This is the first Executive Update in a series of three that examines enterprise architecture (EA) -- specifically, its organization and programs, how it provides governance, and the value it brings to companies. The series is based on data from a recent Cutter Consortium survey.

In this issue of Cutter Benchmark Review, we tackle the topic of virtual teams and their management. Like any team, virtual teams are groups of individuals with shared objectives and shared responsibilities. Unlike traditional or colocated teams, though, virtual teams draw members from multiple locations and thus cannot easily meet face-to-face.

As virtual teams grow in popularity, their leaders increasingly ask, "What should I do to manage them effectively?" We undertook our survey to help answer this question. We focused on the actions leaders can take to successfully deal with their team's virtuality. First, we explored the myth that virtual teams can't be effective, or at least that they can't be effective if team members or leaders don't meet face-to-face at least some of the time. We then explored differences in team leader behavior in effective and ineffective teams, and asked about the team leader's role in virtual teams.

I am a practitioner, not an academic. I have spent more than 25 years working with teams in a variety of environments. Over the past 15 years, I have been asked to focus more and more on virtual teams. The team members on the first global virtual teams I worked with had telephones sometimes and computers less often. Limited bandwidth wasn't an issue, the availability of electricity was. We've certainly come a long way since then.

With this issue of Cutter Benchmark Review, we set out to take stock of the state-of-the-art in virtual team management practice. We solicited contributions from two experts with unparalleled depth of understanding and experience with the virtual team phenomenon. Our academic expert contributor is Carol Saunders, Professor of Management Information Systems at the University of Central Florida and the current Editor-in-Chief of MIS Quarterly.

This survey investigated virtual teams and the role and effect of the team leader on these teams. Almost 50% of the 129 responding organizations have more than 1,000 employees (of which, 14% have more than 50,000 employees), 28% have between 100 and 1,000 employees, and the remainder have 100 or fewer employees.

It has always been the case that as an organization gets bigger and more, diverse it becomes progressively harder for separate groups to communicate with each other. Moreover, as each department's functions become more specialized, a language arises from the specialty that further divides departments. In the past, companies dealt with this through the organizational hierarchy that limited the actual communication that took place between departments.

It has always been the case that as an organization gets bigger and more diverse, it becomes progressively harder for separate groups to communicate with each other. In the modern age, however, it has become increasingly more important not only for people from different departments to work together, but also for their systems to work together.

As the problem child of business intelligence, knowledge management (KM) has suffered an identity crisis for some time, which explains organizations' total lack of enthusiasm today for any technology or management strategy yoked to those two words. As I pointed out in a previous Executive Report [1], KM means almost anything, therefore it means almost nothing.

As the problem child of business intelligence, knowledge management (KM) has suffered an identity crisis for some time, which explains organizations' total lack of enthusiasm today for any technology or management strategy yoked to those two words. As I pointed out in a previous Executive Report [1], KM means almost anything, therefore it means almost nothing.

The emergence of agile techniques fundamentally shook the world of software development. It changed not only the practices of software development, but also our understanding of how to think about the process in the first place. It helped evolve our mental models of what software development is really all about. This shift has taken firm root in the software industry and for good reason.

Agile software techniques fundamentally shook the software development industry by changing not only the practices of software development, but also our understanding of how to think about the process in the first place. This shift has taken a firm hold in the industry due to the significant results reported by those successfully implementing agile methods, including greater productivity, improved quality, higher morale, and products more aligned with market needs.

You are not your code. If someone finds a bug in your code, that does not (necessarily) represent a flaw in your skills. And flaws in your skills, should they exist, do not represent flaws in you, the individual. These are truisms, of course, but bear with me for a bit.

Responsibility for completing a mission and the resources needed to pursue it traditionally align with organizational boundaries. However, conditions and circumstances that drive the business environment, such as globalization and the fast pace of technological change, have led to increased collaboration and partnering among organizations.

Responsibility for completing a mission and the resources needed to pursue it traditionally align with organizational boundaries. However, conditions and circumstances that drive the business environment, such as globalization and the fast pace of technological change, have led to increased collaboration and partnering among organizations.

Technological advances in the past 30 years have triggered fundamental changes in business practices. In the past, responsibility for completing a mission and the resources needed to pursue it neatly aligned along organizational boundaries. However, a one-to-one alignment among missions and project teams is no longer as common as it used to be.

Technological advances in the past 30 years have triggered fundamental changes in business practices. In the past, responsibility for completing a mission and the resources needed to pursue it neatly aligned along organizational boundaries. However, a one-to-one alignment among missions and project teams is no longer as common as it used to be.

Businesses must be vigilant about data security in today's global information-based economy. The dependence upon IT in this type of environment and the risks that are an inherent part of IT make it necessary for technology leaders to know the data protection laws and regulations that exist now more than ever before.

Businesses must be vigilant about data security in today's global information-based economy. The dependence upon IT in this type of environment and the risks that are an inherent part of IT make it necessary for technology leaders to know the data protection laws and regulations that exist now more than ever before.

Risks in business process offshoring are extensive. Since, often, awareness of risks can mean avoiding them, managers lacking offshoring experience are particularly vulnerable. One way to understand the dimensions of these risks is to view them through the prism of the offshoring lifecycle, which defines the totality of decisions and actions that must be taken from the offshoring idea on the front end through a steady state relationship with an offshoring service provider (OSP) on the back end.

Risks in business process offshoring are extensive. Since, often, awareness of risks can mean avoiding them, managers lacking offshoring experience are particularly vulnerable. One way to understand the dimensions of these risks is to view them through the prism of the offshoring lifecycle, which defines the totality of decisions and actions that must be taken from the offshoring idea on the front end through a steady state relationship with an offshoring service provider (OSP) on the back end.

Risks in business process offshoring are extensive. Since, often, awareness of risks can mean avoiding them, managers lacking offshoring experience are particularly vulnerable. One way to understand the dimensions of these risks is to view them through the prism of the offshoring lifecycle, which defines the totality of decisions and actions that must be taken from the offshoring idea on the front end through a steady state relationship with an offshoring service provider (OSP) on the back end.

Offshoring and risk are inextricably bound together, but many offshoring initiative failures are avoidable if organizations take the first step to understand those risks. Comprehension of the nature of those risks is the necessary first step in mitigating them and is a process that, it turns out, is quite easy.

Offshoring and risk are inextricably bound together, but many offshoring initiative failures are avoidable if organizations take the first step to understand those risks. Comprehension of the nature of those risks is the necessary first step in mitigating them and is a process that, it turns out, is quite easy.

Offshoring and risk are inextricably bound together, but many offshoring initiative failures are avoidable if organizations take the first step to understand those risks. Comprehension of the nature of those risks is the necessary first step in mitigating them and is a process that, it turns out, is quite easy.