Consensus on Appropriation - Essay Example

Does Adopting Consensus of Appropriation in a virtual environment have an impact on effective collaboration Consensus on appropriation (COA) among team members is one of the important factors which relates to the development of the effective collaboration among team members, as they have same norms working together in a team work (Salisbury, Abhijit and Wynne, 1996. This study aims to investigate the impact of Consensus of Adoption among the GSS support system and draw conclusion based on the findings that relate to the outcomes of effective collaboration in a virtual environment. The dataset used for analysis was taken from the international collaborative learning trial, involving students from Uppsala University (Sweden) & AUT (New Zealand ) conducted in the second semester of 2003. The frame work used for this study was Adaptive Structuration Theory (AST) which is based on Anthony Giddens Structuration theory (DeSanctis & Poole, 1994). From the study, we can conclude that the results acquired are controversial and do not present the complete picture of the research on consensus of appropriation due to various limitations. Introduction In the past information technology primarily supported business functions by just improving the efficiency. Advanced information technologies (AIT) are designed to support coordination along with interpersonal communication which epitomize to a new class of information technologies ( DeSanctis and Poole 1994). Adopting the Adaptive Structuration Theory Framework (AST) emphasizes how Advance Information Technology is used to mediate any influence on the effective collaboration in a GDSS system. The effective use of Group Support systems (GSS) to aid work in small groups has been an important topic of research since the mid 1980s as the major focus was on the technology rather than the factors which influence the outcome of effective collaboration in GSS. GDSS aims to improve the process of decision making by removing communication barriers. The factors influencing group problem solving include: reluctance to participate, inconsistent views about the problem's components and their relationships, undue dominance by one individual in the group, tendency towards premature convergence, unproductive avoidance or escalation of conflict, and issues of leadership (DeSanctis, 1996).It is interesting to look at the impact of developing consensus of Appropriation (COA) among team members of the virtual environment and whether it has a major influence on the outcome of effective collaboration. The impact of technology appropriation and consensus development on the collaboration effectiveness of the virtual groups is the topic which has certain perspectives for the further research, and the basis for such assumption lies in the fact that the rates of technological development at present are the highest, and their impact on the human life and on the decision outcomes as a part of the virtual groups' performance should not be underestimated. This is why I decided to make this topic the subject of my research, using the Adaptive Structuration Theory and literary resources as the basis for the analysis and discussion of the results acquired. Background The data set used for analysis was taken from the second semester of 2003 which was a joint effort between the first year students at Uppsala University at Sweden and the third year students of Auckland University of Technology (AUT) in New Zealand. The collaborative database was developed using Lotus Notes at the school of computing and Information Sciences, AUT. The online collaboration consists of two phases. The first phase is Icebreaking activity which actually allows different users to introduce themselves and get familiar with the database in order to explore different features of it. . At the end of the phase one, the user evaluates and comments on the icebreaking task. The next phase is the group decision phase in which the group members had to evaluate 3 websites and accordingly rank them based on group decision. The results which will be acquired will be assessed the adaptive structuration theory and COA measurement scale. It is very important to understand the influence of the process of technology appropriation for the collaboration efficiency of the virtual groups. Technology often offers the opportunities for the group to revolutionize their performance, and thus as a consequence, it also creates impact on the collaboration efficiency of the group under research. It is necessary to combine the notions of AST and COA for the conclusion as it influences virtual groups' performance. As the members of the virtual groups may work separately due to their race, ethnicity and other important factors such as two different countries having people of different backgrounds, technology makes it possible to bring them together, simultaneously improving their cooperation and performance outcomes. This is why I have made the main assumption of the work that development of the agreement between the virtual team members on the usage of technology creates positive impact on the efficiency of collaboration. (Chudoba, 1999) Framework- Adaptive Structure theory The AST has its roots from the Anthony Giddens Structuration theory (DeSantics & Poole, 1994) that states how human interaction influences the institutional arrangement. Consensus of appropriation is a key component of it. AST combines the information technology, social structures and also human interaction that actually co- relates to the outcome of effective collaboration. AST is rapidly becoming an important theoretical paradigm for comprehending the impact of advance information technologies (DeSantics and Poole 1994). The main focus of my study is to investigate the interaction between group members of the team and develop a context of consensus among team members of the virtual environment based on agreement of use of technology. Central to AST is the process of Structuration in which the group participants create and maintain a social system through the application of structures which are accessible through the virtual environment, the task relevant organizational contexts or the knowledge represented by meeting participations and have a common framework which helps them in decision making. AST asserts that several factors, including electronic meeting system structures and contextual characteristics influencing the process of Structuration (DeSanctis & Gallupe, 1987). AST is often used as a basis for explaining the behavioural patterns in the virtual groups. As Poole and DeSanctis (1994) put it, 'the observed differences [in behavioural patterns] are attributable to the fact, that various groups use the GDSS differently'. These authors also state that technology becomes a decisive factor as soon as the virtual group decides to structure itself. It may even happen unconsciously, when the members of the virtual groups accept the use of certain technologies. The appropriations pattern (the extent to which each of the members accepts the use of technologies) leads to the hierarchy creation in the virtual group. However, it is also important to note that the changes of the virtual group relationships can transform the future extent of these appropriations among the virtual group members, thus affecting technologies and their appropriation at the virtual groups' performance, which should be viewed from different positions. As soon as the members of the group see the positive outcomes of the technology appropriation, its level increases. (Gopal, Bostrom & Chin, 1993) 'AST criticises the techno-centric view of technology use and emphasises the social aspects; virtual groups using technology for their work dynamically create perceptions about the role and utility of the technology, and how it can be applied to their activities.' (Poole & DeSanctis, 1994) It is also important to understand that the impact of technologies at the decision outcomes of different virtual groups will also be different. AST being just theory, but very applicable to the practical situations, puts under research the human behavioural patterns and their reaction to the use of information technologies. It is necessary to understand the level of the adaptation of the virtual group to the information technologies, and this is usually performed through the research of the intrapersonal communication. (DeSanctis, 1996) Consensus on Appropriation Consensus on appropriation (COA) is defined as the extents to which individuals mutually agree on how jointly use of the technology (Pool and DeSanctis 1994). If consensus on Appropriation is not reached, effective co ordination of user's efforts may be difficult that would lead to unfavourable outcomes. (Pool and DeSantics 1994). For example in GDSS meeting facilitation and training camp provides a means to make group activity more explicit and allow groups to achieve high consensus on Appropriation. GDSS aims to improve the process of decision making in a group by eliminating communication barriers. It is known that when you work in a group the decision making process is not only based on your views but it is a collaborative effect of the entire group to participate in the group decision process. The main barriers towards group decision are mainly inconsistent views among the team members which affects the successful collaboration process. So the aim of my research is to investigate the effect of technology appropriation within the team and its outcomes for the collaborative computing. For the more effective research, it is essential to understand what is meant under the word 'appropriation'. What I mean under this word in the present research, is the extent to which the technology is implemented into the virtual group performance, how constructively it is used and whether it brings positive understanding for the virtual group members. As Poole ad DeSanctis (1994) state, 'ideally appropriation of technology is the basis for the discussion of the general technology effects at the virtual groups' performance'. Agreement on appropriation here should be viewed as a part of AST, because the theory will assist in understanding the inner interrelations as a result of the technology's impact. It is also essential to understand, that according Salisbury, Chin, Gopal & Newsted (2002) the COA definition has four major components: group members, who are (as assumed) able to reach agreement, on how to apply the advanced information technology, to their work. They are similar to the four components of the decision-outcomes paradigm. Methodology: Qualitative Data Analysis A qualitative research method focuses on social sciences to enable researchers to study social and cultural phenomena. Qualitative data sources include observation and participant observation (fieldwork), interviews and questionnaires, documents and texts, and the researcher's impressions and reactions. Thus, it will be easier for us to decide, whether the use of email led to more effective collaboration of the virtual group under research, whether the virtual group members accepted the necessity of email use in their performance and whether they have experienced the positive outcomes of finding the agreement on the use of the technology. Qualitative Data Analysis The data was obtained from the final questionnaires from students who participated in the collaborative trail to evaluate whether the consensus on appropriation of the technology had positive outcomes for the virtual group. Data collected from the final trail evaluation is analysed to find the above goals. The participants were provided with a wide range of choice scale to express their thoughts on the project, the various options available were "Strongly agree", "Agree", "No firm opinion", "Disagree" and "strongly disagree". Out of total 10 questions the research paper focused on 3 questions were used as it were reflecting towards the agreement use of the technology. This was the reason it was used to map with the project goals. No Goals Questions 1 Effective collaboration Q 4 2 Consensus of Appropriation (COA) Q6 & Q 7 Table 1: Dataset Questions from the feedback questioner The questions used in the collaborative analysis are listed below. Q 4) Has the project enabled you to work together effectively in your virtual group Q 6) Can collaborative database alone be used for group decision making, with no supplementary use of other technology Q 7) Does combined use of the collaborative database and other technology offer an effective means of support for virtual group work Qualitative data analysis offers an opportunity for the objective evaluation of the virtual group performance before and after the trial, to distinguish the changes which occur in the group collaboration and the recommendations which may be created on the basis of the results acquired. (Lacity & Janson, 1994) As one of the methods of application of the quality data analysis is analysis of the textual data, which is supposed to be one of the most effective means of evaluation, has been applied for the present research. The textual responses of the group members according to the questionnaire provided to the participants before and after the research period have been used as the means of analysing the performance and outcomes of the agreement development based on the email usage. However, in terms of micro-level analysis the method used for the aims of the present work will be linguistic text analysis. The basis for such choice is explained by the necessity to avoid time-consuming methods created by Poole and Desanctis (1994) (the analysis of the audio recordings of the virtual groups meetings with the following evaluation of each expression and intonation, as this method mainly concentrates at categorizing interactions and counting various instances, using statistical means of analysis for acquiring reliable results). In distinction from positivist methods of research, the linguistic method is more appropriate for the present topic as it provides the audience with the opportunity of qualitative evaluation of the acquired results and for the researcher to focus at interpretation of the changes. The method of questionnaires used in the present work has achieved in provided quality results without the time-consuming methods of the oral techniques and interpretations. (Lacity & Janson, 1994) It is also important to note that the two types of analysis may be used in the similar researches, and as recommendations for the future studies. First of all, it is necessary not to forget about the micro-level analysis, which is represented through the analysis of the oral speech and intonations of the virtual group members. Micro analysis can research the level of the technology appropriation through the specific speech acts (DeSanctis & Poole, 1994), This research work does not use this type of analysis for the simple reason being time-consuming method. The speech acts are usually classified according to the specific scheme created for this type of analysis and allows comparison of the appropriation level among the groups, though for the analysis of the consensus development on the technology appropriation among virtual group members, this method could also bring quality results. The analysis used in the present work is closer to the macro-level of qualitative data analysis. Analysis & Findings Fig A: Effective group work Group work plays a very important role in effective collaboration within the virtual organisation. The question "has the project enabled you to work together effectively in your virtual group" gives the idea about how effective was the entire process of collaboration during the project in respect with other team members measured by the answers to the question. The use of technology and the consensus on appropriation for this technology among the members of the virtual groups under research have shown to have no strong agreement. It means that either the methods of research were ineffectively chosen, or the members of the virtual group didn't clearly understand their tasks. Fig B: Group decision without using technology The data shows the low level of agreement without the use of technology; however, this result is also argumentative - consensus on appropriation is defined not by the use of common technology but by the factors which allow the virtual group members to find agreement on appropriation of this technology. Fig C: Effective collaboration - combined use with technology in virtual environment Though the percentage of those who agree with the statement that the use of technology is more effective for better collaboration outcomes, and thus the consensus on appropriation of this technology will be higher, it is necessary to look at the COA and its effect on collaboration through the COA measurement scale. For the provision of the more objective results, the work of the virtual groups and the development of COA in their collaboration were analyzed through the use of records which the virtual team members used. This was the linguistic analysis recommended in the methodology section. The results are shown in the table below. Item No technology use Technology use COA 1 COA 2 COA 3 COA 4 COA 5 COA 6 COA 7 COA 8 COA 9 COA 10 0.27 0.23 0.33 0.42 0.22 0.03 0.07 0.17 0.12 0.04 0.32 0.24 0.64 0.47 0.19 0.24 0.28 0.19 0.31 0.22 It is very interesting to perform the analysis of some of measurements separately, as they provide us with the general picture of disagreement on the use of technology in virtual group collaboration. First of all, there is only slight difference between the COA2 measures for both cases, which may mean that the group had the enough level of agreement on appropriation the technology and thus the difference in its use won't cause drastic impact on both consensus and the outcomes of collaboration as well. It is even more interesting to judge on the COA3 between the two cases, as the level of disagreement appears much higher with the use of technology, than without it. However, it does not mean that the general level of consensus may become lower. It may only mean that the disagreement on technology appropriation caused some disagreement between the virtual group members, but they were finally able to find mutually beneficial decision and thus increase the effectiveness of their collaboration. As both questionnaires (subjective) and forms (objective) give us the support to the assumption that consensus on appropriation for the technology use worked for the benefit of the whole group, the main idea of the work may be supposed to be proved, and COA works for the higher efficiency of the team collaboration. For the better understanding of the processes which take place in the virtual group it should be interesting to analyze, to which extent the members of virtual group used the technology, as the general consensus of appropriation and the use of technology itself are somewhat different notions, however, it is evident that the use of technology with consensus leads to better collaboration results, than its use without this consensus. For the future studies, it will be recommended to research the assumption that the use of technology by virtual group members separately, and the use of the same technology as a result of common COA results in different collaboration outcomes. This question was chosen just to see whether there was similar consensus among the team members. From the figure B it can be seen that 37% (majority) of the respondents disagreed that the collaborative database alone could be used for group decision making, with no supplementary use of technology. While from fig C it can be seen that about two-thirds (64%) of the students agreed that the combined use of the collaborative database and other software offer an effective means of support for virtual group work. However this contrasts with the response to the question A and creates a dilemma - whether the higher efficiency was caused by the development of consensus on the technology use or whether it was caused by the fact of cooperation itself. The COA 10 shows that the virtual group members under research were yet been able to reach agreement on the use of technology, but the outcomes of their collaboration are judged only subjectively through the questionnaires, and thus it is also recommended to evaluate the collaboration results through more objective instruments, which will provide the researcher with more reliable data. Discussion The results of the analysis appear to be controversial - on the one hand, the majority of respondents accept the necessity and effectiveness of the email use in their effective collaboration; on the other hand, the participants admit that the project itself allowed them to work more effectively in the group. Thus, it is not clear enough whether the development of consensus has been acquired through the cooperation only or through the discussion of the email use necessity as well. However, this controversy may be eliminated if discussing the results in the following way. First of all, it should be admitted that the fact that the project allowed the group to work effectively during the process of the research, proves, that the use of email was one of the decisive factors in developing the agreement between the virtual group members. It should be taken into account that the development of the agreement between the members of the virtual group may also account for better understanding of the technology positive sides. As it has been told above, the notion of COA appears to be complex, - as soon as the use of technology in virtual group performance is accepted, and the positive outcomes become evident, the level of appropriation increases among the group members and more of them decide to use technology in their work, leading the group to even more efficient collaboration. Based on the results acquired through the present research, it is yet not clear what was the base for the assumption that the development of consensus has increased for the virtual group under research. As a recommendation for the future similar studies and with the aim of acquiring better results, the question should be closely connected with the use of technologies, as it now appears to be too general for the present context. Technology in the research has been considered as a participant, and for the better understanding the outcomes of the technology use it would also be interesting to research the extent to which the virtual group members understand the necessity of the technology used to fit the task they have to fulfil. The COA scale used in the work has provided the reader with somewhat controversial results. Though in general it shows that the virtual group members were able to reach agreement on the use of technology for their collaboration, but it is still unclear whether this consensus has drastically improved the collaboration outcomes. The members themselves have reported the higher effectiveness of their collaboration through the use of common technology, but to make this assumption more reliable this statement should be subjected to more objective instruments of analysis. It is also valuable to look through the forms and questionnaires from the viewpoint of the way they are filled by participants. The forms and questionnaires were filled by all participants, with no questions omitted. This has become an excellent basis for creating valid judgements. Limitations and future work The main limitation of the work is that the use of questionnaire is the tool of subjective evaluation, and for the aims of the present research it has created the results which appear to be controversial. What is meant here is that the questions of the technology appropriation & its impact on the virtual group performance is better to be discussed from the objective point of view. The micro-level qualitative data analysis is recommended to be used in future similar studies. It is obvious, that the use of technology is certainly a positive factor for the effective collaboration inside the virtual group, but it has been mostly evaluated not by the researcher, but by the participants themselves through answering the questionnaires, which creates obstacles for valid interpretation of the results. However, they may be used only as a basis for the future studies and it is recommended that the questionnaire method be combined with any of other methods, as positivist textual quality data analysis or linguistic analysis. This will take more time to conduct the research but the data acquired will be more appropriate for valid interpretation. Another limitation is in the small number of respondents, which may also influence the interpretation of results. It is important to understand that the present research has been the first attempt to tie the use of technology with the consensus development on its appropriation, and the effective collaboration of the virtual group. The results acquired are to be used in the future studies with the account of the present controversies and limitations. Conclusion The aim of the present study was to research the consensus development of the technology use on the efficiency of the virtual group collaboration. The results acquired are considered to be controversial and do not represent the full picture of the research, carrying certain limitations and requiring further study. However, it can be admitted that such research has several positive features, which make it potentially useful in the discussion of the AST and its connection with the appropriation of technologies in virtual groups. The main conclusion of the work is that there are no evident proofs that the development of technology appropriation (email in this case) carries significant impact on the efficient collaboration of the virtual group, however this conclusion may be put under doubt, as the method used in the research appear to be subjective, and the subjective evaluation of the collaboration efficiency by the participants themselves does not represent the objective situation. It is not yet understood clearly, whether it is the development of consensus on technology use or just the fact of cooperation between the members which leads to the higher collaboration efficiency. Technology at present influences all spheres of human life, and the positivism of its impact is yet to be discussed. The present research has shown that group members admit the fact of the increased efficiency of collaboration, but it is not yet understood whether it is due to the technology use or due to the fact that the members have an opportunity simply to work together, not taking into account the presence or absence of any technology. However, the use of AST as the basis in the attempt to connect the consensus development on technology use and the efficiency of the virtual group collaboration proved itself to be effective. Though the interpretation of the acquired results is somewhat limited, but the use of technologies in the virtual group collaboration tends to bring positive outcomes. AST is a very effective method of analysing the new technologies, the process of their appropriation through various groups and the outcomes of this appropriation. The questionnaires have been designed in the way to make it possible to research the consensus development and its impact on the efficiency collaboration; though as it will be noted later this method has presented certain limitations and evaluation basis, with the use of the latest evaluation and interpretation methods. As stated by Salisbury, Chin, Gopal & Newsted (2002), not a single person works separately, and the analysis of the COA for the advanced technology use is the idea worth discussing in the similar studies, as consensus on appropriation itself may work for the higher collaboration outcomes between the virtual group members. REFERENCES Chin, W.Y., Gopal, A., & Salisbury, W.D. (1997) Advancing the Theory of Adaptive Structuration: The Development of a Scale to Measure Faithfulness of Appropriation, Information Systems Research, 8(4), pp. 342-367. Chudoba, K.M. (1999). Appropriations and patterns in the use of group support systems. Database of Advances in Information Systems, 30 (4): 131-148 DeSanctis, G. (1996) Shifting Foundations in Group Support System Research. In L. M. Jessup & J. Valacich (Eds.), Group Support Systems: New Perspectives, pp. 97-111, New York: Macmillan. DeSanctis, G., & Gallupe, D. (1987). A foundation for the study of group decision support systems. Management Science, 33(5), 589-609. DeSanctis, G., & Poole, M.S. (1994) Capturing the Complexity in Advanced Technology Use: Adaptive Structuration Theory, Organization Science, 5(2), pp. 121-147. Gopal, A., Bostrom, R.P. & Chin, W.W. (1993). Applying Adaptive Structuration Theory to investigate the process of group support systems use'. Journal of Management Information Systems, 9(3): 45-69 Lacity, M.C. & Janson, M.A. (1994). Understanding qualitative data: a framework of text analysis methods'. Journal of Management Information Systems, 11(2): 137-155 Poole, M.S., & DeSanctis, G. (1989). Use of Group Decision Support Systems as an Appropriation Process, Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Annual Hawaii International Conference, 4 , pp. 149- 157. Salisbury, D., Abhijit, G., & Wynne, C. (1996). Are we all working from the same script Developing an instrument to measure consensus on the appropriation of an electronic meeting system. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 29th annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences, Hawaii. Salisbury, W., Chin, W., Ghopal, A., & Newsted, P. (2002). Research Report: Better Theory Through Measurement-Developing a Scale to Capture Consensus on Appropriation. Information Systems Research, 13(1), 91-103. Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics for qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques. CA: Sage Read More