The contribution of social media to project management

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/1741-0401.htm The contribution of social media to project management Contribution of SM to project management Muralitheran V. Kanagarajoo School of Engineering and Technology, Central Queensland University, Rockhampton, Australia Richard Fulford School of Business and Law, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Australia, and Craig Standing Received 8 September 2018 Revised 21 January 2019 27 March 2019 Accepted 14 April 2019 Centre for Innovative Practice, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Australia Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to determine the social media (SM) tools that are the most prevalent for project management activities, ascertain the areas of project management that are most benefited by SM, elucidate enablers and inhibitors to adoption of SM and identify the implications for virtual teams. Design/methodology/approach – A Delphi study was used to explore why and how SM is being utilized in projects. In total, 32 participants contributed to three rounds of Delphi study, comprising two rounds of questionnaire followed by confirmatory interviews. The vulnerabilities and difficulties associated with the use of SM were examined by qualitative interviews. Findings – Information sharing SM tools, such as YouTube, Dropbox, SlideShare, flickr, CrowdStorm and Instagram, are the most advantageous to project management. However, the tools utilized differ at different stages of the project lifecycle. The major benefit of SM is that it enables project teams to communicate efficiently and positively affects virtual team dynamics. Adoption can be inhibited by the absence of infrastructure in rural areas and differing preferences for SM tools in global regions. There is also a perceived lack of maturity of policies and procedures to govern SM adoption and use. Research limitations/implications – The research was conducted based on the Project Management Body of Knowledge version 5 project management processes. Practical implications – The findings will enable practitioners to select SM tools that are suitable for project activities and forewarn about potential shortfalls. The findings also facilitate a qualitative analysis of SM attributes and their effect on project management. Social implications – Project practitioners can use the findings to adopt SM for their project management. Originality/value – This study extends the literature concerning the use of SM for project management, provides a foundation for future research and may present as a useful guide for the adoption of relevant SM tools. Keywords Project management, Social media Paper type Research paper 1. Introduction Web 2.0 comprises a set of tools that enable knowledge creation, interaction, collaboration, networking and sharing ( Jackson, 2010). Kaplan and Haenlein (2010) classified social media (SM) as a group of internet-based applications that create and exchange user-generated content (Kapoor et al., 2018) and is built on the foundation of Web 2.0. SM provides web-based services that allow individuals to construct public or non-public profiles and share them with a list of other users (Roshan et al., 2013). The benefits of using SM tools have been explored in various business functions such as insurance, sales and marketing, healthcare, IT, academia and government (Malsbender et al., 2014; Gupta et al., 2013; Nurdin et al., 2013; Omar et al., 2013; Komaromi and Erickson, 2011). SM is seen to be altering organizational processes (Ngai, Tao and Moon, 2015; Ngai, Moon, Lam, Chin and Tao, 2015), particularly by enabling virtual teams (Zigurs et al., 2008), and the adoption of SM is also altering virtual working (Kwahk and Park, 2018). The need for contemporaneous research on virtual teams has continually grown over the past decade (Gilson et al., 2015). It has been identified that effective virtual teams require International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management © Emerald Publishing Limited 1741-0401 DOI 10.1108/IJPPM-09-2018-0316 IJPPM task orientation, adequate communication and cohesive social dynamics (Lin et al., 2008). One of the limiting factors for a virtual project team has been identified as a lack of interaction among team members. This has been attributed to various factors such as trust, interpersonal relationship, cultural differences, leadership and the use of appropriate technology platforms (Daim et al., 2012). The project team environment is increasingly affected by reduced cycle times, rising customer expectations and rising pressure from stakeholders to improve project delivery (Larson and Chang, 2016). Effective project management has become crucial to the sustainability of organizations (Brahm and Tarziján, 2015), and project practitioners need to be consistently innovative to remain competitive (Business Council of Australia, 2013). Projects are generally regarded as social practices (Walker and Lloyd-Walker, 2016). Many researchers have found that technology can bring about efficiency in project operations (Gignac, 2012; Markova and Petkovska-Mircevska, 2013; Ngai, Tao and Moon, 2015; Ngai, Moon, Lam, Chin and Tao, 2015). Rosa et al. (2016) found that 54.5 percent of organizations use SM when conducting project management, and Mutua (2013) identified that the use of SM tools such as Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn improved project processes and helped to circumvent issues. However, adoption is not widespread, which can be attributed to security concerns and training required for employees that are unfamiliar with such tools, particularly older employees (Schlagwein and Prasarnphanich, 2014). This research augments the existing literature by focusing on the use of SM tools and the specific roles they play, and have potential to play, in project management. The research addresses both the questions of which SM tools are most suited to specific project activities and what is inhibiting adoption. The Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK) developed by the Project Management Institute (PMI) is the most widely used project information domain and has become the basis for much of project management education and practices globally (Crawford et al., 2007). PMBOK has a global circulation of 6.19m and 889,950 certified project management professionals (PMI Today, 2019). This research adopted the PMBOK process activities as the basis for project practice. Being an explorative research requiring alignment of views, a Delphi study was identified as the most suitable technique for this enquiry. The Delphi study collects unbiased expert opinion from knowledgeable practitioners. Two rounds of questionnaires followed by confirmatory interviews were conducted with expert project professionals comprising project managers, project directors, project management consultants and project management trainers that are utilizing SM for project management. The following section presents a theoretical underpinning for the research by elucidating the literature concerning PMBOK, virtual project teams, current SM use and categories of SM. Subsequently, the research method is explained and results presented. The findings are contextualized to the categories of SM tools that contribute to virtual team effectiveness within project activities. The vulnerabilities and difficulties associated with the use of SM tools are highlighted. Finally, recommendations for further research are proposed. 2. Theoretical framing The theoretical underpinning of the research comprises project management processes, SM tools and SM categorizations. 2.1 Project management processes Due to its wide adoption (Crawford et al., 2007; PMI Today, 2019), this study uses the matrix of the PMBOK process groups and knowledge areas as the foundation of the operational process of project management. Although the PMI (USA) has acknowledged the contribution of agile practices to incorporate lean concepts for project management in PMBOK version 6, the adaptability of agile practices is predominantly centered in IT and software development projects (Hoda and Murugesan, 2016; Conforto and Amaral, 2016) and not widely adopted by other industries (Sohi et al., 2016). The PMBOK segregates projects into the five process groups of initiating, planning, execution, monitoring and control, and closing. Process groups comprise of up to ten knowledge areas. The amalgam of knowledge areas and process groups create a matrix of 47 process activities. The PMBOK knowledge areas are as follows: (1) Project Integration Management – it includes process activities of develop project charter, develop project management plan, direct and manage project work, monitor and control project work, perform integrated change control and close project or phase. These process activities identify, define, combine and coordinate various processes and project management activities across the project phases. (2) Project Scope Management – it incorporates processes required to capture the scope of the project. Process activities include plan scope management, collect requirements, define scope, create work breakdown structure, validate scope and control scope. (3) Project Time Management – it captures work required to define activities, sequence activities, estimate resources, estimate duration and, finally, develop the project schedule. A mechanism to address any changes to the schedule baseline, a process called control schedule, is also included. (4) Project Cost Management – it allows for the project budget to be determined through the process activities of plan cost management, estimate costs, determine budget and control costs. (5) Project Quality Management – it ensures all activities for meeting and satisfying quality standards for the project. It includes process activities of plan quality management, perform quality assurance and control quality. (6) Project Human Resource Management – it includes process activities that constitute the staffing plan with mechanisms to acquire, develop and manage the project team. (7) Project Communications Management – it includes activities that are primarily concerned with the information needs of project stakeholders, how it is presented in a timely and appropriate manner so that the project can progress effectively. The process activities that achieve these outcomes are plan communications management, manage communications and control communications. (8) Project Risk Management Facilitates – it comprises the identification of risks for the project, conducting qualitative and quantitative risk analysis, prioritizes the risks and numerically analyzes risks for cost impact when risk responses are implemented. It also includes a mechanism for controlling risk via monitoring and tracking activities. (9) Project Procurement Management – it includes processes required to purchase goods and services for the project. It covers aspects such as the type of contracts awarded to sellers and various seller selection mechanisms detailing how to finalize and close the procurement activities. The process activities involved are plan procurement management, conduct procurement, control procurement and close procurement. (10) Project Stakeholder Management – it focuses on the identification of stakeholders for the project and the implementation of appropriate engagement strategies to ensure that stakeholders are kept satisfied throughout the project. The process activities include identify stakeholders, plan stakeholder management, manage stakeholder engagement and control stakeholder engagement. Contribution of SM to project management IJPPM This research seeks to understand the respondents’ perception of the contribution of SM tools to PMBOK process groups and knowledge areas. 2.2 Virtual project teams Virtual project team members are often spread over different geographic regions, have limited familiarity between team members and rely on electronic communication (Daim et al., 2012; Orta-Castañon et al., 2018). Virtual teams have difficulty in building trust and generating synergy among members (Paul et al., 2016). Differing cultural norms and languages can create delays in the development of effective teams (Paul et al., 2016; Hao, Farooq and Sun, 2018). According to Lin et al.’s (2008) cohesion, relationship building and communication determine the performance of virtual teams. Coordination indicates the degree of unity among team members, and this requires both a shared vision of objective and tasks (Yuan et al., 2009). Paul et al. (2016) found that with improved coordination teams had enhanced trust and team cohesion. Robert et al. (2009) suggested that trust in a virtual team environment can be defined at two levels: swift trust and knowledge-based trust. Swift trust is developed in environments where a team has a fixed lifespan and has not previously worked together. They often work under tight deadline pressure and do not have time to foster relationships. Team members will then assimilate trust from current knowledge of their team members and the characteristics they exhibit ( Jarvenpaa and Leidner, 1999). Trust development in a knowledge-based scenario is dependent on behavioral aspects and the interactions displayed by team members. Trust is particularly affected when cultural and temporal differences are brought into the equation ( Jarvenpaa and Leidner, 1999) and can be further hampered by the language barriers prevalent in virtual environments (O’Leary and Cummings, 2007). The ease and speed of information access, coupled with richer experience for users, are some of the key benefits of using SM tools ( Jackson, 2010). In particular, social networking sites are an effective way for organizations to reach stakeholder groups (Waters et al., 2009; Pelet, Ettis and Cowart, 2017). Organizations can leverage SM tools such as Facebook to communicate with potential customers and may also use SM tools to attract future employees (Caers et al., 2013). Evans et al. (2014) stated that SM tools facilitate effective knowledge management and make information available seamlessly to aid efficient decision making (Kane, 2017). It does this by eliminating cultural obstacles that may be prevalent in face-to-face interactions. Although SM provides organizations with an alternate platform to interact with their customers, the potential for using SM for service innovation is almost unexploited (Malsbender et al., 2014). This might be due to the challenges when implementing SM. For example, when implementing wikis, it is important to understand the purpose and usability of wikis, to integrate wikis into the current work environment, to understand the social issues that might manifest as well as the role of management and organizational culture that supports knowledge-sharing activities (Kiniti and Standing, 2013). The virtual team concept is fast encapsulating project teams as it provides a better competency mix that is required to deliver projects successfully in addition to other benefits such as potential cost savings by employing highly skilled and competent workers from low wage or salaried countries. The team operates just like any other project team without the realization that team members are not co-located. When a project team uses SM tools, they create virtual environments where team members may not ever get an opportunity to meet face to face. However, they are required to conduct and execute project tasks. In a virtual environment, team members rely on SM tools to generate impressions and build camaraderie, within a project team. Inadvertently, the quality of sharing knowledge and information between team members will depend on the ability of the technology via the right SM tools to transfer the necessary information across and between team members (Cao and Ali, 2018). Therefore, the effectiveness of the virtual team will depend on the underlying technology and the related SM tools used. The variety of SM tools, with multiple features and functions available nowadays, means that team members are presented with various options and may select the SM tool(s) that are most appropriate for their communication needs. As more solutions and messages are exchanged through SM, the influence of SM to project team effectiveness becomes more prominent. By analyzing the use of SM tools for each of the PMBOK processes activities and the potential improvement they bring to the project team virtuality, the contribution of SM to project teams can be gauged. Virtual team performance is seen to be dependent upon the constructs of relationship building, cohesion and coordination (Kanagarajoo, 2018). 2.3 Social media Government and local councils have adopted SM tools (Criado et al., 2017) as an inexpensive solution for capturing and sharing information. For instance, the Australian Government has adopted SM as a mechanism to deliver their service offerings such as online claims for Medicare and Department of Veterans Affairs’ payments and refunds (Omar et al., 2013). Six Swedish municipalities have formed collaborations for the creation of an open source web-based tool that keeps the track of student progress at school and communicates to parents and teachers (Feller et al., 2011). In Northern Cyprus, SM tools have been utilized to provide disabled people with updated information about educational and tourism opportunities (Altinay et al., 2016). The private sector has been very quick to adopt SM. Barnes et al. (2012) identified that 73 percent of the Fortune 500 companies had active Twitter accounts, and 66 percent had Facebook pages. Parveen et al. (2015), when studying organizations in South Korea, Australia and Malaysia, found that nearly all corporate websites promote their SM presence. They further concluded that SM use has contributed to enhanced customer experience, resulting in improved brand awareness, increased capability for information access and sharing (Kapoor et al., 2018), as well as reducing cost attributed to advertising and customer service. For instance, in healthcare marketing, SM provides novel opportunities for members of the public to provide feedback and for solution providers to integrate public health messages, such as vaccination for children, ill effects of smoking, drinking in middle-age, healthy diets and many more (Gupta et al., 2013). The attributes of the collaborative technology tools include availability and synchronicity (ability to access information anywhere, anytime), electronic facilitation (inbuilt tools to moderate member interaction) and electronic memory (Raghupathi, 2016). Some of the tools that fall in the collaborative technology definition are podcasts, blogs, wikis, chat platforms, video conferencing and messaging or e-mailing systems (Purvanova, 2014). These tools are preferred to telephones due to language differences creating differing speeds of assimilation (Klitmøller et al., 2015). It is pertinent to understand the various categories of SM tools. The classification is mostly done based on the features and functions that SM tools offer. In addition to the social requirements of project coordination, a project has three socio-behavioral roles: context building, culture bridging and political brokering (Cullen and Leavy, 2017). SM is seen as a tool that can foster swifter integration of new employees (Leidner et al., 2018). However, there is a scant literature concerning SM use in project management. Whited (2016) identified that SM positively impacted and enhanced project team communication and that tools are quickly adopted as they are exciting to use, quick, easy, modern and organized. Ngai, Tao and Moon (2015) and Ngai, Moon, Lam, Chin and Contribution of SM to project management IJPPM Tao (2015) proposed that SM tools should be categorized based on the social capital perspective of the level of interaction enabled by the tools. Sharing of photos and videos are classified as weak intensity SM tools, whereas tools that allow direct interaction among users, creating a virtual community, as strong intensity SM tools. Dolan (2013) classified SM tools into the four groups: collaborative projects, blogs, content communities and social networking to determine the benefits and issues associated with using SM in a project environment. Dolan (2013) highlighted the ability to reach a wider audience in stakeholder engagement as one of the key benefits of using SM tools and proposed the need to develop appropriate policies to govern the effective use of SM tools in projects. Remidez and Jones (2012) highlighted that SM can play a significant role in project communications. Their study examined nine project management information systems (PMIS) from various vendors and determined the level of capability of the SM that was integrated into the PMIS. Harrin (2010) identified that the use of SM in projects can result in large amounts of data being generated and that users can become overwhelmed by the amount of communication. Harrin (2010) questioned the readiness of the project team to accept the use of SM tools and the commitment required from the team to make it work. Troukens (2012) presented a survey conducted by the PMI Belgium Chapter on the project management community’s use of SM from April to June 2011. Troukens (2012) classified SM tools into the 13 categories displayed in Table I. This research has a similar focus like Troukens’ investigation but extends the investigation to understand the tools used at each stage of a project and identifies the issues associated with SM use. The research utilizes 8 of the 13 categories described by Trouken. These categories are microblogging, publishing, sharing, social networks, discuss, event organizer, advice and career. Another category, blogging, which includes wikis and subject-related blogs, became the ninth category. The other four categories (livecasting, buzz monitoring, crowdsourcing and multi-player games) were found unsuitable for project management activities, whereas the SM category of planning was incorporated as part of the publishing category. The conceptual framework that was derived from the literature is presented in Figure 1. The conceptualization provides the foci for understanding the use of SM tools for virtual team effectiveness within projects. No. SM Category 1 2 3 4 5 Table I. SM categories and related tools Microblogging Publish Share Social networks Discuss SM Tools Twitter, Tumblr, Plazes, Twitpic, Jaiku, Plurk, Wikis SharePoint, Joomla, Drupal, WordPress YouTube, Dropbox, SlideShare, flickr, CrowdStorm, Instagram Facebook, LinkedIn, hi5, Ning, Myspace, Yammer Skype, Google Talk, Yahoo Messenger, MSN Messenger, smf, ohobb, MS Office Communicator 6 Planning tools Project Manager.com, ZOHO Projects, Basecamp, Huddle, TeamBox 7 Event organizer Eventbrite, Eventful, Doodle, Meetup 8 Livecasting Yahoo Live!, qik, Justin.tv, Upstream.tv 9 Advice TripAdvisor, Epinions, Yelp!, Customer Lobby 10 Buzz monitor Nielsen Buzz Metrics, Alterian SM2, Sysomos 11 Career Monster, BCentral, Career Builder, Step Stone 12 Crowdsourcing Crowd Spring, Innocentive, Test, Topcoder 13 Multi-player games Zynga, CrowdPark, Farmville, Second Life, WarCraft, Lord of The Rings Online Source: Troukens (2012) Contribution of SM to project management Project Management Environment PM Process Groups (Project Lifecycle) SM Tools category PM Knowledge Areas Initiating Social Networks Integration Planning Executing Scope Blogging Applicable to Time Applicable to Microblogging Cost Monitoring and Controlling Publishing Quality Closing Discuss Sharing Advice Human Resource Communications Risk Career Procurement Event Organizer Stakeholder Potential improvement for virtual team Relationship Building Cohesion Coordination 3. Research design This research study addresses the following questions: RQ1. Which categories of SM tools are perceived to be most suited for project management activities? RQ2. What are the enablers of SM tool adoption for project management? RQ3. What are the inhibitors to SM tool adoption for project management and what risks do they present? RQ4. How SM use affects virtual teams? Figure 2 summarizes the research process. 3.1 Delphi technique The Delphi technique is a suitable research instrument when there is incomplete knowledge about a problem or phenomenon (Skulmoski et al., 2007). It is used to derive consensus among a group of individuals on a particular topic where information sought is subjective (Brill et al., 2006) and participants are separated by physical distance. Yousuf (2007) outlined situations when a Delphi study may be appropriate, and these includes situation where the subject being researched may not be suited for any precise analytical technique and which may benefit from a collective view. The difficulty of assembling a group of experts in a Figure 1. Conceptual framework IJPPM START Research SM TOOL CATEGORIES Discuss Sharing Microblogging Social Networks Publishing Career Event Organizer Advice Blogging Investigated through research method: DELPHI TECHNIQUE RESEARCH QUESTIONS Project Management Knowledge areas Process groups Enablers Inhibitors Research Question 2: What are the enablers for SM tool adoption for project management? Research Question 1: Which categories of SM tools are perceived to be most suited for project management activities? Research Question 3: What are the inhibitors to SM tool adoption for project management and what risks do they present? Virtual Team Research Question 4: How SM use affects virtual teams? Findings and Discussion, Conclusion Figure 2. Research activity summary END Research single location and time and cost constraints have also been identified as reasons to use a Delphi study (Yousuf, 2007). A Delphi study was chosen because of the explorative nature of the research and as the phenomenon consists of a number of elements that require organizing to properly understand the phenomenon. A Delphi study removes bias that is possible when diverse groups of experts meet together to assimilate phenomena (Grisham, 2009). The advantages of a Delphi study include an easy-to-use technique that does not require advanced mathematical skills. As feedback is obtained anonymously, confidentiality is maintained, thereby facilitating the removal of communication barriers such as disagreement with other participants’ opinions, modifying one’s opinion based on groupthink or stating an unpopular view (Yousuf, 2007). The key aspect of this type of research is in the selection of the expert panelists (Grisham, 2009). Hsu and Sandford (2007) proposed that choosing the appropriate subject for a Delphi study is probably the most important aspect as expert opinions are elicited in short span of time and the quality of feedback is generally dependent on the expertise and familiarity of participants on the subject being studied. Knowledge and experience on issues under investigation, capacity and willingness to participate, ability to devote sufficient time to the study and effective communication skills are prerequisites to participate in a Delphi study (Adler and Ziglio, 1996). The participants for this study were selected from organizations that had business units in the continents of Americas (USA, Canada, Chile, Brazil and Colombia), Asia (India, Iran and Nepal), Asia Pacific (Malaysia, Thailand, Singapore, Taiwan, Philippines, Vietnam, Australia and New Zealand), Europe (France, Germany, the Netherlands and Poland), Africa (South Africa, Ghana, Kenya and Nigeria) and the Middle East (Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and Oman). The criteria for the selection were as follows: • over 15 years of work experience (with a minimum of five years’ senior project management experience); and • representation from various industry sectors – consulting, government, construction, IT services, oil and gas and academia. Contribution of SM to project management 3.2 Data collection methodology The research instrument constituted of two questionnaires that comprised both open- and close-ended questions. It utilized classification of SM tools is shown in Table II. The total number of participants for the Delphi study was 32. Among them, 78 percent of respondents were male and 64 percent of respondents were above 40 years of age. In terms of experience, all had more than five years of direct project management experience, whereas 64 percent had more than 10 years of experience and 37 percent had more than 15 years of experience. This research employed three rounds of Delphi study. In the first round, 32 participants were invited to participate anonymously in filling an online questionnaire. The focus of this survey was to determine the degree of SM tool usage for project activities. The survey investigated whether participants utilized SM tools for project activities and, if so, which tools. The survey was divided into subsections as follows: • • • Section A: Introduction – this presented the introductory section to this research. Section B: Demographic information (Questions 1–6) – identified gender, age range, geographic region, years of experience in project management, area of expertise and participant’s current role. Section C: Project category (Questions 7–10) – This section captured the categories of projects they managed and the industry they were involved in. The questionnaire then explored the availability of policies and procedures pertaining to SM use, and the types of SM tools categories used in their projects. No. SM category Example of SM tools 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Blogging Microblogging Publishing Sharing Social networks Discuss Event organizer Advice Career Wikis Twitter, Tumblr, Plurk, etc. SharePoint, WordPress, Drupal, Wix, etc. YouTube, Dropbox, SlideShare, Instagram, etc. Facebook, LinkedIn, Myspace, Yammer, Microsoft Messenger, etc. Skype, Google Talk, MS Office Communicator, etc. Eventbrite, Eventful, Doodle, Meetup, etc. TripAdvisor, Epinions, Yelp!, Customer Lobby, etc. Monster, Seek.com, Career Builder, Step Stone Table II. Classification/ Category of SM tools used for this research IJPPM • Section D: Usage of SM tools in projects (Questions 11–16) – In this section, participants identified the categories of SM tools they used in their projects (based on a list of nine predetermined categories). An opportunity to mention any tools that were not included in the predetermined list was provided as part of the questionnaire. Participants were asked to identify the most frequently used SM tools along with a justification as to why these tools were used. Similarly, if participants were not using SM tools in their project activities, the questionnaire requested justification for this non-use of SM. As per the classification of SM tools shown in Table II, respondents were asked to: − identify the categories of SM tools frequently used; − list the most useful SM tools and the reason why; and − if SM tools were not used, state the reason why. • Section E: Applicability of SM tools in PMBOK knowledge areas (Questions 17–22) – in this section, participants had to identify the knowledge areas that from their perspective benefitted most from the use of SM tools. A ranking scale of 1–10 was used, and where knowledge areas received scores greater than 6, justification was requested. Similarly, for knowledge areas receiving a score of less than 5, the reason for this was also requested. For knowledge areas receiving extreme scores of 9 and above, or 2 and below, the reasons for this were also sought. The findings concluded the first round of the Delphi Study. The focus of the second survey was to share the findings from the first survey with the respondents and arrive at a selected set of categories that conveyed meaning. Participants were requested to either agree or disagree with the collective findings from the initial survey. “Should there be any disagreement?”, respondents were invited to state the reason for this. Respondents were then asked to identify the most useful SM tools for all process activities within the knowledge area based on their answers from the first survey. The second survey was divided into subsections as follows: • • • Section A: Introduction – this presented the introductory section to this phase of the research. Section B: Confirmation of Round 1 findings (particularly Section D of Round 1 questionnaire – Usage of SM tools in projects enquired via Questions 1–7, in the Round 2 questionnaire). In this section, the findings from the Round 1 questionnaire were presented. Participants were given the opportunity to confirm the findings of the Round 1 questionnaire and raise any disagreements or comment the results by indicating with a Yes or No response. If they disagreed with the findings, an opportunity to express their concerns was provided. At the same time, the researcher deliberated on responses for certain questions in Round 1. Section C: Determine SM category for PMBOK process activities (Questions 8–17) – identified SM categories for all process activities within each knowledge area. Probably the most arduous section, required participants to identify SM categories for each of the PMBOK process activities for all ten knowledge areas (covering a total of 47 process activities). The input for this activity was derived from Round 1, where participants had already indicated which tools were most prominent for each knowledge area. Based on this information, participants had to determine the most frequently used SM category for all process activities within that knowledge area. The knowledge area was deconstructed to identify respective process activities, and the participants determined the most frequently used SM category for each of the process activities. This effectively provided the results for all SM tools used in the various project phases, which were then used to derive the SM tools used for each process group of PMBOK. Q18 enquired respondent’s perception on how SM tools affected project team cohesion, coordination and relationship building. • Contribution of SM to project management Section D: Further comments and interview availability slots (Questions 18 and 19) – this section concluded the Round 2 questionnaire by requesting further comments. It also included the opportunity for participants to indicate their availability and contact information should the researcher need to get in touch with them for any clarification on their comments and inputs. A final, third round of study, verified outliers and sought to ascertain insights into the decisions made in Rounds 1 and 2. Elements of analysis included: • usage of localized SM tools (country-specific tools such as Gadu-Gadu in Poland); • reasons why SM used in all respondent’s projects; • organizational policies that restricted SM use in projects; • country-specific regulations that did not allow the use of SM tools; and • work–life balance and how it might be inhibited by SM tools. The above three rounds of enquiry completed the Delphi Study. The overall outcome from this method identified the impact of SM for project activities by identifying the PMBOK knowledge areas that were impacted most and least by the presence or absence of SM. Figure 3 displays the data collection activity that supported this study. Limitations. Yousuf (2007) has outlined the limitation of Delphi technique and the reasons why it may fail; the major considerations are that preconceptions might be built into the Delphi study and these may prohibit other perspective to be brought to the fore. Another factor is that triangulation of findings is not undertaken. There is also a risk of not giving attention to extreme responses as the process seeks to align DELPHI STUDY ROUND 1 Start 1. Administer questionnaire (Research Instrument 1) on expert panelists 2. Analyze responses to determine similarities and differences 3. Share findings with expert panelists DELPHI STUDY ROUND 2 6. Share findings with expert panelists 2. Analyze responses to determine similarities and differences 4. Administer questionnaire (Research Instrument 2) on expert panelists DELPHI STUDY ROUND 3 7. Outlier verifications and understand areas differences (focused enquiry via Skype meetings with selected panelists) 8. Conclusion and write up of findings End Figure 3. Delphi study research activity flow IJPPM responses, thus leading to decisions that ignore areas of disagreements. The above limitations have been considered and where possible mitigated when undertaking this research. 4. Findings 4.1 SM use in project management This section presents the findings concerning the research question: RQ1. Which categories of SM tools are perceived to be most suited for project management activities? All respondents indicated that they have used SM tools to perform project management activities. The categories of SM tools that are most frequently used as presented in Table III. The panel discerned the SM category of sharing as the most frequently used SM category with six out of ten knowledge areas having sharing as the most used category. The remaining four areas also utilized sharing SM tools. The SM category of discuss was ranked 1st for the knowledge areas of cost and risk management. The panel considered that SM tools such as Skype and MS Office Communicators as being useful for quick exchange of information and opinions that are necessary when discussing issues related to cost estimation, budget determination, risks identification and planning risk responses. It was proposed that this was necessary due to these activities requiring input and deliberation from many parties. The SM category of social network was identified as the most useful SM category for the knowledge areas of human resources and communications management. It is unsurprising that human resource management activities, such as recruitment, are initiated with a profile search to identify potential candidates. Chat tools are utilized for information exchanges both internal and external to the organizations. The SM category of publishing was not identified in the top 3 tools for knowledge areas human resources management, communication and risks; however, it was seen to be beneficial to other categories. The least frequently used SM categories for the PMBOK knowledge areas are shown in Table IV. The SM category of microblogging, which includes tools such as Twitter and Tumblr, was not found to be used for project activities. Another finding is that the SM category of social network, comprising tools such as Facebook and LinkedIn, is not frequently used in the knowledge areas of scope and procurement management. The SM category of career appears not to be used in the majority of knowledge areas except for human resources, scope and risk management. It was deemed as useful to human Table III. Most frequently used SM category (top 3 category) grouped by the PMBOK knowledge area Top three SM tool categories 3 Knowledge area 1 2 1. Integration 2. Scope 3. Time 4. Cost 5. Quality 6. Human resource 7. Communications 8. Risk 9. Procurement 10. Stakeholder Sharing Sharing Sharing Discuss Sharing Social networks Social networks Discuss Sharing Sharing Publishing and discuss Publishing and event organizer Discuss Publishing Discuss Sharing and discuss Discuss Sharing Publishing and discuss Social networks Blogging Discuss Publishing and event organizer Sharing Publishing Career Sharing Advice Event organizer Publishing resources management for job advertisement, interviewing, hiring and making an offer to the selected candidate. The panel ranked the knowledge areas that are most benefited by SM tools. The ranking is shown in Table V. The knowledge areas that benefitted the most by SM tools are seen to be communications and stakeholder management. Respondents identified SM use in the project management lifecycle using the PMBOK process groups as shown in Table VI. The SM category of sharing is the dominant contributor through the project lifecycle. The next most frequently used SM category is discuss, followed by publishing. The SM category of social networks is frequently used during the execution phase. This is perceived to be due to the high level of interaction between team members during this phase. The SM category of event organizer is most useful during the planning and execution phase of a project. The SM category of advice is at times used during the project planning phase. Controlled and guided SM tool usage is seen to bring about benefits to project teams or workgroups, but there still exist concerns about the safe implementation of these tools. These pertain to compromising privacy, confidentiality of information, quality of project information and necessity of communication. In total, 70 percent of the participants Knowledge area Least used SM category 1. Integration 2. Scope 3. Time 4. Cost 5. Quality 6. Human resource 7. Communications 8. Risk 9. Procurement 10. Stakeholder Microblogging Social Networks Microblogging Microblogging Microblogging Microblogging Microblogging Microblogging Social Networks Career Advice Advice Advice Career Social networks Advice Advice Sharing Career Career Career Career Career Advice Rank PMBOK knowledge area 1 2 3 4 Communications and Stakeholder Human Resource, integration and time Scope, cost, quality and risk Procurement Initiating SM category Sharing Discuss Contribution of SM to project management Planning Sharing Discuss Event organizer Publishing Advice PMBOK process groups (project lifecycle) Executing Monitoring and controlling Discuss Social networks Sharing Career Event organizer Discuss Publishing Sharing Table IV. Least used SM category grouped by the PMBOK knowledge area Table V. Most benefitted knowledge area Closing Publishing Sharing Table VI. Most useful SM category grouped by the PMBOK process groups (project lifecycle) IJPPM indicated that neither SM policy nor procedures had been implemented. It appears that the adoption or use of SM tools in projects or workgroups is still in its infancy and the governance procedures that control other ICT have not been developed. However, the low cost of SM might mean that traditional controls that govern IS adoption may potentially be circumvented. 4.2 SM enablers and inhibitors This section presents the findings concerning the following research questions: RQ2. What are the enablers of SM tool adoption for project management? RQ3. What are the inhibitors to SM tool adoption for project management and what risks do they present? The panel members concluded that the major advantage of using SM tools is the ease of accessing information via mobile devices that allows information to be shared and accessed “on the go.” The major benefit is communication efficiency improvements vis-à-vis the low cost of SM tool adoption. They also believe that the availability of SM tools on multiple devices (desktop, laptop, iPad, tablet and smart phones) is an important factor. Fast and efficient document sharing capability (especially for large files) via tools such as Dropbox was also noted as one of the key drivers of using SM for project management. One of the major reasons for adoption is the time pressure that is common with project delivery. Project managers are embracing initiatives that can enable fast and efficient information sharing within virtual teams. Another reason for adoption was seen to be ease of use, particularly with Gen Y project team members. Induction and training requirements for using SM tools are minimal; however, effective leadership is important to successful adoption (Brink, 2017). The lack of technology infrastructure was seen as the major inhibitor to SM use, particularly when projects are in rural areas. The responses are congruent in acknowledging that ICT infrastructure must be available for SM to be effectively adopted. They identified that in rural areas, the lack of communication network hampers adoption. Respondents from Nepal, India and Iran have highlighted that it is quite impractical to rely on SM tools for project communications during the execution phase as there are frequent intermittent utility or poor network coverage. Some countries have imposed restrictions on SM usage, thus adversely affecting SM adoption in these areas. In Iran, for example, government policies prevent citizens from using Facebook. Another important aspect that was highlighted by some of the respondents was that country-specific preferences for the usage of SM tools. For instance, in Poland, a social platform tool Gadu-Gadu is preferred over Facebook. The relatively low cost scheduling tool Datumprikker offered on an SAAS and developed in the Netherlands is another example of a software package that is regionally specific. These national preferences and governmental restrictions make the adoption of SM tools problematic. The reason that procurement management is the least benefitted knowledge area by SM tools is centered on the premise that procurement management has confidentiality requirements and that it is very much a “hands-on” area of project management. For instance, conducting bidder conferences, proposal requisition and evaluation, setting up vendor evaluation and selection procedures, claims and dispute resolutions, procurement negotiations, contract discussion and awards are all seen to be better managed by direct face-to-face interaction or some form of human-to-human communication. Negotiation skills and tactfulness were seen to be hampered when using SM tools. The suggestion being that human management is better than technology when the tasks are complex, confidential and require data security. When using SM tools for communication, there is a risk of over communication as boundaries and protocols are often not contained in policies and procedures (Di Gangi et al., 2018). Research has shown that individuals tend to transfer their offline behavior online (Gritzalis et al., 2014) and information leaks may occur without the communicators realizing (Leonardi and Meyer, 2015). Although the benefits can be substantial for the project team engaged in either virtual or a non-virtual work environment, the challenges of safely and securely deploying SM tools are the area that requires greater management focus. Figure 4 identifies the categories of SM, enablers, inhibitors to adoption and the elements of team performance that are improved by SM. Contribution of SM to project management 4.3 SM use for virtual teams This section presents the findings concerning the research question: RQ4. How SM use affects virtual teams? The respondents identified that SM tools significantly improved communication among project team members. As project teams interacted with SM tools, relationships development and social communications were similar to those of collocated employees. Team building, however, was seen to take longer than that with collocated teams, particularly when individuals were not dedicated to projects. Trust between team members was viewed to develop effectively particularly when members worked together frequently. It was noted that trust might even be developed more easily than in collocated teams as differences in characters and idiosyncrasies do not impede trust development. SM tool categories Sharing Publishing Discuss Microblog Advice Event Organizer Enablers Social Networks Career Blogging Inhibitors - Multiple device mobility - Lack of Governance - Fast, visible and easy information sharing - Rural Areas - Lack of Infrastructure - Large file sharing - Single information repository - Security Concerns - Wider coverage (reach and richness) - Overcome geographic limitations - Cost efficiency Decreases Enhances Elements of improvement in team performance - Strengthened Relationships - Speedy Communication - Team Cohesion - Improved Coordination - Faster task completion - Increased Trust Figure 4. SM tools categories, enablers, inhibitors and elements of improvement in team performance IJPPM It was seen that SM tools are able to provide information efficiently through one-to-one or oneto-many delivery, to identify stakeholders or team members and to provide the basis for discourse. Whether this is intentional or not, the virtual team constructs are augmented. It is then implicit that the use of SM tools, perhaps inadvertently, enhances team performance which, in turn, makes a contribution to project performance. Participants have identified the key benefits of SM tools as improved team synergy, enhanced trust and teamwork, speed of communication, created cost savings and improved response times. Respondents have suggested that non-complex project tasks can be executed much faster. For instance, one respondent highlighted that whenever there are technical issues with a software program, the user can simply capture the screenshot of the error message and share it via WhatsApp with this attracting an immediate response. Other respondents mentioned that when a message is posted on an SM platform everyone can see and read the thread, thus creating quick responses. Team members will endeavor to provide quality responses as their inputs and comments are read by all members of the group. The accuracy and correctness of data that is shared and communicated over the SM platform is crucial for the project team. As team members are all connected and are able to receive messages, the sender has to act responsibly by ensuring only correct information is broadcasted on the group. Messages broadcasted via SM test the integrity of thought, speech and action of the sender. Should false information be circulated, the reputation and credibility of the team member who has posted such messages will be questioned. Therefore, pressure exists that mandates only valid information is shared in an official project workgroup environment. It was identified that particularly complex project tasks are still not as practical using SM as with face-to-face communication although video conferencing and screen sharing were identified as being very helpful. The potential improvement that SM could offer for virtual teams is summarized in Figure 5. The advantages of SM such as ease of deployment and access are also the most cause for concern. It was noted that team members have indiscriminately adopted SM tools for project activities and have also broadcasted information to parties that should not receive the information. Bertot et al. (2012) also identified that traditional ICT policies and procedures do not provide fully for SM as they do not, except for generic ethics and professional conduct codes, include the does and do nots for engagement in virtual team conversations. The deployment of SM tools for workgroups, therefore, needs to be supported with appropriate policies, procedures and information security practices. 5. Conclusion This research study makes a substantive contribution to understanding the value of SM tools for project activities. First, it identified that the SM categories of document sharing, speed of SM tools (category) that are used for virtual team communications - Sharing, Social Networks Potential virtual team improvements Cohesion - Publishing, Sharing, Discuss Coordination Figure 5. SM tools that have the potential to contribute to virtual team effectiveness - Blogging, Microblogging, Publishing, Social Networks, Advice, Career - Publishing, Sharing, Discuss, Event Organizer, Advice, Career Relationship Building exchange and wider coverage, irrespective of geographic location, were most useful for team cohesion. The social network category (Facebook, LinkedIn, Myspace, Microsoft Messenger, etc.) was seen as very useful for the project management knowledge areas of human resources management, communication and stakeholder management. The publishing category (SharePoint, WordPress, Drupal and Wix) is important for communicating information about closing a project. Activities such as procurement, due to the nuances of negotiation skills and confidentiality concerns, are rarely supported by SM. Second, the study identified enablers and inhibitor of SM adoption. The low cost of SM tools, ease of implementation, a workforce increasingly familiar with SM and the readily available technology are attributes of SM that are altering business practice. Nonetheless, the use of SM is restricted by the abundance of tools and different tools by region. A lack of infrastructure in rural areas is also an inhibitor to adoption. Security concerns pertaining to the availability of policies and procedures for the safe use of SM in projects have been highlighted as potential pitfalls that may delay adoption. Finally, the virtual team components of cohesion, coordination and relationship building were seen to be significantly enhanced by the use of SM tools. This study can inform managers about SM tools in terms of benefits, requisite controls and adoption difficulties. Scholars can use the findings as a precursor to more in-depth studies concerning the attributes of SM and their consequence for project management. The study is bounded by the relatively small sample size and a single research approach. References Adler, M. and Ziglio, E. (1996), Gazing into the Oracle: The Delphi Method and its Application to Social Policy and Public Health, Jessica Kingsley Publishers, London. Altinay, Z., Saner, T., Bahçelerli, N.M. and Altinay, F. (2016), “The role of social media tools: accessible tourism for disabled citizens”, Journal of Educational Technology & Society, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 89-99. Barnes, N.G., Lescault, A.M. and Andonian, J. (2012), “Social media surge by the 2012 Fortune 500: increase use of blogs, Facebook, Twitter and more”, Charlton College of Business Center for Marketing Research, Dartmouth, MA. Bertot, J.C., Jaeger, P.T. and Hansen, D. (2012), “The impact of polices on government social media usage: issues, challenges, and recommendations”, Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 30-40. Brahm, F. and Tarziján, J. (2015), “Does complexity and prior interactions affect project procurement? Evidence from mining mega-projects”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 33 No. 8, pp. 1851-1862. Brill, J.M., Bishop, M.J. and Walker, A.E. (2006), “The competencies and characteristics required of an effective project manager: a web-based Delphi study”, Educational Technology Research and Development, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 115-140. Brink, T. (2017), “B2B SME management of antecedents to the application of social media”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 64, July, pp. 57-65, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.indmarman.2017.02.007 Business Council of Australia (2013), “Securing investment in Australia’s future: managing the economic transition”, available at: www.bca.com.au/publications/2013-reports-and-papers (accessed April 12, 2018). Caers, R., De Feyter, T., De Couck, M., Stough, T., Vigna, C. and Du Bois, C. (2013), “Facebook: a literature review”, New Media & Society, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 982-1002. Cao, X. and Ali, A. (2018), “Enhancing team creative performance through social media and transactive memory system”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 39, April, pp. 69-79, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2017.11.009 Contribution of SM to project management IJPPM Conforto, E.C. and Amaral, D.C. (2016), “Agile project management and stage-gate model – a hybrid framework for technology-based companies”, Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, Vol. 40, April-June, pp. 1-14, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2016.02.003 Crawford, L., Pollack, J. and England, D. (2007), “How standard are standards: an examination of language emphasis in project management standards”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 6-21. Criado, J.I., Rojas-Martín, F. and Gil-Garcia, J.R. (2017), “Enacting social media success in local public administrations: an empirical analysis of organizational, institutional, and contextual factors”, International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 31-47. Cullen, C. and Leavy, B. (2017), “The lived experience of project leadership in a loosely coupled transient context”, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 600-620. Daim, T.U., Ha, A., Reutiman, S., Hughes, B., Pathak, U., Bynum, W. and Bhatla, A. (2012), “Exploring the communication breakdown in global virtual teams”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 199-212. Di Gangi, P.M., Johnston, A.C., Worrell, J.L. and Thompson, S.C. (2018), “What could possibly go wrong? A multi-panel Delphi study of organizational social media risk”, Information Systems Frontiers, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 1097-1116. Dolan, C. (2013), “Investigation of the uses of social media in a project environment and the quantification of the benefits of applying social media paradigms to a project environment”, MSc thesis, University of East London, available at: http://roar.uel.ac.uk/3276/1/2013_MSc_Dolan.pdf (accessed April 12, 2018). Evans, C., Hackney, R. and Ray, D. (2014), “Overcoming cross-cultural barriers to knowledge management using social media”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 45-55. Feller, J., Finnegan, P. and Nilsson, O. (2011), “Open innovation and public administration: transformational typologies and business model impacts”, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 358-374. Gignac, F. (2012), “A strategic approach to Enterprise 2.0”, available at: www.projectmanagement.com/ articles/284879/A-Strategic-Approach-to-Enterprise-2-0 (accessed April 12, 2018). Gilson, L.L., Maynard, M.T., Jones Young, N.C., Vartiainen, M. and Hakonen, M. (2015), “Virtual teams research: 10 years, 10 themes, and 10 opportunities”, Journal of Management, Vol. 41 No. 5, pp. 1313-1337. Grisham, T. (2009), “The Delphi technique: a method for testing complex and multifaceted topics”, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 112-130. Gritzalis, D., Kandias, M., Stavrou, V. and Mitrou, L. (2014), “History of information: the case of privacy and security in social media”, Proceedings of the History of Information Conference, Athens, pp. 283-310. Gupta, A., Tyagi, M. and Sharma, D. (2013), “Use of social media marketing in healthcare”, Journal of Health Management, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 293-302. Hao, Y., Farooq, Q. and Sun, Y. (2018), “Development of theoretical framework and measures for the role of social media in realizing corporate social responsibility through native and non-native communication modes: moderating effects of cross-cultural management”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 704-711. Harrin, E. (2010), Social Media for Project Managers, Project Management Institute, Phildelphia, PA. Hoda, R. and Murugesan, L.K. (2016), “Multi-level agile project management challenges: a self-organizing team perspective”, Journal of Systems and Software, Vol. 117, July, pp. 245-257, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2016.02.049 Hsu, C.C. and Sandford, B.A. (2007), “The Delphi technique: making sense of consensus”, Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 1-8. Jackson, P. (2010), Web 2.0 Knowledge Technologies and the Enterprise: Smarter, Lighter and Cheaper, Chandos Publishing, Oxford. Jarvenpaa, S.L. and Leidner, D.E. (1999), “Communication and trust in global virtual teams”, Organization science, Vol. 10 No. 6, pp. 791-815, available at: https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.10.6.791 Kanagarajoo, M.V. (2018), “A framework for social media use in project management”, available at: https://ro.ecu.edu.au/theses/2103 Kane, G.C. (2017), “The evolutionary implications of social media for organizational knowledge management”, Information and Organization, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 37-46. Kaplan, A.M. and Haenlein, M. (2010), “Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of social media”, Business Horizons, Vol. 53 No. 31, pp. 59-68. Kapoor, K.K., Tamilmani, K., Rana, N.P., Patil, P., Dwivedi, Y.K. and Nerur, S. (2018), “Advances in social media research: past, present and future”, Information Systems Frontiers, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 531-558. Kiniti, S. and Standing, C. (2013), “Wikis as knowledge management systems: issues and challenges”, Journal of Systems and Information Technology, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 189-201. Klitmøller, A., Schneider, S.C. and Jonsen, K. (2015), “Speaking of global virtual teams: language differences, social categorization and media choice”, Personnel Review, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 270-285. Komaromi, K. and Erickson, G.S. (2011), “Using social media to build community”, Competition Forum, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 325-333. Kwahk, K.Y. and Park, D.H. (2018), “Leveraging your knowledge to my performance: the impact of transactive memory capability on job performance in a social media environment”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 80, March, pp. 314-330, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.10.047. Larson, D. and Chang, V. (2016), “A review and future direction of agile, business intelligence, analytics and data science”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 36 No. 5, pp. 700-710. Leidner, D.E., Gonzalez, E. and Koch, H. (2018), “An affordance perspective of enterprise social media and organizational socialization”, The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 117-138. Leonardi, P.M. and Meyer, S.R. (2015), “Social media as social lubricant: how ambient awareness eases knowledge transfer”, American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 59 No. 1, pp. 10-34. Lin, C., Standing, C. and Liu, Y.C. (2008), “A model to develop effective virtual teams”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 1031-1045. Malsbender, A., Hoffmann, S. and Becker, J. (2014), “Aligning capabilities and social media affordances for open innovation in governments”, Australasian Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 317-330. Markova, S. and Petkovska-Mircevska, T. (2013), “Social media and supply chain”, Amfiteatru Economic, Vol. 15 No. 33, pp. 89-102. Mutua, M.K. (2013), “The role of social media as a collective intelligence platform in project implementation: case in Kenya’s vision 2030 flagship projects”, International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, Vol. 3 No. 8, pp. 384-396. Ngai, E.W., Tao, S.S. and Moon, K.K. (2015), “Social media research: theories, constructs, and conceptual frameworks”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 33-44. Ngai, E.W., Moon, K.L.K., Lam, S.S., Chin, E.S. and Tao, S.S. (2015), “Social media models, technologies, and applications: an academic review and case study”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 115 No. 5, pp. 769-802. Nurdin, N., Stockdale, R. and Scheepers, H. (2013), “The use of social media to gather qualitative data: a case of government e-procurement implementation and use”, 24th Australasian Conference on Information Systems, Melbourne, pp. 1-13. O’Leary, M.B. and Cummings, J.N. (2007), “The spatial, temporal, and configurational characteristics of geographic dispersion in teams”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 433-452. Omar, K., Scheepers, H. and Stockdale, R. (2013), “The use of social media in government 2.0 assessed through the public value lens”, 24th Australasian Conference on Information Systems, Melbourne, pp. 1-12. Orta-Castañon, P., Urbina-Coronado, P., Ahuett-Garza, H., Hernández-de-Menéndez, M. and Morales-Menendez, R. (2018), “Social collaboration software for virtual teams: case studies”, International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 15-24. Parveen, F., Jaafar, N.I. and Ainin, S. (2015), “Social media usage and organizational performance: reflections of Malaysian social media managers”, Telematics and Informatics, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 67-78. Contribution of SM to project management IJPPM Paul, R., Drake, J.R. and Liang, H. (2016), “Global virtual team performance: the effect of coordination effectiveness, trust, and team cohesion”, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, Vol. 59 No. 3, pp. 186-202. Pelet, J.É., Ettis, S. and Cowart, K. (2017), “Optimal experience of flow enhanced by telepresence: evidence from social media use”, Information & Management, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 115-128. PMI Today (2019), PMI Today, January, available at: www.pmitoday-digital.com/pmitoday/january_20 19?pg=1#pg1 (accessed January 4, 2019). Purvanova, R.K. (2014), “Face-to-face versus virtual teams: what have we really learned?”, The Psychologist-Manager Journal, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 2-29. Raghupathi, V. (2016), “Changes in virtual team collaboration with modern collaboration tools”, i-Manager’s Journal on Information Technology, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 5-13. Remidez, H. and Jones, N.B. (2012), “Developing a model for social media in project management communications”, International Journal of Business and Social Science, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 33-36. Robert, L.P., Denis, A.R. and Hung, Y.T.C. (2009), “Individual swift trust and knowledge-based trust in face-to-face and virtual team members”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 241-279. Rosa, D.V., Chaves, M.S., Oliveira, M. and Pedron, C. (2016), “Target: a collaborative model based on social media to support the management of lessons learned in projects”, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 654-681. Roshan, M., Warren, M. and Carr, R. (2013), “Understanding the role of social media in incident crisis communication”, 24th Australasian Conference on Information Systems, Melbourne, pp. 1-9. Schlagwein, D. and Prasarnphanich, P. (2014), “Social media around the GLOBE”, Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, Vol. 24 Nos 2-3, pp. 122-137. Skulmoski, G.J., Hartman, F.T. and Krahn, J. (2007), “The Delphi method for graduate research”, Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 1-21, available at: www.learntechlib.org/p/111405/ Sohi, A.J., Hertogh, M., Bosch-Rekveldt, M. and Blom, R. (2016), “Does lean & agile project management help coping with project complexity?”, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 226, July, pp. 252-259, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.06.186 Troukens, K. (2012), “SM for project managers”, available at: www.pmi.org/learning/library/socialmedia-project-manager-6409 (accessed April 12, 2018). Walker, D. and Lloyd-Walker, B. (2016), “Rethinking project management: its influence on papers published in the international journal of managing projects in business”, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 716-743. Waters, R.D., Burnett, E., Lamm, A. and Lucas, J. (2009), “Engaging stakeholders through social networking: how nonprofit organizations are using Facebook”, Public Relations Review, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 102-106. Whited, D.A. (2016), “A case study on the effectiveness of using social media tools for project communication”, PhD thesis, Capella University, Minneapolis, MN, available at: https://search. proquest.com/openview/ac0ad941d21f6d7f32dbb0269e9d33f8/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl= 18750&diss=y (accessed April 12, 2018). Yousuf, M.I. (2007), “Using experts’ opinions through Delphi technique”, Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 1-8. Yuan, M., Zhang, X., Chen, Z., Vogel, D.R. and Chu, X. (2009), “Antecedents of coordination effectiveness of software developer dyads from interacting teams: an empirical investigation”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 494-507. Zigurs, I., Khazanchi, D. and Memetjanov, A. (2008), “The practice and promise of virtual project management, virtual technologies”, in Khosrow-Pour, M. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of E-collaboration, IGI Global, Hershey, PA, pp. 472-478. Appendix 1. Delphi Round 1 questionnaire (Research Instrument 1) Contribution of SM to project management IJPPM Contribution of SM to project management IJPPM Contribution of SM to project management IJPPM Appendix 2. Delphi Round 2 questionnaire (Research Instrument 2) Contribution of SM to project management IJPPM Figure 1: How is SM used in project For internal use only 37% For external use 50% 13% For both internal and external Contribution of SM to project management IJPPM Contribution of SM to project management IJPPM Contribution of SM to project management IJPPM Contribution of SM to project management IJPPM Contribution of SM to project management IJPPM Contribution of SM to project management Corresponding author Muralitheran V. Kanagarajoo can be contacted at: m.kanagarajoo@cqu.edu.au For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website: www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com