participants in client-facing roles expressed significant challenges in
attaining satisfactory client engagement levels in virtual projects, validating the need for IT
architects to believe in the virtual collaboration capabilities of client teams. Participant 5
emphasized the need for senior-level sponsorship to reinforce client engagement in virtual
collaboration, stating, “It requires a senior level of sponsorship... they’re making it known to
their people, that this is important to me, I expect you to attend, I expect you to pay attention, I
expect you to contribute.” Similarly, Participant 7 underlined the difficulty of ensuring active
engagement and attentiveness during virtual meetings, as individuals may engage in other tasks
or distractions, “They don’t want to be on camera… they’re going to flip to the other monitor,
and go do 600 other things, which means you’re getting a very tiny fraction of their attention.”
As most clients continue to work remotely, these perspectives highlight the persistent challenges
IT architects face in effectively securing client engagement and attention in virtual environments,
in contrast to the prior-pandemic in-person interactions.
Participant 2 further discussed the challenges of virtual collaboration in client teams,
mentioning the limitations of not being able to gauge reception and attention levels, “When
you’re in front of somebody, you get a lot better sense of how you’re being received than on a
video call… I think people are a lot more attentive and a lot more in the moment.” Additionally,
they noted that the pace of progress in virtual collaboration may be slower compared to in-person
workshops, where face-to-face interactions facilitate quicker decision-making, “I would say, the
speed of, kind of, where we’re getting to a next step, takes a lot longer now.” The issue of slower
productivity in face-to-face workshops was also raised by other participants, acknowledging that

78
although they can be conducted, they require significant more effort due to reduced levels of
engagement.
Finally, Participant 9 emphasized the challenge of engaging clients in virtual settings,
when relationships are not already established, stating, “If the client-facing team... didn’t have
already a pre-established, close relationship with the clients, it would be way more challenging
for them to engage and to win business.” Virtual collaboration may hinder the establishment of
trust and understanding between architects and clients, potentially affecting project success and
business development efforts. They also pointed out a potential decrease in satisfaction and a
higher turnover rate in project teams during virtual collaboration, “The project team that would
be set up for that project... by close to the end of the project, most people would already be
looking for other opportunities.” The absence of collocation and extended face-to-face
interactions may hinder the development of a strong team dynamic, inhibiting collective efficacy.
In conclusion, the belief in virtual collaboration among IT architects depends on whether
they work within internal or client teams. In the internal team setting, participants expressed
confidence in their ability to work as a team remotely, citing their organizations’ prior
preparedness for remote work environments and established relationships as contributing factors.
However, challenges arise when it comes to engaging external stakeholders virtually. While
virtual collaboration can be efficient for certain tasks, it may not always match the efficiency and
immediacy of in-person collaboration. Moreover, the lack of pre-established relationships in
virtual settings was found to hinder engagement with clients. Understanding the readiness of
external stakeholders and the limitations of virtual interactions, such as the absence of visual
cues, is crucial for successful virtual collaboration. By acknowledging these dynamics, IT

79
architects can adapt their approaches to maximize the benefits and mitigate the challenges of
virtual collaboration in different team settings.
Assumed Motivation Need 2 - IT architects Need to Feel Positive about Collaborating in a
Project Remotely (Partially Validated)
Emotions significantly influence people’s motivation, engagement, and approach to a
task, making them crucial for individual and organizational productivity and performance
(Pekrun & Linnenbrink-Gracia, 2014). While positive moods encourage innovative, flexible
problem-solving, negative moods signal issues, prompting careful analytical approaches (Clore
& Huntsinger, 2007). The participants expressed both positive and negative sentiments about
collaborating in virtual projects. Since all participants expressed negative emotions combined
with either positive or neutral emotions, the second assumed motivation need was partially
confirmed.
Finding 1 - Positive Aspects about Collaborating in Virtual Projects
All participants reported positive emotions, indicating that the emotions and well-being
of IT architects were positively affected in various ways. One significant positive aspect of
remote collaboration is the flexibility it offers. Participant 10 highlighted the control over one’s
time that remote collaboration offers, “you have more control over your time. You can open up
the office in the morning... or you can close the office at like 3 pm… and then you can spend
time with your family.” The freedom to manage one’s work schedule and prioritize personal
commitments can contribute to a better work-life balance, enhancing the overall well-being of IT
architects.
Furthermore, Participant 6 emphasized the advantages of eliminating daily commutes,
noting that remote collaboration removes the need for “driving in rush hour traffic twice a day”

80
and the associated stress. Additionally, they expressed, “That’s pretty big... heck, I can just stay
home and do 10 hours’ worth of work and get more work done.” The elimination of long
commutes not only saves time but also reduces exhaustion and increases productivity,
contributing to a more positive work experience.
Evidence from Participant 4 supports the notion that remote collaboration positively
affects job satisfaction. They shared, “People were even working more…because they didn’t
have to go to the airport, to go to the hotels, to commute... or, some cases, I tried to do this, to be
with my family... so my satisfaction improved.” This quote suggests that remote work eliminated
the need for extensive travel, allowing IT architects to allocate more time to work or spend it
with their families. Consequently, work-life integration improved, resulting in increased job
satisfaction.
Finally, Participant 8 highlighted the increased team accessibility and productivity
facilitated by remote collaboration. “I was more productive with my own team because I was
more available.” By being in front of their computer more, they became more accessible to their
own team, resulting in improved productivity. Additionally, the participant noted taking
advantage of the time saved from reduced client-facing interactions to engage in personal
development activities, such as education and acquiring new skills, “I took over almost 600
hours of education during COVID.” IT architects can use the time saved from less frequent client
interactions to foster career growth and professional development. Alongside the positive aspects
of virtual collaboration, the study also uncovered several negative factors that require attention.
Finding 2 - Negative Aspects about Collaborating in Virtual Projects
One of the major drawbacks of remote collaboration is the loss of face-to-face
interactions. Nine participants mentioned missing social interactions. Participant 6 noted missing

81
the personal connection within the team and with clients, “I miss those times together with my
team and with the customers over happy hour, lunch, dinner.” They also resented the weakening
of prior relationships, “There are probably only a couple of people that I had relationships with
before the pandemic that I still work with them.” Similarly, Participant 1 mentioned a decrease in
satisfaction caused by remote collaboration, “I would say that it decreased, the satisfaction
decreased... people are missing the in-person meetings and are keen to get together again… the
connection between people got really weak.” The sense of belonging and camaraderie that
emerges from physical proximity was lost, leading to negative emotional consequences.
Building new relationships and establishing connections with clients and colleagues
became more challenging in a remote collaboration setting, as expressed by five participants.
Participant 6 shared, “The new relationships that I have, don’t have the benefit of us meeting
face to face… I think that’s limited.” The absence of social interactions hampers the bonding,
trust, and camaraderie that can be developed through in-person connections. Participant 7
discusses the difficulty of virtually establishing relationships with unfamiliar individuals, “I’ve
struggled to find inroads to clients… a leftover from the pandemic is how do you get into a client
that you can’t go into knock on their door and show up.” The limitations of virtual
communication make it harder to form strong professional connections.
Additionally, other negative emotions were reported. Participant 4 highlights the
psychological effects of the pandemic, “People started to be bored or tired of being only at
home... it affected because they could not go out.” The isolation experienced by individuals, led
to boredom, tiredness, and decreased motivation. Similarly, Participant 1 emphasized the
negative effects of isolation and weakened connections with team members on creativity, noting,
“Sometimes I feel isolated… this impacts creativity… [when] people are in a room talking about

82
an idea on an issue… [they] are more creative.” This implies that the lack of physical presence
and spontaneous brainstorming sessions in a shared space may hinder the generation of
innovative ideas.
Document Analysis
In alignment with the participants’ viewpoints, the organizations also articulated various
perceptions and strategies regarding the impact of remote work on team motivation. Despite
adopting a digital-first approach, Organization 3 highlighted the dilution of camaraderie and
connectedness in a remote setting and shared taking strategic measures such as regular virtual
communication and deploying digital collaboration hubs to uphold enthusiasm and trust.
Additionally, one of the consulting leaders emphasized the increasing importance of adaptable
and people-centric work arrangements in the remote work paradigm. He argued that these
approaches could contribute to a stronger sense of belonging within the organization. By
regularly asking employees for their input and making technology improvements based on their
feedback, companies could make employees happier and more loyal, increasing their motivation.
In contrast, organizations 1 and 2 leaned towards a more cautious approach. Organization
1’s CEO recognized the potential downsides of remote work, especially concerning career
progression, emphasizing the need for in-person interactions for skill development and visibility.
These concerns align with organization 2’s viewpoints, which stressed the importance of
physical presence in nurturing a dynamic company culture, spontaneous collaborations, peer
learning, and strong team bonds. Given these perspectives, organization 1’s consulting division
advocated for a balanced hybrid model combining remote and in-person work advantages. This
approach aims to harness the motivational benefits of face-to-face interactions while still
providing the flexibility and autonomy associated with remote work.

83
In conclusion, the findings reveal a mixed sentiment among IT architects regarding
collaborating in virtual projects. While there are positive aspects associated with remote
collaboration, such as increased flexibility, better work-life balance, elimination of commuting,
and improved job satisfaction, there are also negative aspects that arise from the loss of face-toface interactions. Participants expressed a longing for personal connections, both within their
teams and with clients, and highlighted the challenges of building new relationships remotely.
The negative emotional consequences of isolation, boredom, and decreased creativity were also
reported. By addressing these emotions, organizations can strive to optimize virtual collaboration
strategies and create a supportive and productive remote work environment for IT architects.
Summary of Findings for Research Question 2
The findings of Research Question 2 illuminated how motivation influenced IT
architects’ adaptation to remote work. The study explored two assumed motivation needs: the
impact of collective efficacy in virtual teams and the influence of affect in virtual teams. These
assumed needs were partially validated. Regarding collective efficacy, IT architects exhibited
confidence in their remote teamwork skills within internal teams, aided by their organizations’
remote work readiness and established relationships. However, engagement with external
stakeholders, particularly clients, posed challenges due to the absence of pre-existing
relationships and the limitations of virtual interactions. Concerning affect, participants expressed
a blend of positive and negative emotions about collaborating on virtual projects. Positive
aspects included enhanced flexibility, work-life balance, and job satisfaction, while negative
emotions encompassed isolation, boredom, and decreased creativity. Addressing these mixed
emotions and optimizing virtual collaboration strategies can enhance the remote work

84
environment for IT architects. The following section outlines the findings for the third research
question, which is related to organizational influences.
Findings for Research Question 3
The third research question focused on the organizational factors that influenced the IT
architects’ collaborative efforts to improve team performance during the pandemic. Five
organizational assumed needs were selected to answer this research question. First, investigating
the influence of work tools, the assumed need was to assess if the organization needed to provide
a computer-mediated communication platform for IT architects to collaborate remotely. Second,
exploring the influence of work processes, the assumed need was to assess if the organization
needed to establish remote work processes and policies to facilitate IT architects’ social
connections in virtual teams. Third, considering the influence of cultural models, the assumed
need was to assess if the organization needed to encourage trust-building to help IT architects
boost solution design collaboration and creativity in virtual teams. Fourth, still considering
cultural models, the assumed need was to assess if the organization required IT architects to
share skills and effort to enhance collaboration in virtual teams. Lastly, studying the influence of
cultural settings, the assumed need was to determine if the organization needed to promote
alignment of goals and incentives to help IT architects increase collaboration in virtual teams.
Table 12 summarizes the findings for each organizational influence, followed by a detailed
analysis of each finding.

85
Table 12
Findings of Assumed Organizational Needs
Organizational Needs SubCategory
Validated Not
Validated
Partially
Validated
The organization needs to provide a
computer-mediated communication
platform for IT architects to collaborate
remotely.
Work
Resources
X
The organization needs to establish
remote work processes and policies to
facilitate IT architects’ social
connections in virtual teams.
Work
Processes
X
The organization needs to foster trustbuilding to help IT architects boost
solution design collaboration and
creativity in virtual teams
Cultural
Models
X
The organization needs to encourage IT
architects to share skills and effort to
enhance collaboration in virtual teams
Cultural
Models
X
The organization needs to promote
alignment of goals and incentives to
help IT architects increase
collaboration in virtual teams
Cultural
Settings
X
Assumed Organizational Need 1 - The Organization Needs to Provide a ComputerMediated Communication Platform for IT architects to Collaborate Remotely (Not
Validated)
Without adequate processes and resources, even highly motivated and skilled individuals
will struggle to achieve their objectives (Clark & Estes, 2008). In virtual work, communication
technology stands out as the most user-friendly resource (Meluso et al., 2022). According to the
participants, their organizations provided a variety of communication tools to support virtual
communication and collaboration during the pandemic. Moreover, they shared that a well-

86
established communication platform was already in place before the pandemic. Thus, this
assumed need was not validated. Despite the well-established platforms provided by
organizations, IT architects had to learn and adapt to client communication tools.
Finding 1 – The Organization Provided a Well-established Communication Platform During
the Pandemic
Seven participants revealed that their organizations provided a well-established
communication platform during the pandemic. Participant 3 highlighted that their company had a
process designed for a combination of remote and in-person work, giving them a significant
advantage. They utilized tools like Mural, a third-party online collaboration and design
methodology tool, to facilitate workshops and foster remote collaboration. Similarly, Participant
8 emphasized that their large global company was already accustomed to working remotely due
to their distributed teams across countries. He stated, “Prior to the pandemic, I worked inside the
client’s office, but my internal team was still remote. So, internally it was very easy because we
were just very used to working like that.” They relied on video communication tools like
WebEx, collaboration tools like Mural and Slack, and utilized Salesforce as their sales platform.
Their prior experience in remote collaboration and the use of these tools enabled a smooth
transition during the pandemic.
Participant 4 shared that his company began creating a robust communication platform a
decade ago. During this period, the company made a conscious effort to adopt market-leading
tools for collaboration, such as Mural, Trello, and WebEx, which allowed them to continue to
work internally seamlessly. Additionally, Participant 6 highlighted the importance of effective
communication and content-sharing tools in the organization’s platform. He emphasized the
value of email as a reliable communication method and the convenience of SMS-like messaging

87
tools such as Slack and Teams for seamless conversations during video conferences. He also
mentioned using Box as a collaborative storage platform, enabling real-time document editing
and eliminating the need for a single person to control all interactions in a physical meeting.
These tools played a crucial role in facilitating efficient communication and content
collaboration among team members during the full remote work of the pandemic. Considering
client virtual collaboration, IT architects had to accommodate their communication platform
preferences.
Finding 2 – IT Architects Adapted to Client Communication Platforms to Meet Their
Preferences
Six participants demonstrated their ability to collaborate with clients despite tool
misalignment issues. Participant 2 mentioned his flexibility in using various communication
platforms like Microsoft Teams, Zoom, or Google Meet, depending on the client’s preference.
He showed a willingness to accommodate and adapt to different tools, allowing communication
and collaboration to continue. Participant 5 echoed a similar opinion, acknowledging that clients
often had different tool preferences and their unfamiliarity with tools created difficulties, “When
we talk about some of the tools if they’re not familiar with the tool, it becomes difficult to use
the tool, right?” Nonetheless, they recognized the importance of understanding and meeting
client’s needs, investing the necessary effort to overcome challenges and ensure outcomes.
Participant 7 brought attention to the varying levels of technological maturity among
clients. He acknowledged that some clients had to quickly adapt to new tools and build
infrastructure to stabilize and support virtual desktops and dedicated communication platforms.
Despite the challenges of different tool choices, the participant worked towards bridging the gaps
to ensure effective collaboration. He noted, “So they have dedicated Zoom or dedicated Skype or

88
WebEx, whichever tool they pick that week, and then you’ve got the difference of tools… then
you gotta adapt.” Similarly, Participant 8 described the effort required to bring clients up to
speed with virtual collaboration tools by stating, “Probably the majority of the effort was to learn
the new tools, to get the new ideas to the client, all of that, but the counter-argument to that is
that I had more time to do that.” He recognized that while it took time and effort to learn new
tools and convey new ideas to clients, the additional time available allowed for education and
facilitation, ensuring more effective collaboration.
Document Analysis
As described in the document analysis section of the procedural knowledge assumed
need, all organizations provided well-established virtual methodologies, methods, and tools
during the pandemic. Furthermore, they all leveraged their expertise, offering their knowledge
and platform to clients. Organization 1 mentioned that today, 80 percent of their employees work
from home at least some time, supported by modern and resilient Software as a Service (SaaS)
products. These include, for example, Slack for seamless communication, WebEx for efficient
virtual meetings, GitHub for collaborative software development, and Trello for project
management.
Organization 2 empowered remote employees with secure access to corporate resources,
including document sharing and virtual meetings, through a range of cloud-based solutions. On
the other hand, Organization 3 revamped its technology platform, equipping employees with
robust collaboration tools for seamless work and customer service. The three organizations
underscored the importance of selecting tools that facilitate core business functions,
accommodating employees with varying levels of technical proficiency while ensuring their ease
of use.

89
In conclusion, the findings indicate that the assumed need for a computer-mediated
communication platform for remote collaboration among IT architects was not validated. The
organizations already had well-established communication platforms in place, such as Mural,
Trello, WebEx, Slack, Teams, and Salesforce. These tools facilitated efficient communication
and content collaboration. Despite challenges of tool misalignment with clients, the participants
showed adaptability and a willingness to accommodate different tool preferences, ensuring
successful collaboration. Overall, the organizations had robust communication platforms, and the
participants effectively navigated the challenges, leveraging their experience, flexibility, and
communication tools to achieve positive outcomes.
Assumed Organizational Need 2 - The organization needs to establish remote work
processes and policies to facilitate IT architects’ social connections in virtual teams
(Partially Validated)
When facing organizational change, planned, or forced by external causes, organizations
must ensure that people are equipped with work processes and resources that help them handle
the unique challenges they encounter (Clark & Estes, 2008). The unexpected shift to remote
work forced organizations to digitalize their traditional processes to enable remote work rapidly.
When asked about their organizations’ processes and policies to support remote work, most
participants acknowledged having well-established processes, although they experienced project
and sales delays. However, they expressed the need for hybrid work policies that better balance
the benefits of both approaches. The assumed organizational need is partially validated since
participants confirmed the existence of remote work processes but required more adequate work
arrangement policies.

90
Finding 1 – The Organization Provided Well-established Processes During the Pandemic
Seven participants expressed their insights on how their organizations provided wellestablished processes during the pandemic. Participant 3 highlighted the organization’s early
adoption of the agile methodology, allowing for a structured project management and
collaboration approach. This strategic decision enabled the organization to create defined roles,
foster a new cultural mindset, and ensure efficient contributions from team members, giving
them a significant advantage over other companies that had to make radical switches. Participant
5 highlighted the organization’s familiarity with offshore and onshore team collaboration,
utilizing a “follow the sun” approach, where work is passed between teams in different time
zones to maintain continuous progress. At the same time, Participant 8 mentioned that as a large
global company, they were accustomed to remote work and virtual software installation
procedures, which minimized the impact of the pandemic. Lastly, Participant 9 emphasized the
organization’s commitment to agile methodologies and their ability to adapt the “garage
approach” to remote work, leveraging productivity tools for collaboration. Overall, these
participants’ experiences demonstrate how the organization’s pre-existing processes and agile
methodologies allowed them to navigate the challenges of the pandemic and maintain
operational success, although facing project and sales delays.
Finding 2 – Despite the Well-established Processes, Project and Sales Were Delayed
Despite the organization’s well-established processes, seven participants experienced
project or sales delays during the pandemic. Participant 3 acknowledged that the organization’s
dependencies on clients, third-party providers, and business partners who were not adapted to
remote work caused delays and productivity issues that impacted their projects. Moreover,
Participant 7 highlighted that project durations took longer than expected, stating, “Might be two

91
days. Now it’s going to take two weeks. It’s probably going to be four weeks.” With limited
face-to-face communication with clients, getting work done became more passive and indirect.
This passive-aggressive dynamic made project planning and execution more complex and
challenging.
Projects also faced delays due to virtual brainstorming. Participant 5 mentioned that
complex technical discussions and diagramming are more streamlined in person, where
immediate collaboration and body language cues enhance the process. Similarly, Participant 6
emphasized the challenge of replicating the “bouncing ideas off each other” in virtual meetings,
resulting in longer cycles and a more segmented design process. He noted that virtual discussions
lacked the fluidity and rapid refinement achieved through in-person interactions. Despite efforts
to adapt, such as dividing tasks and reconvening, the “creative juices” often slowed in virtual
brainstorming sessions. The preference for in-person whiteboard interactions during ideation was
underlined by Participant 6, who acknowledged the role of physical collaboration in the early
stages of projects. Even when virtual tools were used, Participant 10 highlighted the need for
thorough preparation due to reduced meeting dynamics and a focus on visual aids, reinforcing
that in virtual brainstorming sessions, “you have to be very clear about what you’re going to
tell.”
When reflecting about the impact on sales activities, Participant 4 mentioned delays and
extensions in contract negotiations, as clients were not accustomed to virtual negotiations and
required more interaction. Participant 6 agreed that projects took longer due to larger sales cycles
and an overall increase in the effort required. Participant 8 further highlighted the difficulty of
presenting new ideas to clients without as much face-to-face interaction, leading to longer lead
times for proactive discussions, “I would come up with an idea for the client… and I’d be able

92
just to walk over and hey, let’s have coffee... Now I had to set a meeting, and it wasn’t always
immediately.” The lack of in-person meetings also hindered Participant 5’s ability to obtain
approvals and consensus from stakeholders. These testimonies demonstrate that despite having
well-established processes in place, projects and sales activities faced virtual collaboration
challenges. Although several of these issues were attenuated with time, participants still feel the
need for organizations to continue to explore hybrid work policies to address ongoing obstacles.
Finding 3 – Hybrid Work Policies Are Still Under Development
According to all participants, hybrid work policies should evolve to leverage the benefits
of both work arrangements. Remote work was seen as promoting work-life balance, while inperson interactions foster stronger relationships and bonding. At present, all participants are still
predominantly remote as their organizations continue to prioritize cost-saving measures by
restricting travel and authorizing client visit trips only when strictly necessary. Moreover, several
office spaces were closed, with priority given to executives and sales teams. However, two
organizations are encouraging employees to be at their offices as well. Overall, the participants
highlighted the importance of their organizations implementing hybrid work policies that balance
flexibility, in-person interactions, and productivity. They also emphasized the need for their
organizations to invest in the necessary resources to support these policies effectively.
Calling attention to the flexibility and work-life balance offered by hybrid work,
Participants 1 and 5 believed people should be free to decide based on personal preferences and
specific conditions. Participant 1 mentioned that certain roles, like software developers, may
prefer full remote work. Participant 5 also supported the idea of employees choosing their work
location, stating that their new company promotes flexibility and lets individuals work from
wherever they want, as long as their managers approve it. This freedom of choice empowers

93
individuals to create a work environment that best suits their needs, ultimately contributing to
better work-life balance and overall job satisfaction. Similarly, Participants 6 and 10 highlighted
the flexibility afforded by remote work, including the advantages of avoiding time-consuming
commutes and having more control over their time. While Participant 6 mentioned the benefits
of eliminating rush hour traffic and the potential to work longer hours at home, Participant 10
shared his personal experience of adjusting office hours to spend more time with family. Such
flexibility enables individuals to improve their productivity and, at the same time, enhance their
well-being.
The discussion about productivity in the hybrid work context is multifaceted since it’s
dependent on several factors, including individual preferences, the nature of the job, the type and
complexity of the task, and the availability of productivity tools and processes, among others. All
participants expressed mixed views regarding remote work productivity. Remote work offers
reduced distractions, flexibility, and time savings from commuting, which can contribute to
increased productivity (Chafi et al., 2022; Ferreira et al.,2021). In contrast, office work provides
opportunities for collaboration, face-to-face interactions, and immediate feedback, which can
enhance productivity for tasks requiring teamwork and real-time communication (Meluso et al.,
2022; Shifrin & Michel, 2022).
For example, Participant 4 suggested a blended way of working where architects leverage
the evolving productivity tools for remote work while engaging in face-to-face activities to
brainstorm, discuss, have a co-creation session with teammates, peers, and the client.
Reinforcing this opinion, Participant 9 emphasized the importance of having the option for faceto-face interactions to co-create and solve problems, “If … something is not developing as it
should, I think it is important for the project manager to have the [flexibility] to say… let’s go

94
meet next week for three days and figure that out with the client.” The participants recognized
that a hybrid work model can optimize productivity by leveraging the benefits of both the remote
and in-person approaches.
Cost restrictions for face-to-face interactions were brought up by six of the participants.
Participants resented being unable to travel to meet their teams and not seeing their clients more
often. They missed formal and informal meetings and discussed the negative impact of not
building stronger relationships. Participant 7, for instance, believed that cutting costs by reducing
travel and in-person meetings could lead to a loss of talent and hinder the business’s success. He
emphasized the importance of freeing up funds to enable people to meet face-to-face, sharing:
But you do have to find a way to free up the monies because you absolutely have to have
people face to face. If you got to grow your business, you have to facilitate the people
side of the relationship, right? If people can’t interact with each other, they’re still not
going to do it screen on screen. Their first thing is the first relationship they form. It is
very difficult to do it that way. They’re going to, at some point, have to meet you face to
face.
Similarly, Participant 8 noted that his company continues to restrict travel to client-related
purposes only, preventing the team from meeting unless a client is involved. Moreover, he was
disappointed with the company’s decision to cancel a face-to-face education, negatively
impacting employee morale and resulting in some people leaving the company. The participants
emphasized the importance of their companies’ willingness to invest in the teams’ relationships
and development.

95
Document Analysis
Focusing on work policies, since methodologies, methods, and tools were covered in the
previous document analysis section, all three organizations see value in hybrid work and are
looking for ways to balance remote and in-person work. Organizations 1 and 2 are encouraging
their employees to be in the office more often, while Organization 3 is prioritizing a remote-first
initiative. Organization 1 has expressed a multifaceted view of remote work. While recognizing
the importance of remote work for balancing work and home life, the organization warns that it
may limit career opportunities, particularly in leadership roles. They advocate for a blended
approach, expecting employees to return to the office three days a week, believing that in-person
interactions can boost productivity. However, for those employees primarily based at home, such
as IT architects, travel to the company’s or client’s worksites is not a requirement unless directed
by management. Moreover, employees who are completely remote are encouraged to
occasionally visit the company’s offices to foster relationship-building and stimulate idea
generation.
Similarly, Organization 2 has gleaned significant insights about hybrid work during the
pandemic, recognizing the benefits of in-person work for learning, modeling, practicing, and
strengthening the company culture. The organization believes that collaboration, invention, and
peer learning are more effective and straightforward in an in-person setting. As such, there are
plans for a major return to the office, with employees expected to be onsite at least three days a
week. Nevertheless, exceptions will be made for certain roles that can operate remotely. No
specific information about IT architects was provided. The anticipated return to office also aligns
with the organization’s intent to boost local businesses surrounding its headquarters.

96
Organization 3’s approach to hybrid work is centered on a remote-first environment,
emphasizing collaboration across departments, locations, and time zones. In planning for
workplace modernization, leadership collaborated with stakeholders from across the organization
on various initiatives. They strategically selected advanced digital tools and platforms to support
the remote-first working environment, ensuring streamlined communication and data security.
Flexible and adaptable workplace policies were created to respect regional workplace norms and
cultural sensitivities while addressing employee needs such as flexible working hours and mental
health support. Furthermore, an innovative system was introduced to ensure a consistent onsite
experience for employees and customers, allowing individuals to choose their workspace or
meeting room. The organization firmly believes in breaking down internal silos, fostering
acceptance, and implementing change at scale for successful workplace transformation.
In conclusion, the research findings partially validated the need for organizations to
establish remote work processes and policies to support IT architects’ social connections in
virtual teams. While participants acknowledged well-established processes during the pandemic,
project and sales delays were experienced. The expressed need for hybrid work policies
highlights the importance of balancing remote and in-person work benefits. Furthermore,
participants emphasized the value of face-to-face interactions and investments in relationships to
foster collaboration and productivity. While all organizations embraced hybrid work, per the
interviews, IT architects have home-based roles, needing management approval for travel to
meet clients and team members. Moreover, not all of them are in places with an office space.
Organizations should continue to develop hybrid work policies focusing on improving in-person
interactions.

97
Assumed Organizational Need 3 - The Organization Needs to Foster Trust-building to Help
IT Architects Boost Solution Design Collaboration and Creativity in Virtual Teams (Not
Validated)
Trust is one of the key elements required for the development of team collaboration
(Garro-Abarca et al., 2021; Manea et al., 2021; Whillans et al., 2021). When employees trust
their team colleagues and supervisors, they are more likely to engage in risk-taking and
innovative behavior aimed at exceeding task demands (Mayer et al., 1995). Participants indicated
that their organizations used existing or new mechanisms and strategies to encourage trustbuilding within virtual teams. Thus, the assumed need was not validated.
Finding 1 – Organizations Provided Mechanisms and Strategies to Encourage Trust in
Virtual Teams
During the discussions, seven participants revealed that their organizations used various
mechanisms and strategies to cultivate trust among dispersed team members. Participant 3 noted
his organization’s emphasis on team charters, a kind of code of conduct within the agile
methodology, which empowered teams to put together their own social contracts and develop a
sense of ownership and agency, strengthening trust among team members for solution design and
creative thinking.
Simultaneously, training programs played a central role in nurturing empathy and
understanding within virtual teams. Participants 2 and 3 emphasized their organizations’
commitment to empathy training, providing resources and tools to enhance team members’
ability to understand and relate to one another. Participant 2 mentioned the encouragement to be
open to diverse thoughts and cultures, supporting inclusive collaboration. Participant 3 pointed
out that including external resources, such as the works of renowned researcher Brené Brown,

98
offered valuable insights into vulnerability, authenticity, and effective communication.
Embracing vulnerability, diverse perspectives, and a culture of psychological safety allows
organizations to create an environment where individuals feel empowered to take risks and
contribute with unique insights.
Leadership emerged as a central force in trust-building within virtual teams, as depicted
by Participants 4 and 9. Top executives embraced transparent and open communication, making
themselves accessible to team members through “ask-me-anything sessions,” creating a safe and
non-judgmental space for dialogue. Participant 4 shared, “Could be about the vaccines, about
layoffs, about diversity… This transparency helped to build trust.” Participant 9 reinforced this
view, showing appreciation for his CEO’s virtual sessions, “I appreciated that a lot because he’s
really transparent… It helps me be connected to his values and the values that he applies to our
company.” By embodying the organization’s values and consistently demonstrating integrity,
honesty, and respect, these leaders set the tone for a culture that valued trust during a time of
uncertainty and collaboration challenges.
While social events and gatherings underwent changes during the pandemic, they were
important for trust-building, as observed by Participants 1 and 7. Virtual social events, such as
town halls, virtual happy hours, and water cooler sessions, provided avenues for team members
to connect on a personal level and develop a sense of camaraderie and shared experiences.
Although Participant 1 believed there were too many, especially at the early stages of the
pandemic, and Participant 7 expressed a strong desire for a greater number and more frequent
events, they continued to serve as valuable opportunities for team members to bond and cultivate
trust, bridging the physical distance that virtual teams often face.

99
Document Analysis
All three organizations emphasized the importance of building a culture of trust and
cooperation. Organizations 1 and 2 stressed the value of in-person work interactions in
supporting these values, whereas Organization 3 discussed cultural initiatives designed to
embrace these values in both remote and hybrid settings. Organization 1 considered a hybrid
work model crucial for sparking innovation, fostering tacit learning, and building trust with
clients. The CEO’s emphasis on in-person communication for leadership roles reflected their
belief in in-person interactions for building trust and teamwork. Their adaptability to varying
work-from-home trends also suggested a culture that values individual needs and fosters trust
among employees.
Similarly, Organization 2 highlighted the impact of hybrid work on their culture of trust
and cooperation. They asserted that being physically present in the office and surrounded by
colleagues fosters a more robust culture by making learning, modeling, practicing, and
reinforcing their cultural values easier. This sentiment applies not only to new hires but also to
employees of all tenures. According to their viewpoint, in-person work leads to increased
engagement, observance of cultural cues, and the ability to ask questions and seek clarifications
quickly. They also underlined the advantages of having more people in a room for effective
leadership and communication. This commitment to in-person interactions reflected their
dedication to strengthening their culture, which they considered a critical driver of their longterm success.
Organization 3 acknowledged the importance of creating an adaptive culture that
supported trust and collaboration in either a remote or hybrid environment. They defined values,
promoted cultural engagement, and appointed internal advocates to drive cultural initiatives,

100
demonstrating their commitment to building a collaborative culture. Furthermore, recognizing
the ongoing trend of hybrid work, they advocated for human-centric, flexible work designs,
suggesting that such models can positively influence a culture of trust and cooperation.
In conclusion, these interconnected themes showcased how organizations proactively
encouraged trust within their virtual teams, not validating the assumed need. Through the
implementation of team charters, training programs, virtual social events, and leadership
strategies that embodied organizational values, they fostered an environment where trust was
nurtured and reinforced. Additionally, the document analysis underscored the importance of inperson interactions in supporting a culture of collaboration. These findings demonstrated that the
organizations are committed to cultivating trust and cooperation among team members in virtual
and hybrid work settings.
Assumed Organizational Need 4 - The Organization Needs to Encourage IT Architects to
Share Skills and Effort to Enhance Collaboration in Virtual Teams (Not Validated)
In a cooperative culture, individuals work together towards common goals, share
resources and knowledge, and actively cooperate to achieve collective success (Maynard &
Gilson, 2014). The assessment of this concept revealed that organizations incorporated practices
aligned with the assumed need to encourage skill sharing, knowledge exchange, and
collaboration in virtual teams. The participants’ testimonials in the sections on virtual
collaboration processes and trust building directly contributed to assessing this assumed need, as
these concepts are closely related to a cooperative culture. The testimonials on their
organizations’ methodologies, mechanisms, and strategies highlighted the importance of trust,
cooperation, and effective collaboration in virtual teams, demonstrating a connection to fostering

101
a cooperative culture. Therefore, the need for specific encouragement targeted at IT architects to
share skills and contribute effort was not confirmed.
Assumed Organizational Need 5 - The Organization Needs to Promote Alignment of Goals
and Incentives to Help IT Architects Increase Collaboration in Virtual Teams (Not
Validated)
Misalignment between organizational goals and team or individual goals can lead to
conflicts that damage collaboration and performance (Schneider et al., 1996). In virtual teams,
where such misalignments are harder to spot, it’s essential to clearly define, communicate, and
reinforce goals and incentives (Morrison-Smith & Ruiz, 2020). According to the participants,
their organizations promoted alignment of goals for team collaboration in both in-person and
virtual settings. Moreover, the organizations provided goal-oriented incentives and mechanisms
specifically designed to incentivize team virtual collaboration. Thus, this assumed need was not
validated.
Finding 1 – The Organizations Promoted Alignment of Goals for Team Collaboration
Eight participants confirmed that their organizations prioritized the alignment of goals
among various members and teams. Participant 3 described using matrix management, a practice
that enabled dual-reporting relationships, which promoted career development and collaboration
to meet specific project goals. He explained that it allowed project managers or senior leaders to
guide and move the team to meet the established goals. Similarly, Participant 4 emphasized the
effectiveness of having common goals, account targets, and common KPIS (key performance
indicators) to improve collaboration among team members working on the same account.
Furthermore, several participants highlighted the importance of shared goals to drive
cooperation and collaboration within teams, whether virtual or in-person. Participant 2

102
mentioned an internal tool for self-assessments, through which individuals and teams set goals at
the beginning of the year and periodically review them. Participant 1 mentioned his organization
focused on both individual and team goals. Participant 6 described the team’s shared objectives
and incentives to make sales, reflecting the organization’s cohesive approach toward achieving
targets. Goal alignment was also emphasized by Participant 9, who shared that “…not having
goals aligned is one of the key factors to failing in projects.” Overall, their organizations fostered
a culture where alignment of goals was instrumental in enhancing collaboration. Alongside goal
alignment, the study also revealed the organizations’ emphasis on incentive mechanisms for
effective team collaboration.
Finding 2 – The Organizations Promoted Incentive Mechanisms for Team Collaboration
Several incentive programs and strategies to boost collaboration were highlighted by nine
of the participants. Participant 3 discussed the introduction of a recognition program and point
system where employees can reward each other for achievements, promoting a collaborative
environment. This mechanism encouraged peer-to-peer trust and relationship building, with
rewards redeemable for personal interests or needs, such as buying new golf clubs or getting a
massage. The notion of hackathons (social coding events) as a platform for innovative
collaboration was also raised, and participation was associated with recognition and rewards.
Furthermore, Participants 5 and 7 noted team-building incentives such as team dinners and
sending gifts to people, respectively. While these gestures may not directly relate to work
performance, they serve as a morale booster and foster a sense of community, indirectly
promoting collaboration.
Regarding goal-oriented incentives, Participants 2, 4, 6, and 10 indicated the existence of
performance-linked incentives. Participant 2 mentioned “quota assigned to the accounts”,

103
Participant 4 spoke about “account targets” and “common KPIs,” and Participant 6 shared teams
having “the same goals and [sales] objectives.” At the same time, Participant 10 revealed having
“incentives divided into four different buckets,” which were all linked to individual and
collective performance. This system aligns team members toward common objectives and
promotes collaboration. Participants 1 and 9 reported incentivizing participation in training and
workshops with prizes, rewards, and ice-breaking activities. While these incentives may not be
monetary, they motivate individuals to engage more, fostering a collaborative environment.
In conclusion, the research does not validate the assumption that organizations need to
promote the alignment of goals and incentives to increase collaboration in IT architect virtual
teams. Participants’ insights revealed that their organizations already prioritized goal alignment
and incentivized collaboration in both in-person and virtual settings, employing strategies such
as matrix management, common targets, and innovative incentive programs like recognition
systems, hackathons, and team-building gestures. These efforts actively promoted collaboration,
reflecting the organizations’ proactive approach to fostering a cooperative work environment for
IT architects and their teams.
Summary of Findings for Research Question 3
The third research question focused on the organizational factors that influenced the IT
architects’ collaborative efforts to improve team performance during the pandemic. Five
organizational assumed needs were selected to answer this research question. Four out of the five
were not validated. The organizations already incorporated robust virtual processes and practices
and provided additional virtual collaboration tools. They possessed efficient communication
platforms. Trust-building and knowledge-sharing were encouraged through leadership strategies,
team charters, and cooperative culture. Additionally, organizations were already aligning goals

104
and providing incentives to foster collaboration in both virtual and physical settings. Only the
establishment of hybrid work policies to facilitate social connections was validated, implying
organizations should continue to focus on balancing remote and face-to-face interactions to
improve individual and team creativity, productivity, job satisfaction, and overall performance.
Summary and Conclusion
This study used nine assumed KMO influences to explore IT architects’ remote work
challenges in large, global IT companies that shifted to full remote work during the COVID-19
pandemic. From a knowledge standpoint, one assumed influence out of two was partially
identified as a need. In addition, from a motivational lens, both the assumed influences were
partially identified as a need. Finally, from an organizational perspective, only one assumed
influence out of five was partially identified as a need.
The findings indicated that IT architects effectively adapted to remote work during the
pandemic, demonstrating a readiness to embrace virtual methodologies, tools, and skills for
effective collaboration. Organizations played a pivotal role by adjusting virtual collaboration
platforms and extending services internally and externally to clients. IT architects demonstrated
confidence in collaborating with internal teams but faced challenges engaging with clients,
highlighting the need for improved client relationships. While metacognitive abilities and
strategic approaches were evident, there was a recognized need to further enhance soft skills in
virtual settings. The study also revealed positive and negative sentiments regarding remote
collaboration, suggesting the need to increase in-person interactions. Organizational factors,
including well-established communication platforms and hybrid work policies, supported remote
collaboration success, with trust and goal alignment being crucial components. Finally, the
findings underscored the importance of organizations refining their hybrid work policies to better

105
balance remote and in-person collaboration. Table 13 summarizes the findings for the KMO
influences.
Table 13
Summary of Findings for Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences
Assumed Need Sub-Category Evaluation
Knowledge Influences
IT architects need to think strategically to adapt
to virtual projects.
Procedural
IT architects need to think strategically to adapt
to virtual projects. Metacognitive Partially Validated
Motivation Influences
IT architects need to believe project team
members can collaborate virtually on a
solution design
Collective Efficacy Partially Validated
IT architects need to feel positive about
collaborating on a project remotely
Affect Partially Validated
Organizational Influences
The organization needs to provide a computermediated communication platform for IT
architects to collaborate remotely
Work Resources Not Validated
The organization needs to establish remote work
processes and policies to facilitate IT
architects’ social connections in virtual teams
Work Processes Partially Validated
The organization needs to foster trust-building
to help IT architects boost solution design
collaboration and creativity in virtual teams
Cultural Model Not Validated
The organization needs to encourage IT
architects to share skills and effort to enhance
collaboration in virtual teams
Cultural Model Not Validated
The organization needs to promote alignment of
goals and incentives to help IT architects
increase collaboration in virtual teams
Cultural Settings Not Validated

106
Guided by the study’s conceptual framework that situated knowledge and motivation
factors within the IT architects’ organizations’ cultural and material resources, the findings
provided a robust foundation for recommendations to address the validated needs. These
recommendations will be discussed next in Chapter Five.

107
Chapter Five: Recommendations
Based on the findings presented in the previous chapter, this section offers an extended
examination of how these findings can contribute to enhancing organizational practices. First, a
discussion of the findings in connection with the existing literature will be provided. Next, this
chapter will review specific recommendations for each confirmed knowledge, motivation, and
organizational (KMO) needs. To conclude, the study’s limitations and delimitations will be
acknowledged, paving the way for recommendations intended to guide future research.
Discussion of Findings
During the COVID-19 pandemic, several office workers experienced weakened team
collaboration due to communication, infrastructure, isolation, and technology dependency
problems, among other factors (DeFilippis et al., 2020; Whillans et al., 2021). Although most
organizations reported an immediate gain in productivity with the remote work shift, after a short
time, several reported a decline (Deal & Levenson, 2021). Leveraging Clark and Estes’s (2008)
gap analysis model, this study aimed to uncover how remote work affected IT architects’ team
collaboration in large, global IT companies that shifted to full remote work during the pandemic.
Through semi-structured interviews with 10 senior IT architects and document analysis of
remote work-related data from their organizations, several key findings emerged for the three
research questions. Based on the literature review, which highlighted factors influencing
collaboration outcomes in virtual teams, this discussion connects the study’s findings with the
literature review in Chapter Two.
The first research question delved into the role of knowledge in IT architects’ adaptation
to remote work collaboration. The study’s findings revealed that IT architects demonstrated a
remarkable ability to adapt to remote work during the pandemic. This adaptability was rooted in

108
their readiness to embrace virtual methodologies, tools, and skills essential for effective
collaboration, consistent with the literature’s emphasis on collaboration tools, processes, and
skills for virtual teams’ outcomes (Bergiel et al., 2008; Chudoba et al., 2005; Ferreira et al.,
2021; Morrison-Smith & Ruiz, 2020). Organizations played a crucial role in facilitating this
adaptation by adjusting virtual collaboration platforms and extending services internally and
externally to clients, promoting more effective communication, which is a key predictor of
improved trust, increased commitment, and higher performance (Morrison-Smith & Ruiz, 2020;
Sarker et al., 2011).
While participants showcased metacognitive abilities and strategic approaches, there was
an identified need to further enhance IT architects’ soft skills, mainly due to the virtual
environment’s reduced non-verbal communication and limited social interactions. Such skills are
crucial in team interaction, where increased interaction fosters learning about team members,
tasks, and team dynamics, ultimately improving performance (Cannon-Bowers et al., 1993;
Maynard & Gilson, 2014; Olson & Olson, 2006). Moreover, project team leaders need to adapt
their leadership styles to overcome the interaction and communication limitations of the virtual
environment (Nayani et al., 2018).
The second research question explored the role of motivation in IT architects’ adaptation
to remote work collaboration. The study findings indicated that, within internal teams, IT
architects exhibited confidence in their remote teamwork skills, supported by established
relationships and their organizations’ remote work readiness. These findings were aligned with
the literature’s acknowledgment of the influence of relationships on teams’ cohesion, trust, and
performance (Koehne et al., 2012; Morrison-Smith & Ruiz, 2020). However, challenges emerged
when engaging with external stakeholders, particularly clients, due to the absence of pre-existing

109
relationships and the limitations of virtual interactions, as virtual environments hinder
relationship building and knowledge sharing (Arunprasad et al., 2022; Bergiel et al., 2008). The
study also revealed a mix of positive and negative emotions among participants, highlighting the
need to strike a balance between enhanced flexibility, work-life balance, and job satisfaction
while addressing feelings of isolation, boredom, and reduced creativity through increased inperson interactions (Allen et al., 2015; Bao et al., 2022; Chafi et al., 2022; Ford et al., 2022).
The third research question investigated the organizational factors influencing IT
architects’ collaborative efforts to improve team performance. The study revealed that
organizations offered well-established virtual processes, tools, and training to address technical
competence of team members and virtual communication challenges (Bergiel et al., 2008;
Chudoba et al., 2005; Ferreira et al., 2021; Morrison-Smith & Ruiz, 2020). While the
organizations’ efforts were effective in maintaining collaboration during the pandemic, the study
revealed project and sales delays due to challenges such as inhibited creative thinking and
problem solving during virtual brainstorming. These challenges echo the literature’s recognition
of collaboration difficulties over distance despite advanced technologies (Miller et al., 2021;
Morrison-Smith & Ruiz, 2020).
Furthermore, the organizations’ emphasis on virtual leadership strategies, team charters,
and a cooperative culture encouraged trust-building and knowledge-sharing, key components of
successful virtual team collaboration (Allen et al., 2015; Olson & Olson, 2006). They also
provided goal alignment and incentives for team collaboration, consistent with the idea that
common goals can increase team commitment and reduce conflicts (Bergiel et al., 2008; Ferreira
et al., 2021). Finally, while all organizations embraced hybrid work, IT architects resented not
having adequate in-person interactions due to cost restrictions. Their organizations need to

110
establish hybrid work policies that emphasize in-person interactions to balance the benefits of
both remote and face-to-face work (Meluso et al., 2022; Shifrin & Michel, 2022).
Recommendations for Practice
Based on the study’s findings, three recommendations were identified to address the
KMO partially validated assumed needs. First, improving IT architects’ soft skills is critical to
the role they play as technology-business liaisons and team leaders. Second, expanding their
social networks can improve team trust, knowledge sharing, and productivity. Third, promoting
frequent in-person interactions among project members can improve relationships, solve
complex problems, and manage conflicts. In combination, these recommendations empower IT
architects to overcome team collaboration challenges, ultimately improving individual and team
performance.
Recommendation 1: Improve IT Architects’ Soft Skills through a Training Program
Six participants emphasized the importance of enhancing IT architects’ soft skills,
particularly early- and mid-career professionals, in response to the prolonged absence of face-toface interactions and the continued reliance on remote collaboration with internal and client
teams, partially validating the need for metacognitive knowledge. The recommendation to
address this need is to design and implement a soft skills training program to improve their
intrapersonal, interpersonal, and leadership skills.
Soft skills are a set of distinct personality traits that characterize a person’s relationships
with other people (Lavy & Yadin, 2013). While IT architects are highly technical professionals,
their success depends on their ability to work effectively with people, understand business needs,
and navigate complex organizational dynamics (Figueiredo et al., 2012; Gellweiler, 2021). Soft
skills such as communication, teamwork, and interpersonal relationships complement their

111
technical expertise and enable them to excel in their roles by ensuring their technical solutions
align with broader organizational goals and are effectively communicated to stakeholders.
Moreover, when acting as a team or project leader, they must have soft skills related to
leadership, team motivation, communication, culture, and ethics to manage the project
effectively (El-Sofany et al., 2014; Ingason & Jónasson, 2009). Table 14 summarizes the
required soft skills for IT architects in their roles and activities as described in Chapter Two,
drawing from the soft skills typically expected of IT professionals (El-Sofany et al., 2014; Singh
Dubey et al., 2022; Stal & Paliwoda-Pękosz, 2019).

112
Table 14
Expected Soft Skills for IT Architects Roles and Activities
IT Architects Roles and Activities Required Soft Skills
Business Strategy Alignment
Creating Technology Blueprints: IT architects are responsible for
developing comprehensive technology blueprints that align with current
and future business needs.
Strategic thinking
Critical thinking
Innovative thinking
Communication
Leadership
Influential skills
Adaptability
Attention to detail
Organizational skills
Ethics
Aligning IT Strategy with Business Strategy: IT architects act as change
agents, ensuring that the IT strategy evolves in sync with the enterprise’s
overall business strategy.
Driving Innovation: In digital transformation projects, IT architects drive
innovation by introducing new technologies and solutions that enhance
business processes.
Architecture Governance: IT architects establish and manage architectural
frameworks, policies, processes, guidelines, and standards to ensure
architectural governance.
Leadership, Collaboration, and Teamwork
Building Business/IT Relationships: IT architects take leadership roles in
forging strategic relationships with business stakeholders and advising
them on technology-related matters.
Leadership
Communication
Interpersonal skills
Intrapersonal skills
Teamwork
Team motivation
Adaptability
Conflict resolution
Cultural sensitivity
Ethics
Driving Collaboration and Teamwork: In project teams, IT architects play
a pivotal role in driving collaboration and teamwork among team
members, including communication with users and stakeholders.
Liaison with Organizational Units: IT architects act as liaisons with
various organizational units to facilitate communication and cooperation.
Leading Cross-Functional Teams: They lead teams comprising IT and
business roles to understand business needs and specify optimized
solutions.
Technology Implementation
Specifying Requirements: IT architects specify technical requirements for
projects, ensuring they align with business objectives. Attention to detail
Analytical thinking
Problem-solving
Decision-making
Negotiation
Adaptability
Organizational skills
Ethics
Sourcing Decisions: They make decisions regarding the sourcing of IT
products and services, considering factors like vendor selection and
technology adoption.
Modeling and Integration: IT architects create and improve models for
components or solutions, ensuring smooth integration of various elements
such as products, systems, and services.
Ensuring Architecture Conformity: They ensure that architectural designs
conform to established standards within each project.

113
As revealed in the study’s findings, the virtual environment can pose challenges to the
development of soft skills due to limitations in conveying non-verbal cues, isolation and reduced
informal social interactions (Arunprasad et al., 2022; Bergie et al., 2008; Morrison-Smith &
Ruiz, 2020). Additionally, virtual managers must grapple with unique challenges, such as
overcoming feelings of isolation, building trust, and navigating the dual role of technology as
both an aid and barrier to effective communication (El-Sofany et al., 2014; Ingason & Jónasson,
2009). Despite the organizations’ training on remote collaboration tools and practices, the
participants felt early- and mid-career professionals had their soft skills rusted or needed further
maturity, consistent with findings in other studies about soft skills during the pandemic (Brucks
& Levav, 2022; Gnecco et al., 2023).
The value of soft skills training has been widely recognized and organizations have
increasingly invested in soft skills training programs. Based on suggestions from research, the
proposed soft skills training program should be designed with a keen understanding of identified
needs and tailored to the different segments of IT architects, whether they are newcomers, midcareer professionals, or new managers, each requiring specific sets of soft skills. The training
should encompass a range of courses focused on intrapersonal skills (e.g., self-awareness,
adaptability), interpersonal skills (e.g., effective communication, conflict resolution), and
leadership skills (e.g., team management, ethical decision-making). Additionally, to reinforce
skill development, participants should be provided with ample opportunities for practice and
behavior change. This step can involve setting personal goals for skill application, keeping
journals of skill practice experiences, and receiving feedback from instructors. Lastly, mental
practice can be encouraged, allowing participants to mentally rehearse their responses in various
scenarios (Charoensap-Kelly et al., 2016; Stewart & Preiksaitis, 2023).

114
A blended delivery method should be incorporated, combining online and face-to-face
components. This approach harnesses the benefits of both methods by allowing trainees to study
course materials online and then meet face-to-face for group discussions and exercises, thus
reinforcing the importance of the content and encouraging its application in real work settings.
The use of online tools, such as chat rooms and intranet platforms, can further facilitate feedback
and on-the-job follow-up, making the training versatile and accommodating to diverse learning
styles and the demands of the modern workforce (Charoensap-Kelly et al., 2016). Finally, a
program evaluation method, such as Kirkpatrick’s Four Levels Model, should be used to
evaluate the training and ensure its alignment with the planned goals (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016). By providing a structured, targeted, and practical training curriculum with a tracking and
evaluation system, IT architects can acquire and hone the soft skills necessary to thrive in their
roles.
Recommendation 2: Expand IT Architects’ Social Networks
Five out of the seven participants in client-facing roles expressed significant challenges in
attaining satisfactory client engagement levels in virtual projects due to the virtual environment
limitations or a lack of pre-established relationships, confirming the need for IT architects to
believe in client teams’ efficacy. Moreover, nine participants mentioned missing social
interactions and five expressed that building new relationships and establishing connections is
more challenging in a remote collaboration setting, validating the need to address the negative
sentiments driven by virtual collaboration. The recommendation to address these challenges is to
build and expand IT architects’ social networks among employees and with clients.
Building and expanding IT architects’ social networks can address various challenges
resulting from the pandemic. Social networks help bolster collective efficacy, vital for virtual

115
team collaboration. Per Bandura’s social cognitive theory, people are more likely to take action
when they believe in their ability to achieve desired outcomes (Bandura, 1977). Several studies
have demonstrated that strong collective efficacy increases group engagement and motivation
(George & Jones, 1996; Salanova et al., 2011; Xanthopoulou et al., 2007). By cultivating social
networks, IT architects can boost team confidence in their ability to collaborate, motivating team
members to contribute more effectively.
In addition, social networks can influence positive emotions in virtual team collaboration.
The pandemic brought pervasive negative emotions such as loneliness, isolation, and anxiety,
which can hinder productivity and teamwork (Chafi et al., 2022). Building and expanding social
networks can help IT architects mitigate these negative sentiments, fostering enthusiasm, and
enhancing team motivation and engagement (Chafi et al., 2022; Scherer, 2009; Smite et al.,
2022).
Furthermore, social networks aid knowledge transfer and access to new, non-redundant
knowledge, which is essential for innovation (Gibson & Cohen, 2003; Shin, 2021). As social
networks erode due to remote work, strengthening these networks can help mitigate the adverse
effects on productivity and innovation associated with reduced cross-team interactions (Kovacs,
2021; Yang et al., 2022). Social networks also build trust and effective communication, which is
key for high-performance teams (Sarker et al., 2011). In summary, investing in social networks
offers a comprehensive solution to virtual team challenges, enhancing motivation, engagement,
and contribution post-pandemic. With that in mind, organizations are currently implementing
strategies to build or rebuild employee social networks.

116
Fostering IT Architects’ Social Networks within the Organization
Organizations are implementing strategies to foster social networks among their
employees in response to today’s evolving work dynamics, as shown in Table 15 (Capossela,
2022; Deal & Levenson, 2021; Lauricella et al., 2022). These strategies consistently emphasize
the importance of building both bonding and bridging ties among employees. Recognizing that
bridging ties are key to social capital, common ideas include prioritizing opportunities for
employees to cultivate informal and unplanned interactions, finding a balance between face-toface and virtual collaboration, and maximizing spontaneous exchanges. Additionally,
suggestions underscore the importance of supporting younger employees through proactive
mentoring and peer interactions, helping them integrate into the organization’s culture.

117
Table 15
Strategies for Building Social Network among Employees
Social Network Building Strategies - Among Employees
1. Prioritize Bridging Ties 2. Embrace Online Teaming and Hybrid Work
o Encourage leaders to create a schedule that
allows employees to engage in informal
interactions within the workplace.
o Organize occasional team-building events or
coffee breaks that bring together individuals
who don’t typically work closely.
o Foster mentorship programs where
experienced employees can interact with new
hires, sharing insights and advice.
o Implement a "Meet Your Colleagues"
initiative where employees from different
departments or teams have casual meetings to
strengthen bridging ties.
o Promote the use of online platforms for
team meetings and collaboration, even
when some team members are physically
present.
o Develop guidelines for effective online
team formation, ensuring inclusivity and
equal participation for all team members.
o Create a virtual "watercooler" space where
employees can engage in non-work-related
discussions and build connections.
o Organize virtual networking events to
facilitate interactions among remote and inoffice employees.
3. Support Younger Employees and Career
Development
4. Break Through Organizational Barriers
o Establish a mentorship program that pairs
younger employees with experienced
colleagues to provide guidance and support.
o Offer training sessions on building social
capital and networking skills, targeting
younger and newer employees.
o Include social capital development as a
performance metric, encouraging employees
to actively invest in relationship-building.
o Create virtual onboarding sessions that
emphasize connecting with peers and
mentors to help newcomers integrate into the
organization’s culture.
o Organize focus groups to identify
obstacles and barriers that hinder social
capital development.
o Redesign physical office spaces to create
environments that encourage spontaneous
interactions and collaboration.
o Integrate discussions about social capital
into leadership development and training
programs.
o Encourage employees to share their
experiences and insights related to social
capital through internal forums and
multimedia formats.
5. Prioritize Connection and Authenticity 6. Assess Access to Social Capital
o Ensure that leadership communicates the
importance of building social capital and
fosters an authentic, open, and empathetic
workplace culture.
o Use leadership forums or podcasts to engage
in authentic discussions about social capital
and its role in the organization.
o Recognize and reward employees who
actively contribute to social capital
development, fostering a culture of
appreciation and inclusivity.
o Conduct surveys or assessments to
understand employees’ current access to
social capital within the organization.
o Use advanced analytics to identify
influential employees and connect them
with others to foster relationships.
o Develop a social capital dashboard to
track and measure the impact of
relationship-building efforts over time.

118
Furthermore, the strategies emphasize the integration of social capital into career
development, motivating employees to actively invest in relationship-building as part of their job
responsibilities. Leaders are encouraged to redefine roles and responsibilities, incorporate
relational indicators into key performance metrics, and reward employees at all levels for their
contributions to social capital. Assessing access to social capital within the organization,
mapping knowledge flows, and implementing sponsorship and mentorship programs are
strategies to ensure that employees have the necessary access and resources to expand their
social networks effectively. Finally, the studies suggest addressing mindset barriers, redesigning
physical office spaces to encourage spontaneous interactions, and embedding discussions about
social capital into learning and leadership programs.
Ultimately, these strategies provide a blueprint for organizations seeking to create a
workplace culture that values and actively fosters meaningful connections among employees,
such as their IT architects, driving engagement and innovation in today’s dynamic work
environment. In addition to paying attention to social capital-building strategies, organizations
are also exploring strategies to improve social interactions with clients, as described in the next
section.
Fostering IT Architects’ Social Networks with Clients
In the new normal, organizations are adopting a range of strategies to enhance social
interactions with clients, both in virtual and in-person settings (Diebner et al., 2020; Moreau &
Rossavik, 2021; Plummer, 2021). In the virtual realm, companies are leveraging digital platforms
and social media to engage with clients. This approach includes hosting webinars, live streams,
and online events to maintain connections. Personalized communication through email

119
marketing, personalized recommendations, and AI-driven chatbots helps maintain a sense of
personalization in virtual interactions. Virtual workshops and training sessions are being offered,
allowing businesses to share knowledge and expertise with clients, fostering a sense of
partnership and learning. Consistent communication through newsletters and updates ensures
that clients are informed about the latest developments and offerings. Hosting virtual conferences
and expos brings together clients from different locations, facilitating networking and knowledge
sharing.
For face-to-face interactions, companies are organizing client appreciation events, such as
dinners or seminars, providing opportunities for relationship-building. Attending industryspecific trade shows and exhibitions also allows companies to meet clients in person and
showcase their products and services. A key strategy involves arranging frequent one-on-one
meetings with key clients to deepen relationships and address specific needs. In cases where site
visits are relevant, arranging field visits helps strengthen client relationships and build trust.
Sending personalized gifts or tokens of appreciation can leave a lasting impression and enhance
in-person interactions. Table 16 outlines the strategies organizations are adopting to improve
social interactions with clients. In summary, by allocating focus and resources to virtual and inperson strategies, organizations can strengthen social interactions among employees and with
clients in the new normal.

120
Table 16
Strategies for Building Social Network with Clients
Social Network Building Strategies – With Clients
Virtual Setting In-person Setting
1. Leverage Digital Platforms and Social Media
Hosting webinars, live streams, and online
events maintains connections.
1. Organize Client Appreciation Events
Organizing in-person client appreciation events
promotes interactions and relationship-building.
2. Use Personalized Communication
Personalized communication with clients
through email marketing, personalized
recommendations, and AI-driven chatbots
fosters connections.
2. Attend Trade Shows and Exhibitions
Attending industry-specific trade shows and
exhibitions allows businesses to meet clients in
person and showcase their products and
services.
3. Offer Virtual Workshops and Training
Virtual workshops and training sessions allows
for knowledge and expertise sharing with
clients, fostering a sense of partnership.
3. Arrange One-on-One Meetings
Arranging frequent one-on-one meetings with
key clients deepens relationships and address
specific needs.
4. Provide Regular Updates
Consistent communication through newsletters
and updates ensures that clients are informed
about the latest developments and offerings.
4. Organize Office/Site Visits
If site visits are relevant, arranging office/site
visits helps strengthen client relationships and
build trust.
5. Organize Virtual Conferences
Virtual conferences and expos brings together
clients from different locations, facilitating
networking and knowledge sharing.
5. Send Personalized Gifting
Sending personalized gifts or tokens of
appreciation can leave a lasting impression and
enhance in-person interactions.
Recommendation 3: Promote Work Policies Emphasizing In-person Collaboration
Six participants echoed challenges when using virtual brainstorming sessions for
ideation, complex problem solving, or conflict management. These challenges increased project
and sales cycles, leading to inefficiencies. Five out of seven client-facing participants resented
not having adequate in-person interactions to improve performance, primarily due to cost
restrictions. The recommendation to solve these issues is to promote work policies that
emphasize in-person collaboration in those tasks and conditions where it is beneficial.

121
Srivastava et al. (2021) highlighted the limitations of virtual meetings for certain tasks. In-person
group meetings involving unstructured and free-flowing discussions over consecutive days have
proven to be more effective than their virtual counterparts. Virtual sessions often lead to
participant fatigue and struggle to create the social cohesion and trust necessary for creative
breakthroughs. Additionally, Olson and Olson (2000) emphasize the difficulty of conducting
tightly coupled work remotely (interdependent tasks), where frequent and complex
communication among group members is essential. For instance, tasks that require rapid backand-forth conversation, short feedback loops, and handling ambiguity are better suited for inperson interactions (e.g.: brainstorming). It’s important to note that in virtual software
development, Garro-Abarca et al. (2021) found no issues, indicating that software projects are
well-structured at the level of by-products and tasks.
Caddell and Chung (2021) provided practical insights into the types of activities that
benefit from in-person engagement. They suggested that in-person is advantageous when work is
a combination of two or more of the following conditions: the task is novel (the task or challenge
is new or unfamiliar, potentially lacking a predefined procedure), experiential (an immersive
experience might be more effective), and collaborative (when tasks demand ongoing
synchronous involvement from a group). The activities, which are also recommended by other
publications (Ash et al., 2022; Deal & Levenson, 2021), fall into the following four categories:
1. Tasks meeting conditions novel and experiential: In cases where the task or challenge
is new and immersive learning experiences are beneficial, in-person interactions are
valuable. For instance, immersive on-boarding experiences can reinforce shared identity
and cultural norms.

122
2. Tasks meeting conditions novel and collaborative: High-stakes teaming moments, such
as project kickoffs and product launches, benefit from physical proximity and focused
team development.
3. Tasks meeting conditions experiential and collaborative: For sustaining cultural
rituals and fostering social bonding within teams or organizations, in-person gatherings
are essential. Seasonal parties and retreats are examples of such activities.
4. Tasks meeting conditions novel, experiential, and collaborative: Organizations can
benefit from in-person assemblies that facilitate collaboration and adaptation in response
to planned or unplanned changes, such as addressing layoffs or strategic pivots.
These activities, which are also recommended by other publications (Ash et al., 2022;
Deal & Levenson, 2021), apply to both internal and client teams. Aiming to support the
formulation of work policies that prioritize in-person interactions, Table 17 presents the
previously described activity categories, along with corresponding examples, organized by
internal and client activities.

123
Table 17
Activities Categories with Internal and Client Activities Examples
Activity Category Internal Activities Client Activities
Novel and Experiential
o Immersive onboarding and
cultural training (especially for
young hires)
o Hackathons
o Team charters and processes
creation and training
o Hackathons
Novel and Collaborative
o Project kickoffs
o Product launches
o Brainstorming and design
thinking sessions
o Cross-functional innovation and
problem-solving sessions
o Cross-unit innovation and
problem-solving sessions
o Project kickoffs
o Partnership launches
o Brainstorming, design thinking
and problem-solving sessions
Experiential and
Collaborative
o Seasonal parties and
o team retreats for building
relationships and trust
o Cross-unit informal events for
knowledge transfer
o Informal events for building
relationships, trust, and
knowledge transfer
Novel, Experiential, and
Collaborative
o Change assemblies
o Strategic pivots
o Collaborative conferences with
clients to map out future
strategies and product roadmaps
Although remote work offers numerous benefits, organizations must acknowledge
scenarios where in-person collaboration and interaction are vital for cultivating creativity, trust,
and effective communication. Organizations should incorporate these insights into their work
policies and allocate the necessary resources for their implementation. By doing so,
organizations can balance virtual and physical work environments, enhancing productivity and
increasing employee satisfaction.

124
Limitations and Delimitations
During the research process, limitations and delimitations have influenced data collection
and analysis and, consequently, the study’s outcomes. According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016),
limitations encompass external factors that fall beyond the researcher’ control and the
methodological design’s scope, while delimitations pertain to context-dependent factors inherent
in the sample population or the research design. Acknowledging the research limitations, first, a
limited number of interviews were conducted, and they were unevenly distributed among the
three organizations under investigation, potentially introducing bias into the perspectives
gathered (Maxwell, 2013). Second, not all participants met the requirement of having five years
of experience within a company, despite their potential insights into cross-cultural comparisons.
Third, the availability of documents was restricted to public sources, limiting the ability to
triangulate information between participant interviews and organizational documents. Moreover,
specific details were withheld to protect organizational anonymity. Finally, due to time
constraints, member checking was conducted for transcriptions but not extended to the analysis
phase.
The study also featured deliberate delimitations. The research focused solely on senior
architects, assuming they could provide insights across all experience levels within the
organization, including seniors, mid-career, and younger professionals. As a result, the
participants offered more comprehensive insights into their own experiences compared to those
of other IT architects. For example, the unique requirements of new hires and younger
professionals were not addressed adequately in this study. Additionally, while the research
initially anticipated internal team collaboration issues, issues with clients outweighed internal
concerns. Lastly, conducting a phenomenological study with qualitative data implies that the

125
findings cannot be generalized beyond the specific context under investigation. In addition to
these outlined limitations and delimitations, this study underscored areas of inquiry that demand
further research.
Recommendations for Future Research
Global IT organizations have long embraced remote work (Avery & Zabel, 2001;
Chudoba et al., 2005; El-Sofany et al., 2014), but the implications of the prolonged COVID-19
pandemic-induced full remote work on collaboration dynamics remain a new topic in the
literature. This phenomenological study explored team collaboration challenges experienced by
IT architects as they play a pivotal role in the design and management of IT projects. Three
future research areas emerged from the participants’ interviews, addressing different aspects of
team collaboration in IT projects.
First, future research is needed to investigate team processes that facilitate virtual
collaboration with clients, addressing the specific challenges of cross-organizational projects. All
participants highlighted challenges in collaborating with clients virtually, often due to differences
in virtual tools and processes. Working in a virtual team involves more dynamic and flexible
ways of organizing team activities (Gibson & Gibbs, 2006; Stratone et al., 2022). Although
studies have recognized that the pandemic has accelerated how well individuals collaborate with
one another virtually (Klonek et al., 2022), they usually refer to team processes within an
organization. To close this gap, research should explore and design team processes involving
members of different organizations. This approach aims to enhance cohesion and effectiveness in
virtual collaborations with clients, overcoming virtual tools and process differences.
Additionally, examining the integration of emerging technologies, cultural sensitivity,

126
psychological factors, and leadership roles in cross-organizational virtual teams will be essential
for developing successful virtual client interactions.
Second, future research should investigate the underlying factors contributing to
disparities between individual versus organizational perspectives on returning to the office, as
revealed from the interviews. While some individuals may favor the flexibility and comfort of
remote work, organizations may grapple with concerns related to productivity, culture, and the
need for in-person collaboration. Conversely, while some companies may have financial
motivations to promote remote work, aiming to save on office-related expenses such as leasing
costs and utilities, some individuals may prefer in-person work for face-to-face interaction or a
structured environment. Studies should explore the potential long-term effects of these disparities
on employee satisfaction, organizational performance, and the development of effective hybrid
work models.
The third recommendation is to conduct a quantitative research study to address the
issues associated with the research focus on senior IT architects only. By employing quantitative
methods, researchers can systematically gather data from a larger and more diverse sample of
participants (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Pazzaglia et al., 2016), including senior architects,
middle-career professionals, and younger employees. This approach would enable the
exploration of nuanced differences among these groups, providing a more comprehensive
understanding of their unique perspectives, challenges, and requirements. Additionally,
quantitative research allows for the measurement of relationships and patterns, making it
possible to identify correlations between variables (Salkind, 2014), such as age, experience, and
job satisfaction, which can inform targeted interventions and strategies for improving
organizational dynamics. By embracing quantitative research, the study can overcome the

127
limitations of its initial focus and offer a more inclusive and data-driven approach to addressing
the complexities of the workforce and enhancing the organization’s overall effectiveness.
Conclusion
This study explored the challenges and opportunities of full remote work in large, global
IT organizations during the COVID-19 pandemic. It emphasized the critical role of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational factors in IT architects’ adaptation to remote collaboration. From
a knowledge perspective, IT architects demonstrated adaptability to virtual work but needed
improved soft skills. In terms of motivation, they acknowledged the benefits of remote
collaboration but expressed a desire for more in-person interaction, internally and with clients.
Organizational factors such as communication platforms, hybrid work policies, trust-building,
and goal alignment were present, but cost constraints limited in-person interactions. It became
evident that remote work can empower and hinder collaboration, depending on how
organizations and individuals navigate its complexities.
As these organizations continue to grapple with the aftermath of the pandemic and seek
effective work arrangements, a compromise between individuals and organizations is imperative.
This compromise should center around implementing hybrid work practices that harness the
strengths of both remote and in-person collaboration. Such practices should prioritize soft skills
development, social network expansion, and work policies that promote in-person collaboration
when it enhances creativity, trust, and communication. The findings also pointed to potential
avenues for future research, such as examining the dynamics of virtual client collaboration,
investigating individual and organizational perspectives on returning to physical offices, and
conducting quantitative studies involving professionals at various career stages.

128
In this dynamic and ever-changing work landscape, the ability to strike this balance
between individual preferences for flexibility and organizational imperatives for productivity and
innovation will be pivotal. By heeding these recommendations, organizations can foster
collaboration, adapt to the evolving nature of work, and position themselves for success in an
increasingly hybrid work environment. This journey towards more effective hybrid work
practices is not merely a response to the pandemic but a transformative step towards a more
adaptable, resilient, and collaborative future of work.

129
References
Agerfalk, P. J., Fitzgerald, B., Holmstrmm, H., Lings, B., Lundell, B., & Conchuir, E. O. (2005).
A framework for considering opportunities and threats in distributed software development.
Proc. International Workshop on Distributed Software Development, Paris, France:
Austrian Computer Society, August, 47–61.
Agren, P., Knoph, E., & Berntsson Svensson, R. (2022). Agile software development one year
into the COVID-19 pandemic. Empirical Software Engineering : an International Journal,
27(6), 121–121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-022-10176-9
Alexander, A., Cracknell, R., De Smet, A., Langstaff, M., Mysore, M., & Ravid, D. (2021).
What executives are saying about the future of hybrid work. In Mckinsey Global Institute
(Issue May).
Allen, T. D., Golden, T. D., & Shockley, K. M. (2015). How effective is telecommuting?
Assessing the status of our scientific findings. Psychological Science in the Public Interest,
16(2), 40–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100615593273
Altaf, A., Fatima, U., Butt, W. H., Anwar, M. W., & Hamdani, M. (2019). A systematic
literature review on factors impacting agile adaptation in global software development.
ACM International Conference Proceeding Series.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3348445.3348463
Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. K. (2010). How
learning works (1st ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Argote, L., & Ingram, P. (2000). Knowledge transfer: A basis for competitive advantage in
firms. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1).
https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2000.2893

130
Armstrong, D. J., & Cole, P. (2002). Managing distances and differences in geographically
distributed work groups. In Distributed work. (pp. 167–189). Boston Review.
https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/2464.001.0001
Arunprasad, P., Dey, C., Jebli, F., Manimuthu, A., & El Hathat, Z. (2022). Exploring the remote
work challenges in the era of COVID-19 pandemic: review and application model. In
Benchmarking. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-07-2021-0421
Ash, M., Awori, K., Baym, N., Bruch, M., Butler, J., Choudhury, P., Coleman, A., Counts, S.,
Cupala, S., Czerwinski, M., Doran, E., Fetterolf, E., Franco, M. G., Gupta, K., Halfaker, A.,
Hadley, C., Hecht, B., Houck, B., Inkpen, K., … Yang, L. (2022). Microsoft New Future of
Work Report 2022.
Avery, C., & Zabel, D. (2001). The flexible workplace: A sourcebook of information and
research. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
Avison, D., Jones, J., Powell, P., & Wilson, D. (2004). Using and validating the strategic
alignment model. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 13(3).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2004.08.002
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman and
Company. American Psychological Association, 23.
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 9(3). https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00064
Bao, L., Li, T., Xia, X., Zhu, K., Li, H., & Yang, X. (2022). How does working from home affect
developer productivity? — A case study of Baidu during the COVID-19 pandemic. Science
China Information Sciences, 65(4). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11432-020-3278-4

131
Barrero, J. M., Bloom, N., & Davis, S. J. (2020). Why Working From Home Will Stick. SSRN
Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3741644
Barta, K. (2022). Recent Surveys Find Remote Work Successful, Executives Embracing It.
Intermedia Cloud Communications. https://www.intermedia.com/blog/recent-surveys-findremote-work-successful-executives-embracing-it/
Bednarz, A. (2013). Best Buy cancels telework program.
https://www.computerworld.com/article/2827787/best-buy-cancels-telework-program.html
Bennis, W. G., & Nanus, B. (2007). Leaders : strategies for taking charge (B. Nanus (ed.); 2nd
ed., 1). Collins Business Essentials.
Bergiel, B. J., Bergiel, E. B., & Balsmeier, P. W. (2008). Nature of virtual teams: A summary of
their advantages and disadvantages. Management Research News, 31(2), 99–110.
https://doi.org/10.1108/01409170810846821
Bird, C., Nagappan, N., Devanbu, P., Gall, H., & Murphy, B. (2009). Does distributed
development affect software quality? An empirical case study of windows vista.
Proceedings - International Conference on Software Engineering.
https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSE.2009.5070550
Bjorn, P., & Ngwenyama, O. (2009). Virtual team collaboration: Building shared meaning,
resolving breakdowns and creating translucence. Information Systems Journal, 19(3), 227–
253. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2575.2007.00281.x
Bloom, N. A. (2020). Working from Home and the Future of U.S. Economic Growth Under
COVID. Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtdFIZx3hyk

132
Boslaugh, S. E. (2010). Secondary Data Source. In N. J. Salkind (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Research
Design (pp. 1331–1331). SAGE Publications, Inc.
https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412961288.n406
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research
Journal, 9(2). https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
Bratianu, C., & Bejinaru, R. (2021). COVID-19 induced emergent knowledge strategies.
Knowledge and Process Management, 28(1), 11–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/kpm.1656
Brown, A. L., Bransford, J. D., Ferrara, R. A., & Campione, J. C. (1982). Learning,
Remembering, and Understanding. Technical Report No. 244. In Carmichael’s manual of
child psychology: Vol.1. Cognitive development.
Brucks, M. S., & Levav, J. (2022). Virtual communication curbs creative idea generation.
Nature, 605(7908), 108–112. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-04643-y
Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural Holes: The Social Structure of ComBurt, R. S. (1992). Structural
Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Harvard University Press Cambridge MA (Vol.
58). Retrieved from http://isbndb.com/d/book/structural_holespetition. In Harvard
University Press Cambridge MA (Vol. 58, Issue 1).
Caddell, B., & Chung, L. B. (2021). Hybrid Workplace: What Work Must Be Done In Person?
https://academy.nobl.io/in-a-hybrid-workforce-what-work-must-be-done-in-person/
Capossela, C. (2022, September). To Get People Back in the Office, Make It Social. Harvard
Business Review. https://hbr.org/2022/09/to-get-people-back-in-the-office-make-it-social
Chafi, M. B., Hultberg, A., & Yams, N. B. (2022). Post-pandemic office work: Perceived
challenges and opportunities for a sustainable work environment. Sustainability
(Switzerland), 14(1). https://doi.org/10.3390/su14010294

133
Charoensap-Kelly, P., Broussard, L., Lindsly, M., & Troy, M. (2016). Evaluation of a soft skills
training program. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 79(2), 154–179.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2329490615602090
Choudhury, P., Foroughi, C., & Larson, B. (2021). Work-from-anywhere: The productivity
effects of geographic flexibility. Strategic Management Journal, 42(4), 655–683.
https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3251
Chudoba, K. M., Wynn, E., Lu, M., & Watson-Manheim, M. B. (2005). How virtual are we?
Measuring virtuality and understanding its impact in a global organization. Information
Systems Journal, 15(4), 279–306. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2575.2005.00200.x
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results : a guide to selecting the right
performance solutions (F. Estes (ed.)). Information Age Pub Inc.
Clore, G. L., & Huntsinger, J. R. (2007). How emotions inform judgment and regulate thought.
Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(9), 393–399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2007.08.005
Conrella-Dorada, S., Grag, K., Thareja, S., & Vasquez-McAll, B. (2020). Revisiting agile teams
after an abrupt shift to remote. Organization Practice McKinsey&Company, April, 1–12.
https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/our-insights/revisiting-agileteams-after-an-abrupt-shift-to-remote#
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Strategies for qualitative data analysis. In Techniques and
procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed., pp. 65–86). SAGE.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed
Methods Approaches - John W. Creswell, J. David Creswell - Google Books. In SAGE
Publications, Inc.

134
Cross, R., Parker, A., Prusak, L., & Borgatti, S. P. (2001). Knowing what we know: Supporting
knowledge creation and sharing in social networks. Organizational Dynamics, 30(2).
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-2616(01)00046-8
Cundill, G., Harvey, B., Tebboth, M., Cochrane, L., Currie‐Alder, B., Vincent, K., Lawn, J.,
Nicholls, R. J., Scodanibbio, L., Prakash, A., New, M., Wester, P., Leone, M., Morchain,
D., Ludi, E., DeMaria‐Kinney, J., Khan, A., & Landry, M. (2019). Large‐Scale
Transdisciplinary Collaboration for Adaptation Research: Challenges and Insights. Global
Challenges, 3(4), 1700132. https://doi.org/10.1002/gch2.201700132
Dalton, M., & Groen, J. (2022). Telework during the COVID-19 pandemic: estimates using the
2021 Business Response Survey. Monthly Labor Review.
https://doi.org/10.21916/mlr.2022.8
Datta, S. (2018). How does developer interaction relate to software quality? an examination of
product development data. Empirical Software Engineering, 23(3).
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-017-9534-0
Deal, J. J., & Levenson, A. (2021). Figuring Out Social Capital Is Critical for the Future of
Hybrid Work. MIT Sloan Management Review, 62(4), 1–4.
DeFilippis, E., Impink, S., Singell, M., Polzer, J. T., & Sadun, R. (2020). Collaborating During
Coronavirus: The Impact of COVID-19 on the Nature of Work. SSRN Electronic Journal.
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3654470
Dey, M., Frazis, H., Loewenstein, M., & Piccone, D. S. (2021). Teleworking and Lost Work
During the Pandemic: New Evidence from the CPS. SSRN Electronic Journal.
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3807195

135
Dingsoyr, T., & Smite, D. (2014). Managing knowledge in global software development
projects. IT Professional, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.1109/MITP.2013.19
Diebner, R., Silliman, E., Ungerman, K., & Vancauwenberghe, M. (2020). Adapting customer
experience in the time of coronavirus. McKinsey & Company, April, 1–7.
https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/marketing-and-sales/our-insights/adaptingcustomer-experience-in-the-time-of-coronavirus
Drucker, P. F. (Peter F. (1959). Landmarks of tomorrow. ([1st ed.]). Harper.
Dua, A., Ellingrud, K., Kirschner, P., Kwok, A., Luby, R., Palter, R., & Pemberton, S. (2022).
Americans are embracing flexible work—and they want more of it. McKinsey, June.
https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/real-estate/our-insights/americans-are-embracingflexible-work-and-they-want-more-of-it
Duarte, D. L., & Snyder, N. T. (2006). Mastering Virtual Teams: Strategies, Tools, and
Techniques That Succeed, Third Edition (3rd ed.). Wiley.
Eagle, L. (2020). Coronavirus Flash Survey October 2020.
https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/blog/livestream-highlightsfrom-451-researchs-coronavirus-flash-survey-october-2020
Ebrahim, N. A., Ahmed, S., & Taha, Z. (2009). Virtual teams: A literature review. Australian
Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 3(3), 2653–2669.
El-Sofany, H. F., Alwadani, H. M., & Alwadani, A. (2014). Managing Virtual Team Work in IT
Projects: Survey. International Journal of Advanced Corporate Learning (IJAC), 7(4).
https://doi.org/10.3991/ijac.v7i4.4018

136
Faraj, S., Renno, W., & Bhardwaj, A. (2021). Unto the breach: What the COVID-19 pandemic
exposes about digitalization. Information and Organization, 31(1).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2021.100337
Ferreira, R., Pereira, R., Bianchi, I. S., & da Silva, M. M. (2021). Decision factors for remote
work adoption: Advantages, disadvantages, driving forces and challenges. Journal of Open
Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 7(1), 1–24.
https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc7010070
Figueiredo, M. C., de Souza, C. R. B., Pereira, M. Z., Audy, J., & Prikladnicki, R. (2012). On the
role of information technology systems architects. 18th Americas Conference on
Information Systems 2012, AMCIS 2012, 4.
Figueiredo, M. C., De Souza, C. R. B., Pereira, M. Z., Prikladnicki, R., & Audy, J. L. N. (2014).
Knowledge transfer, translation and transformation in the work of information technology
architects. Information and Software Technology, 56(10).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2014.04.001
Flake, E., Alexander, R., Marguerite, W., Rose, J., & Paradis, T. (2022). Return-to-work wars:
Execs at Citi, Manpower, and McKinsey on why they’re embracing remote and hybrid
work. Business Insider. https://www.businessinsider.com/return-to-work-wars-hybridremote-permanent-work-2022-6
FlexJobs. (2017). The 2017 State of Telecommuting in the U.S. Employee Workforce.
https://www.flexjobs.com/2017-State-of-Telecommuting-US

137
Ford, D., Storey, M.-A., Zimmermann, T., Bird, C., Jaffe, S., Maddila, C., Butler, J. L., Houck,
B., & Nagappan, N. (2022). A Tale of Two Cities: Software Developers Working from
Home during the COVID-19 Pandemic. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and
Methodology, 31(2), 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1145/3487567
Frazis, H. (2020). Who Telecommutes? Where is the Time Saved Spent? BLS WORKING
PAPERS, March.
Frick, N. R. J., Möllmann, H. L., Mirbabaie, M., & Stieglitz, S. (2021). Driving digital
transformation during a pandemic: Case study of virtual collaboration in a German hospital.
JMIR Medical Informatics, 9(2). https://doi.org/10.2196/25183
Fuller, M. A., Hardin, A. M., & Davison, R. M. (2006). Efficacy in technology-mediated
distributed teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 23(3), 209–235.
https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222230308
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist, 36(1).
https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3601_5
Garro-Abarca, V., Palos-Sanchez, P., & Aguayo-Camacho, M. (2021). Virtual Teams in Times
of Pandemic: Factors That Influence Performance. Frontiers in Psychology, 12.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.624637
Gellweiler, C. (2020). Types of IT architects: A content analysis on tasks and skills. Journal of
Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 15(2).
https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-18762020000200103
Gellweiler, C. (2021). IT architects and IT-business alignment: A theoretical review. Procedia
Computer Science, 196, 13–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2021.11.067

138
George, J. M., & Jones, G. R. (1996). The experience of work and turnover intentions:
Interactive effects of value attainment, job satisfaction, and positive mood. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 81(3). https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.81.3.318
Gibson, C. B., & Cohen, S. G. (2003). Virtual Teams that Work: Creating Conditions for Virtual
Team Effectiveness. Jossey-Bass.
http://www.communicationcache.com/uploads/1/0/8/8/10887248/virtual_teams_that_work_
creating_conditions_for_virtual_team_effectiveness.pdf
Gibson, C. B., & 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.
https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.51.3.451
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. In Becoming Qualitative
Researchers An Introduction.
Gonçalves, S. P., Dos Santos, J. V., Silva, I. S., Veloso, A., Brandão, C., & Moura, R. (2021).
COVID-19 and people management: The view of human resource managers. Administrative
Sciences, 11(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci11030069
Gnecco, G., Landi, S., & Riccaboni, M. (2023). The emergence of social soft skill needs in the
post COVID-19 era. Quality and Quantity. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-023-01659-y
Goudreau, J. (2013). Back To the Stone Age? New Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer Bans Working
From Home. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jennagoudreau/2013/02/25/back-to-the-stoneage-new-yahoo-ceo-marissa-mayer-bans-working-from-home/?sh=1f7383091667
Gratton, L. (2021). How to do hybrid right. In Harvard Business Review (Vol. 2021, Issue JulyAugust).

139
Gruber, A. (2010). Obama signs telework expansion act. Government Executive.
https://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/2010/12/obama-signs-telework-expansionact/32909/
Handke, L., Klonek, F. E., Parker, S. K., & Kauffeld, S. (2020). Interactive Effects of Team
Virtuality and Work Design on Team Functioning. Small Group Research, 51(1), 3–47.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496419863490
Haughney, C. (2018). USDA workers bristle at move to severely restrict telecommuting. Politico.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/16/usda-telecommuting-284099
Herbsleb, J. D., & Mockus, A. (2003). An empirical study of speed and communication in
globally distributed software development. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering,
29(6). https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2003.1205177
Hern, A. (2020). Covid-19 could cause permanent shift towards home working. The Guardian.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/mar/13/covid-19-could-cause-permanentshift-towards-home-working
Hertel, G., Geister, S., & Konradt, U. (2005). Managing virtual teams: A review of current
empirical research. Human Resource Management Review, 15(1).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2005.01.002
Hoffmann, M., Mendez, D., Fagerholm, F., & Luckhardt, A. (2023). The human side of Software
Engineering Teams: an investigation of contemporary challenges. IEEE Transactions on
Software Engineering, 49(1), 1–1. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2022.3148539

140
Holmstrom, H., Conchúir, E. Ó., Ågerfalk, P. J., & Fitzgerald, B. (2006). Global software
development challenges: A case study on temporal, geographical and socio-cultural
distance. Proceedings - 2006 IEEE International Conference on Global Software
Engineering, ICGSE 2006. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICGSE.2006.261210
HubbleHQ. (2022). The Official List of Every Company’s Back-to-Office Strategy.
https://hubblehq.com/blog/famous-companies-workplace-strategies
Hughes, M., Rigtering, J. P. C., Covin, J. G., Bouncken, R. B., & Kraus, S. (2018). Innovative
Behaviour, Trust and Perceived Workplace Performance. British Journal of Management,
29(4). https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12305
IBM. (2010). IBM receives continued recognition as Best Workplace for Commuters.
https://www.ibm.com/ibm/environment/news/bwc_2010.shtml
IBM Institute for Business Value. (2020). COVID-19 and the future of business.
https///www.ibm.com/downloads/cas/1APBEJWB
Ingason, H. T., & Jónasson, H. I. (2009). Contemporary Knowledge and Skill Requirements in
Project Management. Project Management Journal, 40(2), 59–69.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.20122
Joe, S. W., Tsai, Y. H., Lin, C. P., & Liu, W. Te. (2014). Modeling team performance and its
determinants in high-tech industries: Future trends of virtual teaming. Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, 88, 16–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2014.06.012
Jones, J. (2015). In U.S., Telecommuting for Work Climbs to 37%. GALLUP.
https://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/2010/12/obama-signs-telework-expansionact/32909/

141
Kettinger, W. J., Marchand, D. A., & Davis, J. M. (2010). Designing enterprise IT architectures
to optimize flexibility and standardization in global business. MIS Quarterly Executive,
9(2).
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation.
ATD press.
Klein, C., DiazGranados, D., Salas, E., Le, H., Burke, C. S., Lyons, R., & Goodwin, G. F.
(2009). Does Team Building Work?. Small Group Research, 40(2), 181–222.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496408328821
Klonek, F. E., Kanse, L., Wee, S., Runneboom, C., & Parker, S. K. (2022). Did the COVID-19
Lock-Down Make Us Better at Working in Virtual Teams? Small Group Research, 53(2),
185–206. https://doi.org/10.1177/10464964211008991
Koehne, B., Shih, P. C., & Olson, J. S. (2012). Remote and alone: Coping with being the remote
member on the team. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported
Cooperative Work, CSCW. https://doi.org/10.1145/2145204.2145393
Kontostavlou, E. Z., & Drigas, A. (2021). How Metacognition Supports Giftedness in
Leadership. International Journal of Advanced Corporate Learning (IJAC), 14(2).
https://doi.org/10.3991/ijac.v14i2.23237
Kovacs, B., Caplan, N., Grob, S., & King, M. (2021). Social Networks and Loneliness During
the COVID-19 Pandemic. Socius, 7. https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023120985254
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. In Theory into Practice
(Vol. 41, Issue 4, pp. 212–218). https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2

142
Kshirsagar, A., Mansour, T., McNally, L., & Metakis, M. (2020). Adapting workplace learning
in the time of coronavirus. AKRUAL: Jurnal Akuntansi, 8(1), 11–27.
https://journal.unesa.ac.id/index.php/aj/article/view/1344/935%0Ahttps://www.mckinsey.co
m/business-functions/mckinsey-accelerate/our-insights/adapting-workplace-learning-in-thetime-of-coronavirus
Kuhbandner, C., & Pekrun, R. (2013). Joint effects of emotion and color on memory. Emotion
(Washington, D.C.), 13(3), 375–379. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031821
LaBerge, L., O’Toole, C., Schneider, J., & Kate Smaje. (2020). How COVID-19 has pushed
companies over the technology tipping point-and transformed business forever. In
McKinsey Global Publishing (Issue October).
Lamersdorf, A., & Münch, J. (2010). Studying the Impact of Global Software Development
Characteristics on Project Goals: A Causal Model. The Open Software Engineering Journal,
4.
Lauricella, T., Parsons, J., Schaninger, B., & Weddle, B. (2022). Network effects: How to
rebuild social capital and improve corporate performance. McKinsey & Company, July.
https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/people-and-organizational-performance/ourinsights/network-effects-how-to-rebuild-social-capital-and-improve-corporate-performance
Lavy, I., & Yadin, A. (2013). Soft Skills – An Important Key for Employability in the “Shift to a
Service Driven Economy” Era. International Journal of E-Education, e-Business, eManagement and e-Learning. https://doi.org/10.7763/ijeeee.2013.v3.270
Lin, N. (2001). Building a Network Theory of Social Capital. In SOCIAL CAPITAL (1st ed., pp.
3–28). CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315129457-1

143
Lincoln, Y. S., Guba, E. G., & Pilotta, J. J. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 9(4). https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(85)90062-8
Locke, L. F., Silverman, S. J., & Lawrence, E. (2010). Reading and Understanding Research 3rd
edition. SAGE Publiications.
Lund, S., Madgavkar, A., Manyika, J., & Smit, S. (2020). What’s next for remote work : An
analysis of 2,000 tasks, 800 jobs, and nine countries. In McKinsey Quarterly (Issue
November). http://thebusinessleadership.academy/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/MGIWhats-next-for-remote-work-v3.pdf
Malhotra, A., Majchrzak, A., & Rosen, B. (2007). Leading virtual teams. Academy of
Management Perspectives, 21(1). https://doi.org/10.5465/AMP.2007.24286164
Manea, A. A., Radzi, A. R., Rahman, R. A., & Haron, A. T. (2021). Strategies for virtual teams
in construction: Easiness-effectiveness analysis. IOP Conference Series: Earth and
Environmental Science, 641(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/641/1/012009
Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and
taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26(3).
https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2001.4845785
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design : an interactive approach (3rd ed.). SAGE
Publications.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An Integrative Model Of Organizational
Trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3).
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9508080335

144
Maynard, M. T., & Gilson, L. L. (2014). The Role of Shared Mental Model Development in
Understanding Virtual Team Effectiveness. Group and Organization Management, 39(1).
https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601113475361
McDonough, E. F., Kahn, K. B., & 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0737-6782(00)00073-4
McLarnon, M. J. W., & Woodley, H. J. R. (2021). Collective efficacy in virtual teams:
Emergence, trajectory, and effectiveness implications. Canadian Journal of Behavioural
Science, 53(2), 187–199. https://doi.org/10.1037/cbs0000233
Meinhardt, J., & Pekrun, R. (2003). Attentional resource allocation to emotional events: An ERP
study. Cognition and Emotion, 17(3), 477–500.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930244000039
Meluso, J., Johnson, S., & Bagrow, J. (2020). Making Virtual Teams Work Redesigning Virtual
Collaboration for the Future. SocArXiv, 2(5), 1–14.
Meluso, J., Johnson, S., & Bagrow, J. (2022). Flexible Environments for Hybrid Collaboration:
Redesigning Virtual Work Through the Four Orders of Design. In Design Issues (Vol. 38,
Issue 1, pp. 55–69). MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.1162/desi_a_00670
Mens, T., Cataldo, M., & Damian, D. (2019). The social developer: The future of software
development [guest editors’ introduction]. In IEEE Software (Vol. 36, Issue 1).
https://doi.org/10.1109/MS.2018.2874316
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative Research A guide to Design and
Implementation. In The Jossey-Bass Higher and Adult Education Series (Vol. 112, Issue
483).

145
Meyer, A. N., Fritz, T., Murphy, G. C., & Zimmermann, T. (2014). Software developers’
perceptions of productivity. Proceedings of the ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on the
Foundations of Software Engineering, 16-21-November-2014.
https://doi.org/10.1145/2635868.2635892
Microsoft Research. (2021). The New Future of Work: Research from Microsoft into the
Pandemic’s Impact on Work Practices. In Microsoft Research (Issue 1).
Miller, C., Rodeghero, P., Storey, M. A., Ford, D., & Zimmermann, T. (2021). “How was your
weekend?” Software development teams working from home during COVID-19.
Proceedings - International Conference on Software Engineering, 624–636.
https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSE43902.2021.00064
Morrison-Smith, S., & Ruiz, J. (2020). Challenges and barriers in virtual teams: a literature
review. SN Applied Sciences, 2(6). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-020-2801-5
Moreau, A., & Rossavik, C. (2021). How to foster client relationships post-COVID-19: from
challenge to opportunity. https://www.ey.com/en_be/consulting/how-to-foster-clientrelationships-post-covid-19-from-challenge-to-opportunity
Mulki, J. P., Lassk, F. G., & Jaramillo, F. (2008). The effect of self-efficacy on salesperson work
overload and pay satisfaction. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 28, 285–
297. https://doi.org/10.2753/PSS0885-3134280305
Nayani, R. J., Nielsen, K., Daniels, K., Donaldson-Feilder, E. J., & Lewis, R. C. (2018). Out of
sight and out of mind? A literature review of occupational safety and health leadership and
management of distributed workers. Work and Stress, 32(2), 124–146.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2017.1390797

146
Neumann, M., & Bogdanov, Y. (2022). The Impact of Covid 19 on Agile Software
Development: A Systematic Literature Review. Proceedings of the 55th Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences. https://doi.org/10.24251/hicss.2022.882
Neumayr, T., Jetter, H. C., Augstein, M., Friedl, J., & Luger, T. (2018). Domino: A descriptive
framework for hybrid collaboration and coupling styles in partially distributed teams.
Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 2(CSCW).
https://doi.org/10.1145/3274397
Neumayr, T., Saatci, B., Rintel, S., Klokmose, C. N., & Augstein, M. (2021). What was Hybrid?
A Systematic Review of Hybrid Collaboration and Meetings Research. 00(0).
http://arxiv.org/abs/2111.06172
Nguyen, V., Huang, L. G., & Boehm, B. (2011). An analysis of trends in productivity and cost
drivers over years. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series.
https://doi.org/10.1145/2020390.2020393
Njanka, S. Q., Sandula, G., & Colomo-Palacios, R. (2021). IT-Business alignment: A systematic
literature review. Procedia Computer Science, 181, 333–340.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2021.01.154
Olson, G. M., & Olson, J. S. (2000). Distance Matters. Human-Computer Interaction, 15(2–3),
139–178. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327051HCI1523_4
Olson, J. S., & Olson, G. M. (2006). Bridging Distance: Empirical Studies of Distributed Teams.
Human-Computer Interaction in Management Information Systems, 2.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks. Cal.: Sage
Publications.

147
Pazzaglia, A. M., Stafford, E. T., & Rodriguez, S. M. (2016). Survey methods for educators:
Selecting samples and administering surveys (part 2 of 3). Applied Research Methods,
August.
Pekrun, R., & Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (2014). International handbook of emotions in education.
In International Handbook of Emotions in Education.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203148211
Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Xin, K. R. (1999). Exploring the black box: An analysis of
work group diversity, conflict, and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1),
1–28. https://doi.org/10.2307/2667029
Petersen, K. (2011). Measuring and predicting software productivity: A systematic map and
review. In Information and Software Technology (Vol. 53, Issue 4).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2010.12.001
Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The Role of Goal Orientation in Self-Regulated Learning. In Handbook of
Self-Regulation. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-012109890-2/50043-3
Plummer, M. (2021, July). How The Pandemic Changed Customer Relationships.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2021/07/27/how-the-pandemic-changedcustomer-relationships/?sh=b1c860a5f18d
Portes, A. (1998). Social Capital: Its Origins and Applications in Modern Sociology. Annual
Review of Sociology, 24. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.24.1.1
Previn, F. (2020). A CIO’s guide to extreme challenges.
https///www.ibm.com/downloads/cas/P9DYADGW

148
PWC. (2021). It’s time to reimagine where and how work will get done. PWC.
https://www.pwc.com/us/en/services/consulting/business-transformation/library/covid-19-
us-remote-work-survey.html
Ralph, P., Baltes, S., Adisaputri, G., Torkar, R., Kovalenko, V., Kalinowski, M., Novielli, N.,
Yoo, S., Devroey, X., Tan, X., Zhou, M., Turhan, B., Hoda, R., Hata, H., Robles, G., Milani
Fard, A., & Alkadhi, R. (2020). Pandemic programming: How COVID-19 affects software
developers and how their organizations can help. Empirical Software Engineering, 25(6),
4927–4961. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-020-09875-y
Reagans, R., & McEvily, B. (2003). Network Structure and Knowledge Transfer: The Effects of
Cohesion and Range. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2).
https://doi.org/10.2307/3556658
Rico, R., & Cohen, S. G. (2005). Effects of task interdependence and type of communication on
performance. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20(3–4), 261–274.
https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940510589046
Rivard, S., Raymond, L., & Verreault, D. (2006). Resource-based view and competitive strategy:
An integrated model of the contribution of information technology to firm performance.
Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 15(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2005.06.003
Rock, D., Brynjolfsson, E., Ozimek, A., Horton, J. J., TuYe, H.-Y., & Sharma, G. (2020).
COVID-19 and Remote Work: An Early Look at US Data [Document]. NBER Working
Paper Series. https://doi.org/10.3386/w27344

149
Russo, D., Hanel, P. H. P., Altnickel, S., & van Berkel, N. (2021). Predictors of well-being and
productivity among software professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic – a longitudinal
study. Empirical Software Engineering, 26(4), 62–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-021-
09945-9
Salanova, M., Llorens, S., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2011). “Yes, I Can, I Feel Good, and I Just Do
It!” On Gain Cycles and Spirals of Efficacy Beliefs, Affect, and Engagement. Applied
Psychology, 60(2), 255–285. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2010.00435.x
Salkind, N. J. (2014). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics (5 edition.). SAGE.
Sarker, S., Ahuja, M., Sarker, S., & Kirkeby, S. (2011). The role of communication and trust in
global virtual teams: A social network perspective. In Journal of Management Information
Systems (Vol. 28, Issue 1, pp. 273–310). M.E. Sharpe Inc. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-
1222280109
Saunders, C., Van Slyke, C., & Vogel, D. R. (2004). My time or yours? Managing time visions
in global virtual teams. In Academy of Management Executive (Vol. 18, Issue 1, pp. 19–31).
Academy of Management. https://doi.org/10.5465/AME.2004.12691177
Schein, E. H. (2017). Organizational culture and leadership (P. Schein (ed.); Fifth edition.).
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Scherer, K. R. (2009). Emotions are emergent processes: they require a dynamic computational
architecture. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences,
364(1535), 3459–3474. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2009.0141
Schneider, B., Ashworth, S. D., Higgs, A. C., & Carr, L. (1996). Design, validity, and use of
strategically focused employee attitude surveys. Personnel Psychology, 49(3).
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1996.tb01591.x

150
Schunk, D. H., R., M. J., & Pintrich, P. R. (2012). Motivation in education: Theory, research,
and applications. Pearson Higher Education.
Shah, C. (2010). Collaborative information seeking: A literature review. In Advances in
Librarianship (Vol. 32). https://doi.org/10.1108/S0065-2830(2010)0000032004
Shifrin, N. V., & Michel, J. S. (2022). Flexible work arrangements and employee health: A metaanalytic review. In Work and Stress (Vol. 36, Issue 1).
https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2021.1936287
Shin, B. (2021). Exploring Network Measures of Social Capital: Toward More Relational
Measurement. Journal of Planning Literature, 36(3), 328–344.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0885412221999415
Shin, Y. (2004). A person-environment fit model for virtual organizations. Journal of
Management, 30(5), 725–743. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jm.2004.03.002
Smed, A., Mysore, M., Reich, A., & Sternfels, B. (2021). Return as a muscle: How lessons from
COVID-19 can shape a robust operating model for hybrid and beyond. McKinsey Quarterly,
3.
Smite, D., Tkalich, A., Moe, N. B., Papatheocharous, E., Klotins, E., & Buvik, M. P. (2022).
Changes in perceived productivity of software engineers during COVID-19 pandemic: The
voice of evidence. Journal of Systems and Software, 186.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2021.111197
Smith, A., & Sinclair, A. (2003). What makes an excellent virtual manager? Management
Services, 47(10).

151
Smith, J. E. (2020). Working at home: A radical coronavirus experiment. The San Diego UnionTribune. https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/business/story/2020-04-25/working-fromhome-covid-lifeline-but-how-productive-is-telecommuting
Silveira, P., Mannan, U. A., Almeida, E. S., Nagappan, N., Lo, D., Singh Kochhar, P., Gao, C.,
& Ahmed, I. (2022). A Deep Dive into the Impact of COVID-19 on Software
Development. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 48(9), 3342–3360.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2021.3088759
Singh Dubey, R., Paul, J., & Tewari, V. (2022). The soft skills gap: a bottleneck in the talent
supply in emerging economies. International Journal of Human Resource Management,
33(13), 2630–2661. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2020.1871399
Srivastava, D. S., Winter, M., Gross, L. J., Metzger, J. P., Baron, J. S., Mouquet, N., Meagher, T.
R., Halpern, B. S., & Pillar, V. D. (2021). Maintaining momentum for collaborative
working groups in a post-pandemic world. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 5(9), 1188–1189.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-021-01521-0
Soda, G., Mannucci, P. V., & Burt, R. S. (2021). Networks, creativity, and time: Staying creative
through brokerage and network rejuvenation. Academy of Management Journal, 64(4).
https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2019.1209
Spector, N. (2017). Why Are Big Companies Calling Their Remote Workers Back to the Office?
NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/why-are-big-companiescalling-their-remote-workers-back-office-n787101
Stal, J., & Paliwoda-Pękosz, G. (2019). Fostering development of soft skills in ICT curricula: a
case of a transition economy. Information Technology for Development, 25(2), 250–274.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02681102.2018.1454879

152
Stewart, K. R., & Preiksaitis, M. K. (2023). Information Technology Soft Skills Training.
CORALS’ Journal of Applied Research, 01(01), 01–10.
https://doi.org/10.58593/cjar.v1i1.13
Strano, C., & Rehmani, Q. (2007). The role of the enterprise architect. Information Systems and
E-Business Management, 5(4). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10257-007-0053-1
Stratone, M.-E., Vătămănescu, E.-M., Treapăt, L.-M., Rusu, M., & Vidu, C.-M. (2022).
Contrasting Traditional and Virtual Teams within the Context of COVID-19 Pandemic:
From Team Culture towards Objectives Achievement. Sustainability, 14(8), 4558.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su14084558
Szreter, S., & Woolcock, M. (2004). Health by association? Social capital, social theory, and the
political economy of public health. In International Journal of Epidemiology (Vol. 33, Issue
4). https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyh013
The Open Group. (2018). The TOGAF® Standard, Version 9.2. In The Open Group.
Thönssen, B., & Von Dewitz, M. (2018). A label is not enough - Approach for an enterprise
architecture role description framework. Procedia Computer Science, 138.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2018.10.058
Ullrich, A., Bertheau, C., Wiedmann, M., Sultanow, E., Korppen, T., & Bente, S. (2021). Roles,
tasks and skills of the enterprise architect in the VUCA world. Proceedings - IEEE
International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Workshop, EDOCW.
https://doi.org/10.1109/EDOCW52865.2021.00057
Uzzi, B., & Spiro, J. (2005). Collaboration and creativity: The small world problem. In American
Journal of Sociology (Vol. 111, Issue 2). https://doi.org/10.1086/432782

153
Vyas, L. (2022). “New normal” at work in a post-COVID world: work–life balance and labor
markets. Policy and Society, 41(1), 155–167. https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puab011
Wagner, S., & Ruhe, M. (2018). A Systematic Review of Productivity Factors in Software
Development [Document]. ArXiv.Org. http://arxiv.org/abs/1801.06475
Wagter, R., Proper, H. A., & Witte, D. (2012). Enterprise architecture: A strategic specialism.
Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE 14th International Conference on Commerce and Enterprise
Computing, CEC 2012. https://doi.org/10.1109/CEC.2012.11
Whillans, A., Perlow, L., & Turek, A. (2021). Experimenting during the shift to virtual team
work: Learnings from how teams adapted their activities during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Information and Organization, 31(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2021.100343
Wigert, B. (2022). The Future of Hybrid Work: 5 Key Questions Answered With Data.
Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. F. (1998). Studying as self-regulated learning. In Metacognition in
educational theory and practice. (pp. 277–304). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Wright, A. D. (2017). Why Are Some Companies Moving Away from Telework? Society for
Human Resource Management. https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hrtopics/technology/pages/why-are-some-companies-moving-away-from-telework.aspx
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2007). The Role of
Personal Resources in the Job Demands-Resources Model. International Journal of Stress
Management, 14(2), 121–141. https://doi.org/10.1037/1072-5245.14.2.121
Yang, L., Holtz, D., Jaffe, S., Suri, S., Sinha, S., Weston, J., Joyce, C., Shah, N., Sherman, K.,
Hecht, B., & Teevan, J. (2022). The effects of remote work on collaboration among
information workers. Nature Human Behaviour, 6(1), 43–54.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01196-4

154
Zeidner, R. (2020). Coronavirus Makes Work from Home the New Normal. Society for Human
Resource Management. https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/news/all-things-work/pages/remotework-has-become-the-new-normal.aspx
Zhang, M., Chen, H., & Luo, A. (2018). A Systematic Review of Business-IT Alignment
Research with Enterprise Architecture. IEEE Access, 6.
https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2819185
Zuzul, T., Pahnke, E. C., Larson, J., Bourke, P., Caurvina, N., Shah, N. P., Amini, F., Park, Y.,
Vogelstein, J., Weston, J., White, C., & Priebe, C. E. (2021). Dynamic Silos: Increased
Modularity in Intra-organizational Communication Networks during the Covid-19
Pandemic. http://arxiv.org/abs/2104.00641

155
APPENDIX A: Interview Protocol
(Time Requested of Participants: 60 minutes)
Research Questions:
1. What was the role of knowledge in the IT architects’ adaptation to remote work
collaboration during the pandemic?
2. What was the role of motivation in the IT architects’ adaptation to remote work
collaboration during the pandemic?
3. What organizational factors influenced the IT architects’ collaborative efforts to improve
team performance during the pandemic?
Respondent Type:
CTOs and senior IT/Solutions architects from large, global IT companies
Introduction to the Interview:
Thank you for agreeing to participate in this interview and investing time to
contribute to this research study. Your participation is very important and is highly appreciated.
The interview will take about an hour and will stay within your availability. Before we get
started, I want to briefly review the items covered in the Study Information Sheet you received. I
am a doctoral student at the University of Southern California. The purpose of this study is to
understand the collaboration challenges faced by IT architects during the COVID-19 pandemic.
More specifically, I am interested in learning how knowledge, motivation, and organizational
factors affect IT architects’ team collaboration in remote work in large, global IT organizations
with the goal of improving performance levels. Your responses to the questions and your shared
experiences will help these companies learn more about this problem and implement hybrid
work practices that are more effective. Today, I am only here as a researcher collecting data for

156
my study. The information you share with me will be placed into my study as part of the data
collection. Also, all information shared during the interview will remain confidential. Your name
or responses will not be disclosed to anyone or anywhere outside the scope of this study. Any
direct quotes from you included in the study will not be attributed to you by name or will be
traceable back to you. As stated in the Study Information Sheet, all data will be destroyed up to
one year after the publication of the dissertation, expected for August 2023. The USC IRB Board
has approved the study to ensure the safety of the participants. The study has been approved by
the USC IRB Board to ensure the safety of the participants. If you would like to have a copy of
my final paper, I will gladly provide it to you. Lastly, I would like your permission to record our
interview. Doing so allows me to give my complete focus and attention to you and your
responses. I would also like to assure you that there are no multiple copies of recorded interviews
and all study data, and recordings will be destroyed. May I have your permission to record this
conversation? Do you have any questions about the study before we get started? If not, I would
like your permission to begin the interview.
Table A1
Interview Protocol Plan
Interview Questions Potential Probes RQ Addressed/ KMO
Influence
Key Concept
Addressed
1. Describe the design
methodologies you
use in a virtual
project.
- If you had to explain to
someone how to do an
agile methodology
stand-up meeting, what
would you say?
- How do you select the
methodology for a
virtual project?
- How do they differ from
the ones used by a colocated team?
- How effective are they?
RQ1 – Knowledge
influences
Procedural: IT
architects need to
use tools,
methodologies, and
practices for
effective virtual
collaboration.

157
Interview Questions Potential Probes RQ Addressed/ KMO
Influence
Key Concept
Addressed
2. Describe the
collaborative tools
you use in a virtual
project.
- If you had to explain to
someone how to use
virtual whiteboards,
what would you say?
- How do you select the
tools for a virtual
project?
- How do they differ from
the ones used by a colocated team?
- How effective are they?
RQ1 – Knowledge
influences
Procedural: IT
architects need to
use tools,
methodologies, and
practices for
effective virtual
collaboration.
3. What strategies did
you use to adapt to
virtual projects?
- Tell me about one
strategy that worked.
- How much effort was
needed?
- How quickly did you
adapt?
- What were the
outcomes? (e.g.,
productivity,
performance,
satisfaction)
RQ1 – Knowledge
influences
Meta-cognitive: IT
architects need to
think strategically to
adapt to virtual
projects.
4. How do you selfregulate your
thoughts?
- Please provide an
example.
- How often do you do
self-assessments?
- What do you experience
as a result of selfassessment? (e.g.,
productivity,
performance,
satisfaction)
RQ1 – Knowledge
influences
Meta-cognitive: IT
architects need to
think strategically to
adapt to virtual
projects.
5. How confident do
you feel in a virtual
project team’s
ability to collaborate
on a solution
design?
- How does the team feel
about overcoming
challenges?
- How resilient is the team
when a failure occurs?
RQ2 – Motivational
influences
Collective-Efficacy:
IT architects believe
project team
members can
collaborate virtually
on a solution design.

158
Interview Questions Potential Probes RQ Addressed/ KMO
Influence
Key Concept
Addressed
6. How confident do
you feel in a virtual
project team’s
ability to collaborate
when team members
are from different
units?
- How does the team feel
about working with
people they don’t know
so well?
- What happens to team
engagement?
- What happens to team
performance?
RQ2 – Motivational
influences
Collective-Efficacy:
IT architects believe
project team
members can
collaborate virtually
on a solution design.
7. How do you feel
about working
remotely on a
project without the
presence of others?
- Tell me about a time
when this happened.
- What type of emotions
did you have?
- How was your
motivation affected, if
at all?
RQ2 – Motivational
influences
Affect: IT architects
need to feel positive
about collaborating
on a project
remotely.
8. Describe how you
feel about solving a
complex problem in
a virtual project.
- What type of emotions
do you have?
- How is your persistence
affected, if at all?
- What happens to your
creativity level?
RQ2 – Motivational
influences
Affect: IT architects
need to feel positive
about collaborating
on a project
remotely.
9. Please tell me about
the remote
collaboration tools
provided by your
organization.
- To what extent do they
help you communicate
with your teammates?
- What is your perception
of the effectiveness of
these tools?
- How do you manage the
use of different
platforms by different
teams, if this is the
case?
RQ3 – Organizational
influences
Work resources: The
organization
provides a
computer-mediated
communication
platform for IT
architects to
collaborate
remotely.
10. What is your
understanding of
your organization’s
processes to
facilitate
collaboration in
virtual teams?
- Give me an example of a
process
- What works or doesn’t
work with this process?
- How effective is it?
RQ3 – Organizational
influences
Work processes: The
organization
establishes remote
work processes to
facilitate IT
architects’
collaboration in
virtual teams.

159
Interview Questions Potential Probes RQ Addressed/ KMO
Influence
Key Concept
Addressed
11. How are strong
relationships in
virtual teams
encouraged to build
trust?
- Give me an example of
how strong
relationships are
encouraged
- In what ways are
frequent virtual team
meetings promoted, if
at all?
RQ3 – Organizational
influences
Trust culture: The
organization needs
to foster trustbuilding to help IT
architects boost
solution design
collaboration and
creativity in virtual
teams.
12. Tell me about the
ways your
organization
demonstrates that
cooperation in
virtual teams is
important?
- How do you know when
cooperation is
happening in a virtual
project?
- Can you describe a
recent example?
- How often do you share
skills in a virtual
project?
- What happens if a team
member is unwilling to
collaborate?
RQ3 – Organizational
influences
Cooperative culture:
The organization
needs to encourage
IT architects to
share skills and
effort to enhance
collaboration in
virtual teams.
13. How does having
common team goals
influence
collaboration in a
virtual project?
- Who are the participants
of a common team
goal?
- How are team goals set?
- How effective are these
goals?
RQ3 – Organizational
influences
Cultural setting: The
organization needs
to promote
alignment of goals
and incentives to
help IT architects
increase
collaboration in
virtual teams.
14. How does having
teamwork incentives
influence
collaboration in a
virtual project?
- Who are the participants
of a teamwork
incentive?
- How are team goals and
teamwork incentives
aligned?
- How effective are
teamwork incentives?
RQ3 – Organizational
influences
Cultural setting: The
organization needs
to promote
alignment of goals
and incentives to
help IT architects
increase
collaboration in
virtual teams.

160
Conclusion to the Interview:
We have concluded our interview. If you feel you have forgotten any relevant information,
please send me an email with that information. Thank you again for your participation and
valuable contribution. You have added immensely to this research study.

161
APPENDIX B: Document Registration Log
Documents Providing Background and Context to the Interview Design
Document # Reference Description
1
Agren, P., Knoph, E., & Berntsson Svensson, R.
(2022). Agile software development one year into
the COVID-19 pandemic. Empirical Software
Engineering : an International Journal, 27(6), 121–
121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-022-10176-9
Sequential mixed methods study with
data collected one year into the
COVID-19 pandemic through a
questionnaire with 96 respondents
and semi-structured interviews with
seven practitioners from seven
companies
2
Dalton, M., & Groen, J. (2022). Telework during the
COVID-19 pandemic: estimates using the 2021 Business
Response Survey. Monthly Labor Review.
https://doi.org/10.21916/mlr.2022.8
Telework behavior during the
pandemic using 2021 data from the
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
3
Dua, A., Ellingrud, K., Kirschner, P., Kwok, A.,
Luby, R., Palter, R., & Pemberton, S. (2022).
Americans are embracing flexible work—and they
want more of it. McKinsey, June.
https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/realestate/our-insights/americans-are-embracingflexible-work-and-they-want-more-of-it
How Americans are embracing flexible
work based on a McKinsey survey
of 25.000 US workers in the Spring
of 2022
4
Erik Brynjolfsson, John J Horton, Adam Ozimek,
Daniel Rock, Garima Sharma, & Hong-Yi TuYe.
(2020). COVID-19 and Remote Work: An Early
Look at US Data [Document]. IDEAS Working
Paper Series from RePEc.
Work From Home two wave surveys
of 25.000 US workers from MIT
Sloan School of Management
5
Ford, D., Storey, M.-A., Zimmermann, T., Bird, C.,
Jaffe, S., Maddila, C., Butler, J. L., Houck, B., &
Nagappan, N. (2022). A Tale of Two Cities:
Software Developers Working from Home during
the COVID-19 Pandemic. ACM Transactions on
Software Engineering and Methodology, 31(2), 1–
37. https://doi.org/10.1145/3487567
Two surveys with a combined total of
3,634 responses on benefits,
challenges, and opportunities to
improve the pandemic remote work
6
Hoffmann, M., Mendez, D., Fagerholm, F., &
Luckhardt, A. (2023). The human side of Software
Engineering Teams: an investigation of
contemporary challenges. IEEE Transactions on
Software Engineering, 49(1), 1–1.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2022.3148539
Survey with 192 respondents to assess
the frequency and criticality of
virtual work challenges within
teams and between teams and
clients
7
Lund, S., Madgavkar, A., Manyika, J., & Smit, S.
(2020). What’s next for remote work : An analysis
of 2,000 tasks, 800 jobs, and nine countries. In
McKinsey Quarterly (Issue November).
http://thebusinessleadership.academy/wpcontent/uploads/2021/01/MGI-Whats-next-forremote-work-v3.pdf
Survey on occupations’ potential for
remote work conducted in 9
countries, including the U.S., from
McKinsey

162
Documents Providing Background and Context to the Interview Design
Document # Reference Description
8
Miller, C., Rodeghero, P., Storey, M. A., Ford, D., &
Zimmermann, T. (2021). “How was your
weekend?” Software development teams working
from home during COVID-19. Proceedings -
International Conference on Software Engineering,
624–636.
https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSE43902.2021.00064
Two surveys with 2265 developer
responses and a qualitative analysis
investigated how team culture and
team productivity may also have
been affected the remote work
during the pandemic
9
Silveira, P., Mannan, U. A., Almeida, E. S.,
Nagappan, N., Lo, D., Singh Kochhar, P., Gao, C.,
& Ahmed, I. (2022). A Deep Dive into the Impact
of COVID-19 on Software Development. IEEE
Transactions on Software Engineering, 48(9),
3342–3360.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2021.3088759
Analysis of 100 GitHub projects with
ten metrics and a survey of 279
software development professionals
to assess the impact of the pandemic
on their work and well-being
Documents on the Work Strategies of the Participants’ Companies
(Company name and document identification are confidential)
Document # Company Identification Description
10 Organization 1 CIO interview on remote work
(company’s newsroom)
11 Organization 1 CIO guide on remote work (company’s
website)
12 Organization 1 CEO interview on return-to-the-office
(news website)
13 Organization 1 Consulting division on hybrid work
plans (news website)
14 Organization 1 Return to work playbook (company’s
article)
15 Organization 2 CEO update on return-to-the-office
plans (company’s website)
16 Organization 2 Headquarters update on return-to-theoffice plans (company’s website)
17 Organization 2 Hybrid Work guide (company’s
article)
18 Organization 3 Hybrid work framework report
(company’s website)
19 Organization 3 Hybrid work services (company’s
website)

163
APPENDIX C: Company Data Sheet
Company Identification Number
(Company name is confidential)
Data from the company’s documents
Document # Knowledge Influences Motivation Influences Organizational Influences
Data from the company’s study participants
(Participants’ names are confidential)
Participant # Knowledge Influences Motivation Influences Organizational Influences

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences within leadership development: a study of a business unit in a prominent technology company

PDF

An analysis of influences to faculty retention at a Philippine college

PDF

An examination of soft skills in the virtual workplace

PDF

Understanding cross-cultural knowledge sharing in Ghana’s energy sector: an exploratory study

PDF

The organizational impacts of executive technology leadership role proliferation

PDF

Exploring inequitable experiences of remote employees of color in biotechnology organizations in the United States who face less favorable remote work conditions…

PDF

Examining the pandemic’s impact on remote worker wellness in community colleges: organizational lessons and strategies

PDF

Examining the lack of equity in leadership opportunities for underrepresented employees in the pharmaceutical industry

PDF

Employee engagement in a post-COVID era: the mediating role of basic psychological need satisfaction in remote and hybrid work environments

PDF

Management preconditions to mitigate virtual employee burnout

PDF

Increasing collaborative practices in the military: an improvement study

PDF

Building teacher competency to work with middle school long-term English language learners: an improvement model

PDF

Barriers in care access for the marginalized individual: a provider’s role

PDF

School district leadership and the motherhood penalty

PDF

Averting the gaze: gender bias in the fashion industry

PDF

Impact of performance appraisals on double-hatting employees

PDF

The underrepresentation of African Americans in information technology: an examination of social capital and its impact on African Americans’ career success

PDF

Cultivating capital in a distanced world: preparing business school undergraduate students to lead in the virtual world of work

PDF

Keeping virtual team members engaged in their roles: an impossible task or a paramount necessity for an increasingly globalized world

PDF

The continuous failure of Continuous Improvement: the challenge of implementing Continuous Improvement in low income schools

Asset Metadata

Creator Fusaro, Patricia Seno (author)

Core Title Information technology architects’ shift to remote work: an exploration of collaboration challenges

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2023-12

Publication Date 12/05/2023

Defense Date 11/08/2023

Publisher Los Angeles, California (original), University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag IT architects,IT projects,knowledge influences,large global IT companies,motivation influences,organizational influences,qualitative study,remote work,virtual collaboration

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Martinez, Brandon (committee chair), Datta, Monique (committee member), Maddox, Anthony (committee member), Ramirez, Robert (committee member)

Creator Email patsenofu@gmail.com,pfusaro@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113782432

Unique identifier UC113782432

Identifier etd-FusaroPatr-12521.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-FusaroPatr-12521

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Fusaro, Patricia Seno

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20231207-usctheses-batch-1112 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu