JPMA-01714; No of Pages 11

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect
International Journal of Project Management xx (2014) xxx – xxx
www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman

Raising team social capital with knowledge and communication

in information systems development projects
Jungwoo Lee 1 , Jun-Gi Park ⁎, Seyoon Lee 2
Center for Work Science, Yonsei University, 50 Yonsei Ro, Sudaemun Gu, Seoul, Republic of Korea

Received 28 December 2013; received in revised form 5 July 2014; accepted 2 December 2014
Available online xxxx

Abstract

Information systems development is a knowledge intensive collaboration project demanding high level of team social capital especially
between business and technology experts. In this study, team social capital is conceptualized with three sub-constructs: social ties, trust and shared
vision. Knowledge and communication by business and technology experts are hypothesized as critical antecedents of team social capital leading
to team performance. A survey has been conducted collecting data from pairs of business and technology experts in 126 project teams. Data
analysis largely confirmed the research model. Social ties seem to precede shared vision and trust. Trust seems to have a stronger association with
the performance compared with shared vision. Knowledge and communication of both parties are found to be important, but, interestingly,
business professionals' knowledge and communication seem to have a stronger influence in forming the team social capital. Implications and
further studies are discussed with limitations.
© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. APM and IPMA. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Information systems development; Systems development projects; Project management; Team social capital; Knowledge; Communication

1. Introduction tion and sharing of knowledge between business and technology.

Information systems development (ISD) project teams
continue to face various and difficult challenges as ISD
process involves the seamless integration of business details
with technologically sound solutions serving the needs of
business operations as well as strategic demands. In ISD
project teams, business experts are working very closely with
technology experts sharing their knowledge and expertise in order
to collaboratively build and implement systems for business
organizations. ISD projects demand interdisciplinary collabora-
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: + 82 10 5878 8862; fax: + 82 2 2123 8654.
E-mail addresses: jlee@yonsei.ac.kr (J. Lee), warren.pak@gmail.com
(J.-G. Park), suyfj77@gmail.com (S. Lee).
1
Tel.: + 82 10 5398 7751; fax: + 82 2 2123 8654.
2
Tel.: + 82 10 4538 7738; fax: + 82 2 2123 8654.
As this type of knowledge based collaboration is difficult, ISD
projects are susceptible to failure. Though the failing cases can be
defined in various ways, such as missing deadlines, going over
budget, or impaired implementation of functions and features
initially specified, the failure rate of ISD projects remains high
compared to other projects. Only 16% of ISD projects are classified
as success (Yeo, 2002), while general project success rate in
business is more than 80% (IBM, 2008). Prior studies reveal that
there failures of ISD projects are ascribable to a variety of factors,
such as difficulties in knowledge sharing across domains, inherent
complexity of information systems different from other physical
systems, misinformed goals and objectives among different
stakeholders, complexity of the relationship across disciplines,
and so on (de Brabander and Thiers, 1984; Greenwood et al.,
2010; Tesch et al., 2009).
Social capital is an intangible asset that evolves from social
structure and relationships, and it cannot easily be replaced or

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.12.001
0263-7863/00 © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. APM and IPMA. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: J. Lee, et al., 2014. Raising team social capital with knowledge and communication in information systems development projects, Int. J. Proj.
Manag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.12.001
2 J. Lee et al. / International Journal of Project Management xx (2014) xxx–xxx
obtained in a short period of time, unlike traditional capital such as
labor, land, facilities, technologies or transportation (Bourdieu,
1986). The way it is formed and accumulated and how it functions
are different from other types of tangible capital. In social capital
theory, it is established that social ties, trust and shared vision are
critical components of social capital (Chiu et al., 2006; Clopton,
2011; Mehra et al., 2006; Tansley and Newell, 2007; Thompson,
2005). As ISD projects are critically knowledge-intensive col-
laboration projects in which knowledge concerning business
operation and strategy continuously infused and integrated with
knowledge concerning information and communication technolo-
gies, team social capital raised and maintained among team
members are the baseline for sharing knowledge and working
together to solve problems at hand.
Concerning the raising of team social capital in ISD projects,
it is noted here that academics and practitioners alike have
highlighted that securing and coordinating the appropriate knowl-
edge levels of participating members who make collaborative
decisions present major challenges in successful ISD (Pee
et al., 2010). Mismatched or unbalanced knowledge level among
project members across different domains makes it difficult to
build trust among collaborative members (Patnayakuni et al.,
2007). While similarity in the stock of knowledge held by
members can improve communication and share values among
team members, the diversity of knowledge enhances the chance of
solving problems creatively (Patnayakuni et al., 2007). Knowl-
edge seems to be important in raising team social capital among
ISD project team members as they are involved in collaborative
knowledge sharing. The other critical factor in raising team social
capital in ISD projects is the high level of communications among
team members. High level of team social capital presupposes
exchange of knowledge among team members through effective
and efficient communication. However, communication is not
only a method of exchanging information, but also a type of social
interaction that may increase the level of knowledge sharing for
successful ISD projects (Park and Lee, 2014; Park et al., 2012). In
other words, adequate knowledge and continuous communication
among professionals from different domains are required to raise
appropriate level of team social capital that may lead to successful
collaboration within the limited time and resources. Considering
the complexity and knowledge-intensive characteristics of
an ISD projects (Greenwood et al., 2010; Tesch et al., 2009),
the team social capital raised by appropriate knowledge and
communication seems to be the most important factors that
determine successful project completion (Pee et al., 2010).
In this regard, studies of team social capital and related
antecedents with the roles played by these constructs would be of
significance from a theoretical and a practical standpoint, in the
field of ISD. While social capital has been the topic of studies in
various fields, a limited number of studies are conducted with
regards to ISD project teams (Ghosh and Scott, 2009; van den
Hooff and de Winter, 2011). Moreover, most of these studies are
focusing upon the impact of the raised social capital on knowledge
sharing and performance. Instead, in this study, a research model is
posited and theorized with antecedents for raising the team social
capital in ISD projects: knowledge and communication. This
model is empirically tested with the dataset collected by a
Please cite this article as: J. Lee, et al., 2014. Raising team social capital with knowledge and communication in information systems development projects, Int. J. Proj.
Manag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.12.001
survey of business and technology expert pairs in 126 ISD
project teams.
2. Theoretical background
This study primarily draws upon the theory of social capital
which is known to compose routinized relationships and solid ties
in interpersonal friendships or acquaintances (Lee et al., 2013).
According to Hanifan (1916), the notion of ‘social capital’
describes “features of social life-networks, norms and trust,
which enable participants to act together more effectively to
pursue shared objectives” (Putnam, 1995). A number of studies
support the idea that social capital in teams can account for
achieving high levels of team performance and cooperation
among members of a team (Chow and Chan, 2008; Di Vincenzo
and Mascia, 2012; Karahanna and Preston, 2013; Lee et al., 2013).
The team social capital would play important roles among team
members of ISD projects, as they require knowledge-intensive and
voluntary collaboration to solve complex problems in building
information systems for organizations.
2.1. Team social capital
ISD project teams base their performance on collaboration
between technology and business experts (Pee et al., 2010).
Hatzakis et al. (2005) approached the issue of change man-
agement as a means of improving collaboration between proj-
ect members from the perspective of social capital. In general,
technical professionals come from outside on a consulting
capacity and business expertise are recruited internally within the
business organization. Tasks conducted in ISD projects are based
on heterogeneous and often complex sets of knowledge and
information exchanged between these two parties (Patnayakuni et
al., 2007). Success of ISD projects depends on integration and
sharing of explicit and tacit knowledge that allows members of
a project team to learn and access the experiential knowledge
and methods developed by team members in different domains
(Tiwana and Mclean, 2003).
In order to integrate knowledge up to the level of collaborative
problem solving across different domains using different expertise,
effective and efficient exchange relationships among members
of a team need to be built so as for team members to share
important knowledge regarding tasks without hesitation real-
time when necessary. These relationships are not easy to build
and demand self-identities to be nurtured and grown into social
identities, group emotion, and group mood so that group intel-
ligence can be activated (Adams and Anantatmula, 2010).
Team social capital raised among members of a project team is
likely to provide access to a valuable set of intangible resources,
which may not be discovered without team social capital. These
intangible resources may not be shared voluntarily if there is no
trust or faith — team social capital. As the level of team social
capital increases, knowledge sharing becomes more effective,
routine and tacit (Ghosh and Scott, 2009). The cognitive aspect of
social capital – shared vision – is known to have an impact on the
level of knowledge sharing (Mäkelä and Brewster, 2009).
 J. Lee et al. / International Journal of Project Management xx (2014) xxx–xxx
Social capital has been studied in a variety of fields and
operationalized differently. Bourdieu (1986) defined the social
capital as an integrated concept of actual or potential resources that
an individual or a group obtains through a social system or a
network. Coleman (1988) claimed that social capital exists in the
relationships of people within their social structure and facilitates
human actions and interactions. In business organizations, social
capital is a necessary condition in building a competitive edge that
is formed through trusting and supporting relationships (Nahapiet
and Ghoshal, 1998).
Also, social capital and its effects have been studied at different
units of analysis: individual (Burt, 1997), team (Bartsch et al.,
2013; Lee et al., 2013) and organizational (Chow and Chan, 2008).
Team social capital is a special type of social capital. Team social
capital exists in the relationships among team members resulting
from the informal and formal structures within a team (Oh et al.,
2004). In this regard, team social capital plays a key role in
positively influencing team performance. Oh et al. (2004) argued
that team social capital can improve team performance when
intragroup relationships and intergroup relationships are optimally
balanced.
Granovetter (1973) explicates structural and relational
aspects, while Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998) expand the
concept and added the cognitive aspect. The structural aspect
of social capital refers to characteristics or configurations of an
organizational network that are based on the relationships
among members. Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998) considered the
structural dimension as network ties, network configuration and
the appropriable organization. Mehra et al. (2006) used social
network ties as a variable of the structural dimension. Within
these network ties, team members are variably connected to
others through direct and indirect contacts. The social network
ties of team members cut across formal team boundaries and
provide access to ideas and information from other members of
the team.
According to Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998), the relational
dimension of social capital includes trust, norms, duties and a
sense of identity among members. It refers to the level of
contribution to the creation of shared values by the character-
istics and levels of members' relationships. Trust is the key
concept of the relational dimension (Tsai and Ghoshal, 1998).
If trust exists among members of a team, more important
knowledge can be shared with confidence. Because the degree
of knowledge sharing can differ based on how much the
members trust each other, trust should be considered an
important relational dimension aspect of social capital. Trust
can be divided into multi-dimensional categories (e.g. propen-
sity, analysis level) and has complex aspects (Covey and Link,
2012).
The cognitive dimension refers to shared codes, languages
and vision. Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998) suggest that shared
vision is an important determinant of effective knowledge
sharing within a team because shared vision is a common
context of a team. Li (2005) selected shared vision as a factor
of social networks and argued that one can predict how members
will exchange their thoughts and resources if a shared vision
exists. Chiu et al. (2006) and Chow and Chan (2008) further
Please cite this article as: J. Lee, et al., 2014. Raising team social capital with knowledge and communication in information systems development projects, Int. J. Proj.
Manag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.12.001
3
empirically tested and validated these dimensions of social
capital: structural (social ties), relational dimension (trust) and
cognitive dimension (shared vision), in the context of virtual
communities. It seems established that the team social capital
consists of three sub-constructs.
2.2. Knowledge in ISD: expertise
Tiwana and Mclean (2003) noted that when an information
system is complex, various professionals, such as internal business
experts and external technology consultants, play crucial roles in
collaboratively developing the system. Pee et al. (2010) stated that
subtle coordination of internal and external knowledge experts
is the necessary condition for improving the knowledge sharing
and subsequently affecting the success of the systems developed
(Chow and Chan, 2008; Gefen, 2004). When developing new
systems, it is necessary to acquire and transfer both business and
technology knowledge among members of an ISD project team.
From time to time, the knowledge exchanges that occurred during
the ISD process are so intensive, the team may extend its life into a
longer term arrangement. Successful ISD project team may get
involved in the systems maintenance and upgrade projects along
the life span of the system as the knowledge that they have
shared is now embedded in the team itself (Chow and Chan,
2008). It is the case of most enterprise-wide systems, such as ERP
(Enterprise Resource Planning) and CRM (Customer Relationship
Management). Team social capital raised during the ISD process is
so intricate that the team would not easily dissolve even after the
system launching, but extended towards the maintenance and
upgrade phase of the system, utilizing the knowledge that they
have shared and learned in the development process.
In this regard, knowledge is an important source of team
social capital. Without appropriate knowledge, this professional
relationship would not survive. Knowledge involved in ISD
can be largely categorized into two: business expertise (mostly
provided by client) and technology expertise (mostly provided
by consultants). Business experts participate in decisions for
features and functions as much as the business processes are
involved, as they will be the ones using the system to operate
business. They will share knowledge about the business rules
and provide business expertise using the information historically
accumulated in house (Pee et al., 2010). Technology profes-
sionals, on the other hand, provide a variety of skills and services
including technological feasibility, requirement analysis, systems
design, programming and user training, offering knowledgeable
technology related advices, aligning organizational process with
system functions and features, assisting in system configuration
and recommending suitable solutions (Chow and Chan, 2008). In
this regard, business and technology expertise are to be integrated
progressing towards the intended systems.
Knowledge level of the counterpart would be important
for team members to offer their own knowledge, communicate
feasibilities, and devise solutions for various problems faced in
developing information systems. Social ties, shared vision and
trust would presuppose the appropriate level of expertise in both
parties. As the expertise is defined as the evaluation of relevant
competencies associated with the partner (Crosby et al., 1990),
4 J. Lee et al. / International Journal of Project Management xx (2014) xxx–xxx
the scale has been adapted from competency related studies
(Spake and Megehee, 2010).
2.3. Communication in ISD: communication effectiveness
Definition of communication varies depending on field and
context. In the context of ISD, communication involves creating
and sharing of information for the purpose of raising the level of
mutual understanding between business experts and technology
experts in project teams (Rogers, 1981). Communication in this
collaborative work context can be interpreted as a socially inter-
active behavior. Social interactions among team members are
important in forming a social relationship. It is suggested, in
various studies, that social interaction of members raises the level
of social capital in teams (Kostova and Roth, 2003; Mäkelä and
Brewster, 2009). In some studies, communication is even treated as
a sub-construct of social capital (Chen et al., 2008; Merlo et al.,
2006; Zheng, 2010).
Effective communication occurs only when useful, reliable,
understandable and appropriate information is exchanged among
members (Massey and Kyriazis, 2007). Effective communication
may produce desired outcomes, such as efficient information
sharing and reliable relationships. Thus, communication effective-
ness of team members has a positive effect on relational
commitment of members (Postmes et al., 2001; Sharma and
Patterson, 1999) and eventually raises the level of team
effectiveness (Tzafrir et al., 2004). Also, effective communication
increases the intimacy and satisfaction associated with the
relationship (Emmers-Sommer, 2004) and reduces conflicts
among team members (Dawes and Massey, 2005). Therefore,
effective communication helps not only forming a good relation-
ship, but also maintaining it, suggesting that the structural aspect of
social capital – social ties – is strongly related to communication
effectiveness.
By definition, communication is a process of exchanging
information between members and enhances understanding among
members (Tzafrir et al., 2004). Visions of the team can only be
shared through effective communication. Only when a leader
communicates the vision effectively, team members can sympa-
thize with and share the vision (Farmer et al., 1998). In this regard,
effective communication has a positive impact on the formation of
both the structural and cognitive aspects of social capital — social
ties and shared vision.
3. Research model and hypotheses
The research model posited for this study includes the
constructs of knowledge, communication, team social capital and
team performance, as presented in Fig. 1. Primary proposition of
this research model is that team social capital is a precondition for
successful team performance in ISD context. The construct of
team social capital is conceptualized here with three sub-
components: social ties, trust, and shared vision. From the
theory of social capital, the relationship among these three sub-
constructs is hypothesized as shown in Fig. 1: social tie
precedes trust and shared vision while shared vision precedes
the formation of trust. Two antecedents of the team social capital
Please cite this article as: J. Lee, et al., 2014. Raising team social capital with knowledge and communication in information systems development projects, Int. J. Proj.
Manag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.12.001
is hypothesized as knowledge and communication, and opera-
tionalized as domain expertise and communication effective-
ness, respectively. Team size and project type are selected as
control variables that may interfere with the impact of team
social capital on performance.
3.1. Knowledge on team social capital (expertise on trust)
Knowledge level of other team members would be important in
raising the level of team social capital among team members.
Especially in professional relationship such as the ISD project
teams in which interdependence among members are critical-
ly high, other members' inability or incompetence would be
detrimental to team work as well as team performance. Among
three components of social capital, knowledge level seems to be
mostly associated with trust, but not with social ties or shared
vision. For this study, knowledge is operationalized as expertise,
and domain expertise are operationalized differently as business
knowledge and technology knowledge is completely different
and immeasurable by the same instrument. Expertise has been
studied as an antecedent of trust in partnerships (Moorman et al.,
1993) across a variety of contexts, including travel service
(Mohan and Ahlemann, 2013) and other highly knowledge-based
services (Ifinedo, 2011). Crosby et al. (1990) showed that the
perceived expertise of an insurance salesperson is a significant
predictor of customers' trust. Yu et al. (2013) found a positive
relationship between expertise and trust in their study of corporate
credibility. Doney and Cannon (1997) found that salesperson
expertise is positively related to the buyer's perception of
salesperson trust. Furthermore, a competent service provider is
known to influence an organization's performance and knowl-
edge sharing by way of trust. Palmatier et al. (2006) stated that
the capability of sellers increases a customer's value and leads
to strengthening the relationship between sellers and partners.
Spake and Megehee (2010) showed that perceived level of
expertise is positively related to the level of trust between
partners. Therefore, hypotheses 1 and 2 are as follows:
H1. Business professionals' expertise on business has a positive
impact on trust.
H2. Technology professionals' expertise on technology has a
positive impact on trust.
3.2. Communication on team social capital (communication
effectiveness on social ties and shared vision)
Studies found that social interaction influences the formation of
social capital (Kostova and Roth, 2003; Mäkelä and Brewster,
2009). Communication is an important part of social interaction
that may raise the level of team social capital by helping team
members to share opinions and increase connected feelings among
members. Effective communication helps team members to share
information and thinking, exchange social contexts, and therefore
improve an organization's performance (Sharma and Patterson,
1999; Tzafrir et al., 2004). Vision sharing and social ties among
members are the major elements of social capital that might be
 J. Lee et al. / International Journal of Project Management xx (2014) xxx–xxx
Knowledge
Business Professionals’ H1
Business Expertise
Technology Professionals’
Technology Expertise H2
Communication H3
Business Professionals’
Communication Effectiveness
H5
Technology Professionals’
Communication Effectiveness H6
Fig. 1. Research model and hypotheses.
associated with communication (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998).
However, what is important is the effectiveness of communication.
Unnecessary and ineffective communication may hurt the social
capital among team members.
Social ties — the structural dimension of social capital refers
to the degree of interconnections between members and the
intensity of the connections (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998). In
this regard, it is significantly related to social interaction (Chen
et al., 2008) that can be enhanced by communication
effectiveness. Intimacy and satisfaction with the relationship
can be improved when communications are conducted success-
fully. Therefore, effective communication increases the possi-
bility of sustaining the social ties (Emmers-Sommer, 2004). On
the contrary, it is possible for low quality communication to
decrease the satisfaction of a relationship and disrupt it. Social
ties can be increased or decreased, depending on the effective-
ness of communication. Therefore, hypotheses 3 and 4 are as
follows:
H3. Business professionals' communication effectiveness has
a positive impact on social ties.
H4. Technology professional's communication effectiveness
has a positive impact on social ties.
Also, it can be inferred here that communication effective-
ness may lead to a relationship with shared vision — the
cognitive dimension of social capital. If a leader effectively
communicates the vision of the team, members are likely to
agree and alignwith the vision (Farmer et al., 1998). Fundamen-
tally, communication consists of information exchanging and
sharing of mental models and vision. Effective communication is
related to how the information, including the leader's vision, is
transferred to members appropriately. The more effective the
communication is, the more the information can be shared between
members. Communication effectiveness facilitates vision sharing.
Therefore, hypotheses 5 and 6 are as follows:
H5. Business professionals' communication effectiveness has a
positive impact on the team's shared vision.
Please cite this article as: J. Lee, et al., 2014. Raising team social capital with knowledge and communication in information systems development projects, Int. J. Proj.
Manag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.12.001
5
Team Social Capital Control Variables
Team Project
Trust
Size Type
H7 H10
Project Team
Social Ties H9
Performance
H8 H11
H4
Shared Vision
H6. Technology professional's communication effectiveness has
a positive impact on the team's shared vision.
3.3. Internals of team social capital: relationship among social
ties, trust and shared vision
Social capital consists of sub-dimensions and that they are not
mutually exclusive, but interrelated (Liao and Welsch, 2005).
Farmer et al. (1998) presented three sub-dimensions of social
capital (structural, relational and cognitive dimensions) and
discussed their interrelationships.
Social ties, one of structural dimensions, are the extent to
which team members are interconnected via social relations
(Chen et al., 2008; Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998). The more
structural ties are formed, the more social interactions between
members can be made. With social interactions, the project
goals and agendas can be easily shared in a team and the degree
of role understanding between members can be increased. For
instance, as a result of frequent interaction between the CEO
and CIO in an organization, the vision of an IS development
project can be shared more easily (Johnson and Lederer, 2006).
Therefore, hypothesis 7 is:
H7. Team members' social ties have a positive impact on
shared vision.
Tsai and Ghoshal (1998) also argued that the structural
dimension and relational dimension also have interrelations. Trust,
part of the relational dimension, can be built by frequent interactions
and socialization (Child, 2001). Morgan and Shelby (1994) also
insisted that there are close relationships between how people feel
connected to each other and the level of trust in the relationship. In
other words, when social ties among team members are strong, they
interact more frequently, and thus, trust level be increased.
H8. Team members' social ties have a positive impact on trust.
Tsai and Ghoshal (1998) proposed that goals and vision
sharing have positive relationships with the trust level among
6 J. Lee et al. / International Journal of Project Management xx (2014) xxx–xxx

members. Child (2001) argued that if members have a common
understanding, bonds and trust can be built. Shared vision in an
organization can create the belief that the members won't harm
each other, and this helps them exchange their thoughts and
resources to achieve common goals. Similarly, Adams and
Anantatmula (2010)'s social and behavioral hierarchy implies
that the higher cognitive notions (e.g. group emotion, group
mood, group intelligence) reach, the more complete trust can
be established. Therefore, hypothesis 9 for this study is:
H9. Team members' shared vision has a positive impact on trust.
used for data analysis, excluding questionnaires with any missing
or inappropriate data. Table 1 shows the demographics of
responding teams.
Measurement items are adapted from previous studies and
presented in Table 2. Seven-point Likert type scale is used for
measurement: “strongly disagree” as 1 and “strongly agree” as 7.
For pilot, five project managers are recruited and interviewed
separately with actual filling out of the questionnaire. Based on
the feedback in the pilot, adjustments are made, mostly on terms
and languages of the instrument.

3.4. Team social capital and performance 5. Data analysis and results

Social capital correlates positively with team effectiveness, Partial least squares (PLS) approach was used for data analysis.
performance and satisfaction (van Emmerik and Brenninkmeijer, PLS tends to be more generous with sample sizes or distributions
2009). In the context of an ISD project, social capital is known to (Lohmöller, 1989). At the same time, this method has an advantage
maintain significant impact on project performance (Lee et al., in that the measurement model and structural model can be
2011). Because technology experts are closely interacting and analyzed simultaneously (Chin, 1998). It is appropriate for
collaboratively sharing knowledge with a variety of business analyzing relatively small numbers of samples and for
functional experts, shared vision as well as shared language exploratory research (Gefen et al., 2000). In this study, we
is important for the team to function properly. Shared vision, chose to use PLS because the conceptual framework of the
one of social capital's dimensions, can promote collaborative relationships between main variables was based on theories,
knowledge sharing among members (Li, 2005), and thus increase whereas the relationships between the sub-dimensions were to
the possibility of project success. Shared vision is positively be studied in an exploratory approach.
related to the successful performance of an ISD project (Pee Analyses were conducted in two phases. First, a measurement
et al., 2010). Also in studies of leadership, it is explicated that model analysis is designed to test the reliability and validity of
the leader's vision sharing has a positive influence on the measurement items and constructs. Second, a structural model
performance of the team (Dionne et al., 2004). Thus, hypothesis analysis is conducted to verify the research model and hypothesis.
10 for this study is: SmartPLS 2.0 is used for analysis in addition to PASW Statistics
18 when necessary.
H10. Team members' shared vision has a positive impact on
project team performance.
Building trust is important to maintain functional relationship Table 1
among team members especially in which interdependence Sample characteristics.
of team members are critical (Chakrabarty et al., 2007). Trust Characteristics Categories Sample %
among ISD project team members is positively related to the
Project type Enterprise resource planning 43 34.1
level of knowledge sharing (Nelson and Cooprider, 1996), thus Data/contents management 30 23.8
increase the performance level of their collaborative activities. Accounting and financing system 17 13.5
Building trust in customers or partners can reduce the ambiguity Business intelligence 9 7.1
and risk of relationships and increase the performance in IT- Supply chain management 9 7.1
based transactions or processes (Lee and Kim, 1999). Thus, Knowledge management 6 4.8
Human resource management 4 3.2
hypothesis 11 is: Customer relationship management 4 3.2
Web application development 3 2.4
H11. Team members' trust has a positive impact on project Manufacturing execution system 1 0.8
team performance. Project duration 6 or less months 45 35.7
7-12 months 28 22.2
13-18 months 26 20.6
4. Research method 19 or more months 27 21.4
Project phase Requirement analysis 32 25.4
For this study, data was collected through online questionnaires System analysis/design 37 29.4
Developing/testing 39 31.0
from 162 ISD project teams. As the unit of analysis in this study
Roll-out/stabilization 18 14.3
was a project team, we collected data from each pairs of Team size 10 or less members 58 46.0
a technology professional (mostly the project leader) and the 11–20 members 29 23.0
counterpart business professional (mostly ones dispatched from 21–30 members 12 9.5
different business functions) in each project. 132 questionnaires 31 or more members 27 21.4
Total 126 100
were returned in pairs, and 126 of these questionnaires were

Please cite this article as: J. Lee, et al., 2014. Raising team social capital with knowledge and communication in information systems development projects, Int. J. Proj.
Manag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.12.001
 J. Lee et al. / International Journal of Project Management xx (2014) xxx–xxx
Table 2
Measurement items.
Dimensions Variables
Expertise factors Business professionals' expertise
Technology professionals' expertise
Communication factors Business professionals' communication effectiveness 1: I find the information that Client sends very useful.
Technology professionals' communication effectiveness 1: I find the information that IS professional sends to be very useful.
Social capital Social ties
Trust
Shared vision
Performance Project team performance
5.1. Measurement model
An exploratory factor analysis mostly validated the measure-
ment model. Except PCE2, scored less than 0.6 in standardized
loadings, the confirmatory factor rotation produced the loadings
within the acceptable range for reliability, convergent validity
and discriminant validity. Scores of Cronbach's alpha and
composite reliability (CR) come about at the appropriate level
with statistical significance. Table 3 shows that the Cronbach's
α and CR exceeding 0.80 (Anderson et al., 2006; Chin, 1998).
According to Hair et al. (1995), measurement indicators
were evaluated for convergent validity and discriminant validity.
Generally, if the factor loadings of each measurement item onto its
construct were above 0.7, the measurement item was considered
valid (Chin et al., 2003). Factor loadings of more than 0.7 for each
measurement indicated convergent validity, as seen in Table 3.
For discriminant validity analysis, Square roots of average
variance explained (AVE) are compared with the correlation
coefficients. In Table 4, this study summarized each factor's
descriptive statistics quantity and the correlation coefficient, with
the square roots of AVE in the diagonal. Every factor's square root
of AVE was higher than the correlation coefficient with the other
Please cite this article as: J. Lee, et al., 2014. Raising team social capital with knowledge and communication in information systems development projects, Int. J. Proj.
Manag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.12.001
7
Items
1. Client possesses specialized knowledge.
2. Client possesses extensive, broad knowledge.
3. Client is experienced in solving problems like mine.
4. Client contributes expertise and experience in executing this project.
1. IS professional possesses specialized knowledge.
2. IS professional possesses extensive, broad knowledge.
3. IS professional is experienced in solving problems like mine.
4. IS professional contributes expertise and experience in executing this project.
2: I am very satisfied with the content that Client sends.
3: Client's information is very appropriate for my job.
4: I tend to provide very useful information to Client.
5: I tend to provide highly appropriate information to my co-workers.
2: I am very satisfied with the content that IS professional sends.
3: IS professional's information is very appropriate for my job.
4: I tend to provide very useful information to IS professional.
5: I tend to provide highly appropriate information to IS professional.
1: I maintain a close social relationship with my partner.
2: I spend a lot of time interacting with my partner.
3: I know my partner on a personal level.
4: I am very close to my partner.
1: My partner will not take advantage of others even when the opportunity arises.
2: My partner will always keep the promises we make to one another.
3: My partner would not knowingly do anything to disrupt the conversation.
4: My partner behaves in a consistent manner.
5: My partner is truthful when dealing with me.
1: My partner shares a vision of helping others solve their professional problems.
2: My partner shares the same goals of learning from each other.
3: My partner shares the same value that helping others is pleasant.
How well did the entire project team perform on the following so far?
1: The productivity of the project team's operation
2: The project team's adherence to the schedule
3: The project team's adherence to the budget
4: The quality of the project team's deliverables
5: The project team's achievement of the project targets
variables. Because the measurement items of each variable were
thought to have a higher correlation than the other variables, this
study can conclude that the measurement items had discriminant
validity (Fornell and Larcker, 1981).
5.2. Structural model
Fig. 2 shows the results of the structural model analysis. Path
coefficients were the standardized beta coefficients from the PLS
analysis. As expected, business professionals' business expertise
(β = 0.363, p b 0.001) and technology professionals' technology
expertise (β = 0.221, p b 0.01) displayed a significant and
positive correlation with the trust among team members.
Therefore, H1 and H2 were accepted. As for the business
professionals' communication effectiveness, it is found to be
positively related to social ties (H3: β = 0.302, p b 0.001) and
shared vision (H4: β = 0.298, p b 0.001); as such, H3 and H4
were supported. Though technology professionals' communication
effectiveness was found to have a significant positive relationship
with shared vision (β = 0.231, p b 0.01), but did not influence
social ties. So H5 was not supported, but H6 was supported.
8 J. Lee et al. / International Journal of Project Management xx (2014) xxx–xxx

Table 3 Squared multiple correlation (R2) values for endogenous

Indicator properties of variables. constructs are presented in Fig. 2. R2 measures the percent of
Variables Items Mean S.D. Loading Composite Cronbach's variance explained by independent constructs in the model.
reliability alpha Independent constructs are found to explain a substantial portion
Business CEX1 5.754 0.797 0.907 0.944 0.921 of variance in dependent constructs like project team perfor-
professionals' CEX2 5.635 0.796 0.888 mance (R2 = 48.2%). It is also found that expertise, social ties and
expertise CEX3 5.706 0.972 0.909
shared vision explained 61.7% of variance in trust. Communication
CEX4 5.698 0.966 0.892
Technology PEX1 5.286 1.109 0.894 0.934 0.906 effectiveness explains more than 13% of variance in the social ties
professionals' PEX2 5.143 1.108 0.858 among team members, and 41.5% of variance of the shared vision
expertise PEX3 5.024 1.242 0.893 among members. Impacts of the control variables are found to be
PEX4 5.135 1.304 0.885 statistically insignificant.
Business CCE1 5.270 1.341 0.730 0.891 0.838
professionals' CCE2 5.516 1.171 0.758
communication CCE3 5.357 1.216 0.923 6. Conclusions and implications
effectiveness CCE4 5.214 1.256 0.856
Technology PCE1 5.317 1.312 0.756 0.887 0.809
professionals' PCE3 5.468 1.041 0.902 The objective of this study is to empirically support whether
communication PCE4 5.484 1.002 0.888 knowledge levels of and communication between business and
effectiveness technology professionals in ISD project teams raise the level of
Shared vision SGL1 5.290 0.801 0.854 0.924 0.876 team social capital, subsequently leading to better performance
SGL2 5.149 0.764 0.919
as a team. Analysis of data obtained through a survey of
SGL3 5.202 0.842 0.911
Social ties STI1 5.452 1.100 0.898 0.944 0.926 professional pairs revealed interesting findings with practical
STI2 5.548 1.025 0.897 and academic implications.
STI3 5.476 1.164 0.913
STI4 4.762 1.483 0.843
STI5 4.913 1.414 0.836 6.1. Results and discussion
Trust TRU1 5.220 0.849 0.920 0.959 0.946
TRU2 5.212 0.834 0.927 First of all, the existence and structure of team social capital
TRU3 5.304 0.933 0.879
are empirically validated in this study, in the context of ISD
TRU4 5.437 0.853 0.894
TRU5 5.438 0.879 0.914 project teams. Team social capital can be measure by three sub-
Project team PER1 5.018 0.895 0.909 0.955 0.942 components: social ties (structural), trust (relational), and
performance PER2 5.137 0.952 0.920 shared vision (cognitive). It is further replicated the relationship
PER3 5.135 1.100 0.874 among these sub-constructs of team social capital: social ties
leading to trust and shared vision (structure leading to relation
Regarding the associations among the sub-dimensions of and cognition) while shared vision influences trust level (cognition
team social capital, social ties had a positive relationship with leading to relation). This is in strong agreement with the original
trust (β = 0.204, p b 0.01) and shared vision (β = 0.347, model of social capital, as proposed by Tsai and Ghoshal (1998). It
p b 0.001), and shared vision also had a positive influence confirms that the underlying structure of the team social capital
on trust (β = 0.210, p b 0.01). Therefore H7, H8 and H9 were resembles the structure of general social capital.
supported. Regarding H10, which dealt with the relationship Also, as antecedents of the team social capital, knowledge and
between trust and project team performance, the resulting communication seem to maintain strong impact. Knowledge
coefficient provided support for the hypothesis (β = 0.550, operationalized as expertise in this study revealed stronger impact
p b 0.001). Likewise, shared vision had a significant positive on trust — the relational dimension of the social capital while
relationship with performance of the project team (β = 0.198, not on social ties or shared vision, indicating team members in
p b 0.05). So, H11 was supported as well. this professional relationship presumes the counterparts to be

Table 4
Correlations between variables.
Variables AVE CEX PEX CCE PCE SHV SOT TRU PER Size Type
Business professionals' expertise 0.779 0.883
Technology professionals' expertise 0.808 0.368 0.899
Business professionals' communication effectiveness 0.673 0.326 0.256 0.820
Technology professionals' communication effectiveness 0.725 0.225 0.397 0.325 0.852
Shared vision 0.802 0.519 0.588 0.492 0.406 0.895
Social ties 0.771 0.545 0.416 0.343 0.224 0.501 0.878
Trust 0.822 0.575 0.653 0.440 0.426 0.640 0.581 0.907
Performance 0.811 0.401 0.501 0.394 0.268 0.547 0.396 0.674 0.901
Team size 1.000 − 0.056 − 0.122 0.125 0.010 0.025 0.071 0.013 − 0.055 n.s. ⁎
Project type 1.000 0.053 − 0.020 − 0.047 0.090 0.031 0.002 0.053 0.006 0.029 n.s. ⁎
⁎ AVE unavailable because these items are constructed as one item.

Please cite this article as: J. Lee, et al., 2014. Raising team social capital with knowledge and communication in information systems development projects, Int. J. Proj.
Manag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.12.001
 J. Lee et al. / International Journal of Project Management xx (2014) xxx–xxx
Knowledge
Business Professionals’ 0.363***
Business Expertise(P)
Technology Professionals’
Technology Expertise(C) 0.221**
Communication 0.302***
Business Professionals’
Communication Effectiveness(P)
ns
Technology Professionals’
Communication Effectiveness(C) 0.231**
*: p < 0.05, **: p < 0.01, ***: p < 0.001, ns: insignificant at the 0.05 level
(C) Responses from client, (P) Responses from IS professional, (C,P) Responses from both.
Fig. 2. Results of the structural model analysis.
knowledgeable in their own domain and expertise and at par with
what he or she has in their own domains. The principle of mutual
benefit seems to apply here as one may not have expertise on
what others have.
On the other hand, communication operationalized as
effectiveness in this study was found to have strong association
with social ties (structural) as well as shared vision (cognitive).
Interestingly in detail, business professionals' business expertise
maintain stronger association with social ties while technology
professionals' technological expertise are not statistically signifi-
cantly associated with the social ties. Also, Business professionals'
communication effectiveness maintains higher association with
shared vision compared to that of technology professionals'. It
implies that the roles played by business professionals may have
stronger impact in raising the team social capital, stronger than
the influence of technology professionals, especially with regards
to social ties and shared vision — structural and cognitive
dimensions of the team social capital. The formation of social
ties between business and technology professionals is made
strongly feasible by business professionals rather than the service
providing technology professionals. This may be because
clients – business professionals – have initially proposed the
project itself with business issues or problems.
Third, communication effectiveness influences shared vision.
When cooperating with each other within a project team,
communication effectiveness of members helps to convey a
sense of identity between members and may build and strengthen
the shared vision of the project. Therefore, communication
effectiveness to some extent helps to build shared vision among
team members, thus raising the level of team social capital.
Finally, regarding the influences that social capital has
on project performance, shared vision and trust each have a
positive influence. Trust seems to be assessed much more
highly than the shared vision. This may be because a member
of the project team would need to believe in other members
to exchange various internal information and knowledge during
Please cite this article as: J. Lee, et al., 2014. Raising team social capital with knowledge and communication in information systems development projects, Int. J. Proj.
Manag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.12.001
9
Team Social Capital Control Variables
Trust(C, P) Team Project
(R2=0.617) Size Type
0.204** 0.550*** ns ns
Project Team
Social Ties(C, P)
0.210** Performance(C, P)
(R2=0.132)
(R2=0.482)
0.347***
0.198*
0.298***
Shared Vision(C, P)
(R2=0.415)
the project process itself via establishing social ties and raising
the level of trust and shared vision for the project to be successful.
6.2. Theoretical and practical implications
This study explicates and validates the nomological network
of three sub-constructs of the team social capital (social ties,
trust and shared vision). In addition, it is also validated the
knowledge and communication as strong antecedents in raising
this team social capital.
Findings of this study may provide a basis on which the role
of team social capital can be explained in detail with internal
structure of sub-constructs, and extends the discussion towards
two critically important antecedents — knowledge level and
communication of business and technology counterparts in
ISD project team in which knowledge intensive collaborative
activities are the main tasks. In this regard, this study supports
the findings of Oh et al. (2004), in that only the optimal
combination of components of social capital may raise the
possibility of success in teams. Academically, this can be a
good starting point to further investigate constructs surround-
ing the role of team social capital in ISD, where intensive
knowledge sharing is important.
Practically, we would like to stress the importance of team
social capital. ISD project managers need to pay attention to
the level of team social capital being raised among team members
in a short period of time at the initiation of the ISD project at
which stage, the social ties, shared vision and trust among team
members are more critical than later periods. In this regards,
project managers would pay more attention to optimized or
matched level of expertise among team members, especially in
the domain of business functions related to the systems under
development. He or she may have to think about optimal
combination of team members in terms of the team social capital.
Project members also need to strive to communicate effectively
with other members of the project. Business professionals may
10 J. Lee et al. / International Journal of Project Management xx (2014) xxx–xxx
have more hearsay on strengthening the social ties and shared
vision among team members helping project managers. Technol-
ogy professionals can share their vision of the project by supporting
the business logics with technologies.
6.3. Limitations and future research
First, the unit of analysis for this study was the team. Because
responses were drawn from two project leading counterparts
of business and technology, they may not always be able to
represent their team members' perception. Members may not
share precisely the same perceptions with their leaders. It would
be more beneficial if future studies involved additional members
from each project team to increase the reliability of the data.
Second, it is necessary for future studies to involve external social
relationships in terms of raising the team social capital. As current
ISD project may demand outsourcing a variety of expertise in
terms of technology – such as network, database, etc. – and
business functions, such as linking with banking and managing
human resources, not only internal knowledge sharing, but also
an understanding of the requirements of the entire organization or
business may be related with the raising of team social capital.
We believe that research that focuses on social capital with
external groups will be meaningful in the area of ISD.
Conflict of Interest Statement
Authors certify that there is no conflict of interest with any
organization or project regarding the material discussed in the
manuscript.
References
Adams, S.L., Anantatmula, V., 2010. Social and behavioral influences on team
process. Proj. Manag. J. 41, 89–98.
Anderson, R.E., Hair, J.F., Tatham, R., Black, W., 2006. Multivariate data
analysis. Pearson.
Bartsch, V., Ebers, M., Maurer, I., 2013. Learning in project-based organizations:
the role of project teams' social capital for overcoming barriers to learning. Int.
J. Proj. Manag. 31, 239–251.
Bourdieu, P., 1986. The Forms of Capital. In: Richardson, J. (Ed.), Greenwood,
pp. 241–258.
Burt, R.S., 1997. The contingent value of social capital. Adm. Sci. Q. 339–365.
Chakrabarty, S., Whitten, D., Green, K., 2007. Understanding service quality
and relationship quality in IS outsourcing: client orientation & promotion,
project management effectiveness, and the task–technology–structure fit.
J. Comput. Inf. Syst. 48, 1–15.
Chen, M.-H., Chang, Y.-C., Hung, S.-C., 2008. Social capital and creativity in
R&D project teams. R&D Manag. 38, 21–34.
Child, J., 2001. Trust—the fundamental bond in global collaboration. Organ.
Dyn. 29, 274–288.
Chin, W.W., 1998. The partial least squares approach to structural equation
modeling. Mod. Methods Bus. Res. 295, 295–336.
Chin, W.W., Marcolin, B.L., Newsted, P.R., 2003. A partial least squares latent
variable modeling approach for measuring interaction effects: results from a
Monte Carlo simulation study and an electronic-mail emotion/adoption study.
Inf. Syst. Res. 14, 189–217.
Chiu, C.-M., Hsu, M.-H., Wang, E.T.G., 2006. Understanding knowledge
sharing in virtual communities: an integration of social capital and social
cognitive theories. Decis. Support. Syst. 42, 1872–1888.
Please cite this article as: J. Lee, et al., 2014. Raising team social capital with knowledge and communication in information systems development projects, Int. J. Proj.
Manag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.12.001
Chow, W.S., Chan, L.S., 2008. Social network, social trust and shared goals in
organizational knowledge sharing. Inf. Manag. 45, 458–465.
Clopton, A.W., 2011. Social capital and team performance. Team Perform.
Manag. 17, 369.
Coleman, J.S., 1988. Social capital in the creation of human capital. Am.
J. Sociol. 95–120.
Covey, S.M.R., Link, G., 2012. Smart Trust: Creating Prosperity, Energy, and
Joy in a Low-Trust World. Simon and Schuster.
Crosby, L.A., Evans, K.R., Cowles, D., 1990. Relationship quality in services
selling: an interpersonal influence perspective. J. Mark. 68–81.
Dawes, P.L., Massey, G.R., 2005. Antecedents of conflict in marketing's cross-
functional relationship with sales. Eur. J. Mark. 39, 1327–1344.
de Brabander, B., Thiers, G., 1984. Successful information system development
in relation to situational factors which affect effective communication
between MIS-users and EDP-specialists. Manag. Sci. 30, 137–155.
Di Vincenzo, F., Mascia, D., 2012. Social capital in project-based organiza-
tions: its role, structure, and impact on project performance. Int. J. Proj.
Manag. 30, 5–14.
Dionne, S.D., Yammarino, F.J., Atwater, L.E., Spangler, W.D., 2004.
Transformational leadership and team performance. J. Organ. Chang.
Manag. 17, 177–193.
Doney, P.M., Cannon, J.P., 1997. An examination of the nature of trust in
buyer–seller relationships. J. Mark. 35–51.
Emmers-Sommer, T.M., 2004. The effect of communication quality and
quantity indicators on intimacy and relational satisfaction. J. Soc. Pers.
Relat. 21, 399–411.
Farmer, B.A., Slater, J.W., Wright, K.S., 1998. The role of communication in
achieving shared vision under new organizational leadership. J. Public Relat.
Res. 10, 219–235.
Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with
unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 39–50.
Gefen, D., 2004. What makes an ERP implementation relationship worthwhile:
linking trust mechanisms and ERP usefulness. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 21,
263–288.
Gefen, D., Straub, D.W., Boudreau, M.C., 2000. Structural Equation Modeling
and Regression: Guidelines for Research Practice.
Ghosh, B., Scott, J.E., 2009. Relational alignment in offshore IS outsourcing.
MIS Q. Exec. 8, 19–29.
Granovetter, M.S., 1973. The strength of weak ties. Am. J. Sociol. 1360–1380.
Greenwood, D., Khajeh-Hosseini, A., Sommerville, I., 2010. Lessons from the
Failure and Subsequent Success of a Complex Healthcare Sector IT Project
(arXiv, preprint arXiv:1003.3880).
Hair Jr., J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., Black, William C., 1995.
Multivariate Data Analysis With Readings. Prentice Hall, New Jersey,
USA, p. 14 (130-133).
Hanifan, L.J., 1916. The rural school community center. Ann. Am. Acad. Polit.
Soc. Sci. 67, 130–138.
Hatzakis, T., Lycett, M., Macredie, R.D., Martin, V.A., 2005. Towards the
development of a social capital approach to evaluating change management
interventions. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 14, 60–74.
IBM, 2008. Making Change Work. Somers.
Ifinedo, P., 2011. Examining the influences of external expertise and in-house
computer/IT knowledge on ERP system success. J. Syst. Softw. 84,
2065–2078.
Johnson, A.M., Lederer, A.L., 2006. The impact of communication between
CEOs and CIOs on their shared views of the current and future role of IT.
Inf. Syst. Manag. 24, 85–90.
Karahanna, E., Preston, D.S., 2013. The effect of social capital of the
relationship between the CIO and top management team on firm
performance. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 30, 15–56.
Kostova, T., Roth, K., 2003. Social capital in multinational corporations and a
micro-macro model of its formation. Acad. Manag. Rev. 28, 297–317.
Lee, J.-N., Kim, Y.-G., 1999. Effect of partnership quality on IS outsourcing
success: conceptual framework and empirical validation. J. Manag. Inf. Syst.
15, 29–62.
Lee, H., Park, J.-G., Lee, J., 2011. Leadership competencies of IT project
managers: from team social capital perspective. Korea Soc. IT Serv. J. 10,
133–147.
 J. Lee et al. / International Journal of Project Management xx (2014) xxx–xxx
Lee, H., Park, J., Lee, J., 2013. Role of leadership competencies and team social
capital in IT services. J. Comput. Inf. Syst. 53, 1–11.
Li, L., 2005. The effects of trust and shared vision on inward knowledge
transfer in subsidiaries' intra-and inter-organizational relationships. Int.
Bus. Rev. 14, 77–95.
Liao, J., Welsch, H., 2005. Roles of social capital in venture creation:
Key dimensions and research implications*. J. Small Bus. Manag. 43,
345–362.
Lohmöller, J.B., 1989. Latent Variable Path Modeling With Partial Least
Squares. Physica-Verlag Heidelberg.
Mäkelä, K., Brewster, C., 2009. Interunit interaction contexts, interpersonal
social capital, and the differing levels of knowledge sharing. Hum. Resour.
Manag. 48, 591–613.
Massey, G.R., Kyriazis, E., 2007. Interpersonal trust between marketing and
R&D during new product development projects. Eur. J. Mark. 41,
1146–1172.
Mehra, A., Dixon, A.L., Brass, D.J., Robertson, B., 2006. The social network
ties of group leaders: implications for group `performance and leader
reputation. Organ. Sci. 17, 64–79.
Merlo, O., Bell, S.J., Mengüç, B., Whitwell, G.J., 2006. Social capital, customer
service orientation and creativity in retail stores. J. Bus. Res. 59, 1214–1221.
Mohan, K., Ahlemann, F., 2013. Understanding acceptance of information system
development and management methodologies by actual users: a review and
assessment of existing literature. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 33, 831–839.
Moorman, C., Deshpande, R., Zaltman, G., 1993. Factors affecting trust in
market research relationships. J. Mark. 81–101.
Morgan, R.M., Shelby, D.H., 1994. The commitment-trust theory of relationship
marketing. J. Mark. 58, 20–38.
Nahapiet, J., Ghoshal, S., 1998. Social capital, intellectual capital, and the
organizational advantage. Acad. Manag. Rev. 23, 242–266.
Nelson, K.M., Cooprider, J.G., 1996. The contribution of shared knowledge to
IS group performance. MIS Q. 20, 409–432.
Oh, H., Chung, M.-H., Labianca, G., 2004. Group social capital and group
effectiveness: the role of informal socializing ties. Acad. Manag. J. 47,
860–875.
Palmatier, R.W., Dant, R.P., Grewal, D., Evans, K.R., 2006. Factors influencing
the effectiveness of relationship marketing: a meta-analysis. J. Mark. 70,
136–153.
Park, J.-G., Lee, J., 2014. Knowledge sharing in information systems development
projects: explicating the role of dependence and trust. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 32,
153–165.
Park, J., Lee, J., Lee, H., Truex, D., 2012. Exploring the impact of communication
effectiveness on service quality, trust and relationship commitment in IT
services. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 32, 459–468.
Patnayakuni, R., Rai, A., Tiwana, A., 2007. Systems development process
improvement: a knowledge integration perspective. Eng. Manag. IEEE
Trans. 54, 286–300.
Please cite this article as: J. Lee, et al., 2014. Raising team social capital with knowledge and communication in information systems development projects, Int. J. Proj.
Manag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.12.001
11
Pee, L.G., Kankanhalli, A., Kim, H.W., 2010. Knowledge sharing in information
systems development: a social interdependence perspective. J. Assoc. Inf.
Syst. 11, 550–575.
Postmes, T., Tanis, M., de Wit, B., 2001. Communication and commitment in
organizations: a social identity approach. Group Process. Intergroup Relat.
4, 227–246.
Putnam, R.D., 1995. Tuning in, tuning out: the strange disappearance of social
capital in america. Polit. Sci. Polit. 28, 664–683.
Rogers, E.M., 1981. Communication networks: toward a new paradigm for
research. New York: Free Press; London: Collier Macmillan.
Sharma, N., Patterson, P.G., 1999. The impact of communication effectiveness
and service quality on relationship commitment in consumer, professional
services. J. Serv. Mark. 13, 151–170.
Spake, D.F., Megehee, C.M., 2010. Consumer sociability and service provider
expertise influence on service relationship success. J. Serv. Mark. 24,
314–324.
Tansley, C., Newell, S., 2007. Project social capital, leadership and trust: a study
of human resource information systems development. J. Manag. Psychol. 22,
350–368.
Tesch, D., Sobol, M.G., Klein, G., Jiang, J.J., 2009. User and developer
common knowledge: effect on the success of information system
development projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 27, 657–664.
Thompson, J.A., 2005. Proactive personality and Job performance: a social
capital perspective. J. Appl. Psychol. 90, 1011–1017.
Tiwana, A., Mclean, E.R., 2003. Expertise integration and creativity in
information systems development. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 22, 13–43.
Tsai, W., Ghoshal, S., 1998. Social capital and value creation: the role of
intrafirm networks. Acad. Manag. J. 41, 464–476.
Tzafrir, S.S., Harel, G.H., Baruch, Y., Dolan, S.L., 2004. The consequences of
emerging HRM practices for employees' trust in their managers. Pers. Rev.
33, 628–647.
van den Hooff, B., de Winter, M., 2011. Us and them: a social capital perspective
on the relationship between the business and IT departments. Eur. J. Inf. Syst.
20, 255–266.
van Emmerik, I.H., Brenninkmeijer, V., 2009. Deep-level similarity and group
social capital: associations with team functioning. Small Group Res. 40,
650–669.
Yeo, K.T., 2002. Critical failure factors in information system projects. Int.
J. Proj. Manag. 20, 241–246.
Yu, Y., Hao, J.-X., Dong, X.-Y., Khalifa, M., 2013. A multilevel model for
effects of social capital and knowledge sharing in knowledge-intensive
work teams. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 33, 780–790.
Zheng, W., 2010. A social capital perspective of innovation from individuals to
nations: where is empirical literature directing us? Int. J. Manag. Rev. 12,
151–183.