Does Physical Location Impact Collaboration between Groups - Assignment Example

Does physical location impact collaboration between groups? This article emphasizes whether doing a particular task together is more productive or when located at different destinations in virtual environment. CMC and GSS is initially introduced and then later an overview of AST (adaptive structuration theory) which is used to analyse the data from 2003 that involves students from New Zealand and Sweden. There by obtaining the results from the data set, we get to know the results. Introduction In the last few years there has been an immense rise in the statistics of the people who use Internet; a recent study says that the growth has been over 500 million and will rise further to make activities much easier and flexible. People from one PC could connect to any other who is in any part of the world with one of the medium called as Net Meeting which is provided by the Microsoft. CMC (Computer mediated Communications) which is in short for communications takes place between people through supported media which can either be audio/video conferencing, emails, chat rooms etc. In a global scale this technology helps organizations to gain competitive advantage as they respond to the customers needs quickly. There have been a number of researchers that has been going on to make a break through in this particular area. Usually, GSS (Group Support Systems), and groupware represent trends in practical collaboration that have fulfilled the demands. A large number of people who have been using the internet as a tool for communication, over the last few decades have faced a significant change and have been a considerable growth as well. A speculation is been carried out whether having to attend a meeting in person is as important as it is in the virtual world in a group. The issues that are occurring when 2 different technologies communicate with each other are emphasized here. Computer Mediated Communication (CMC) and GroupWare are the 2 technologies, with the help of these technologies; people can work as virtual groups from any part of the world which makes it convenient. There is a certain improvement of the results when these technologies are implemented and the decisions are made real quickly. The relevance of the present work lies in the fact that the scarce amount of literature on similar topics does not represent the scope of the problem and the real impact of the groupware in the fulfilling of the common tasks by virtual groups should be subjected to close consideration and research. The core idea of the work is whether the physical location (or, better, co-location) if the groups influences their performance in the fulfillment of the common tasks, and how the effects differ between co-locative groups and those which simply use groupware in their collaboration. For the aims of the present work it is necessary to look at the process of the performance of virtual groups in the use of the groupware for the fulfillment of the common tasks. It is also necessary to use the AST as the basis for the present research, as this theory allows deeper understanding of the processes which take place among the members of the virtual group at the time they us groupware for the fulfillment of the common task. It is necessary to define the changes which occur to each of the four decision-outcomes criteria for the better understanding of the impact of groupware. The data acquired through the work will be analyzed through comparison between the co-locative group and the one locating in different parts of the world but using groupware for the fulfillment of similar tasks. Adaptive Structuration Theory In management science, Adaptive Structuration describes the theory which was described by Anthony Giddens, which was further expanded and modelled by DeSanctis and Poole. The social and Intrapersonal affects that use technology on groups is emphasized here. Giddens rejects the extreme positions in the agency-structure debate, positioning in the process that human action, while institutionally constrained, also influences and alters institutional arrangements, or structures, in the process of ongoing use. AST avoids the “techno centric” (DeSanctis 1989) view of technology use and emphasizes its social aspects. Central to AST is the notion of structuration, the process by which groups create and maintain a social system through the application of structures, which are rules and resources provided by the EMS, the task, organizational culture, group norms, and the knowledge represented by the participants. “Spirit” refers to the general goals and attitudes that the technology aims to promote. DeSantics and Poole (1994) state that “Spirit” is concerned with issues like “what goals does the technology promote? What kinds of values are supported?” rather than looking at the technological functionalities of the collaborative system like” what does the system look like or what modules contains” (Mehra 2006) The AST is a quite a feasible approach for examining advanced technologies’ roles in organization change. This theory also gives exemplars for and explicates both change and stability inside the group. The AST theory also elaborates the fact that how work groups basically incorporate technology into their problem solving attempts. It is also useful in studying the change process from two aspects. Firstly, the structures which the advanced technologies provide and secondly, the effect of human actions when they interact using the internet technologies. The use of the AST is relevant for the present research as it gives clear explanation of the processes, which take place among the members of the virtual group under research at the time they use groupware (or dont use it). AST allows looking at these processes from the two different points of view. On the one hand, it is possible to look at these processes as result of the groupware use, and to understand the changes which the structures acquire under this impact. On the other hand, the use of the groupware may also be looked at as a result of the necessity for the interaction and collaboration between the virtual group members at the moment they need to fulfill common task being at different parts of the world. Thus groupware may also be looked at as a result of such interactions and needs, and it is also assumed that groupware and virtual groups interact and mutually influence each other, which certainly changes their behavioral patterns and the results of their cooperation. (DeSanctis & Poole, 1994) AST is used in the present research for the following reasons: 1. AST is the theory which explains the evolution of the virtual groups, and as the aim of this work is to look at the process of the changing performance among the virtual group members, AST appears to be the most applicable theoretical basis of the present paper. It will be necessary to see how the performance of groups develops through the use (or non-use) of groupware for the fulfillment of similar tasks. 2. AST views virtual groups as structures with stable inner relationships and communicative abilities. As the use of groupware, as it is assumed, will certainly influence the communication between the members of the virtual group under research and as a result, positively influence the decision outcomes for this group, AST will become a solid basis for the explanation of the changes which will probably take place. The changes will be observed through the comparison, but to explain these changes, we will need to apply the knowledge acquired through AST. 3. AST looks at virtual groups as a result of their interactions with the advanced technologies. In the present research the use of groupware will be equated with the use of the advanced technologies, and thus AST will be used for the explanation of such interactions. 4. AST states that virtual groups interact with other similar structures and with other technologies and systems. It is stated that such groups exist in the dual relationships, and while the group itself through its need for cooperation creates the necessity of designing groupware; the use of groupware itself influences the process of collaboration among the members of the virtual group when they work for the fulfillment of the common task. It is necessary to support the core idea of the work by comparing the decision outcomes of the two different groups under research – one of which will co-locate and the other using groupware from different locations for collaboration. 5. AST states that structuration is the process of constant changes, and thus the present research will concentrate on the use of groupware as a process and not as a fact, and the application of the seventh proposition with its four criteria of decision outcomes, will be a crucial element for the analysis of the data acquired. (Chin, Gopal & Salisbury, 1997) Research methodology The database that was examined and selected was http://online.aut.ac.nz, as it was a recent one from the year 2003 The data from 2003 was selected for the analysis and comparison with the data acquired in 2001. Using the 7th proposition from the AST we have come out with decisions. Two different technologies were considered namely Lotus Notes and Avatar for the students. Lotus Notes was developed at AUT which was a 2D application. Avatar was a 3D application which is a Java application (Clear, 2001). There was a huge difference in the technologies, and even the questions for the decision making tasks and the trial instructions were quite dissimilar. Rather than evaluating and ranking three websites, in 2003 groups were assigned to rank their tool preference between Avatar and the Lotus Notes software. The research methodology used in the present work is through the criteria of the decision outcomes paradigm. These methods are used in the research for better understanding of the changes which occur among the virtual group members as a result of the groupware use for the fulfilment of the common task. The four criteria of the seventh AST proposition are the principal instrument of analysis in the present work. Each of the four criteria will be used with the following aim and will become the basis for the following assumptions. The efficiency criteria will be used in this work for defining how the efficiency of the collaboration among the virtual group members has changed as a result of the groupware use for the fulfilment of the common task. This efficiency level is important to be understood for the explanation of the data acquired through the research period. It will be important to find out the indices of efficiency for the group which uses groupware and for the group which is co-located, to compare them. It is suggested that the use of groupware will positively influence the efficiency of work, though it is under question, if co-location is better than groupware, which is to be identified in the research. (Poole & DeSanctis, 1989) The consensus level is also important to be taken into account as it is important to understand how the groupware use influences the level of agreement between the virtual group members at the time they work for the fulfilment of the common task. The level of agreement will ultimately influence the results and outcomes of the group performance through the use of the groupware. For the aims of the work it is necessary to understand, whether virtual groups reach better agreement when they are co-located or when they us groupware. It is essential to understand, what factors play major role in reaching this consensus. Consensus criteria is needed to be applied here for better understanding of the processes, which take place in the two groups when they fulfil common similar tasks. Being an integral part of the AST, consensus level will assist in finding basic explanations for the results of collaboration between the two groups. As we look at the general outcomes of collaboration between the two groups, consensus is the criterion, which greatly contributes into the outcomes of cooperation. The commitment level is necessary to be discussed for the aims of the present research as it is essential to understand how the use of groupware influences the group performance. It is assumed that the better commitment positively influences the outcomes of the virtual group performance, and it will be used as a part of the common impact of the groupware. The present criterion is used in the present work to identify whether the level of commitment to the fulfilment of common task is changed with and without use of groupware. (DeSanctis & Poole, 1994) The quality criterion will not be used in the present research for the following reason: the aim of the work is to look at the use of groupware and its impact on the process of the performance and not at the results of their collaboration. The quality criterion is recommended to be used in the future studies to acquire more reliable results. The results of the present work through the use of the described methodology are recommended to be used as the basis for the future studies in the similar sphere, as it will be useful for those who study and work in the area of computer sciences to understand the processes which take place as a result of the groupware use for the improvement of this groupware and the collaboration and relationships between the members of different virtual groups. Results Students from New Zealand and Sweden participated in the Semester 1 2001 and Semester 1 2003; there were about 60 from NZ, and 53 from Sweden, were separated in 15 groups and divided in 5 topic areas such as intelligent agents, neural network, data ware housing, expert systems and data mining. Each group had about 6 to 9 students from both countries. In 2001, there were about 40 students from New Zealand and 70 from Sweden who participated, and then there were 9 groups, each group consisting of 10-13 students from both the countries. Though the population varied, and the studies that were conducted in both 2001 and 2003, they were similar in terms of computer and educational background. The table below compares the three criteria of the decision outcomes in 2001 and 2003. The efficiency and commitment decrease from 49.55% to 30.11% and 86.33% to 58%, the outcome of consensus increased significantly from 78.87% to 94.22%. These are the results for the group which was co-locative. As for the group, which used groupware for the fulfilment of the similar tasks, it is evident, that though the level of efficiency is much higher than for those who didnt use it, but it still decreases within 2003. the level of consensus is not much different from the consensus level of co-locative group and displays increase; the level of commitment is even lower than that of co-locative group, being equal to 69.24% in 2001 and 48.97% in 2003 accordingly. Discussion To evaluate the group performance the decision outcomes of the four criteria was measured. The efficient criterion was the first that was measured by the number of groups that had completed their decision-making task and only one confirmed form was submitted. The consensus criterion was the second which is measured by the degree of agreement which each group. The commitment criterion was the third that could be measured by a number of groups that posted one confirmed form. The final criterion is not applicable here is Quality. The three criteria of the decision-outcomes paradigm has shown that only the criterion of consensus has increased through the research period as a result of the groupware use for the fulfilment of the common task. The efficiency and the commitment levels decreased, which will be explained in the discussion chapter of the present work. The results may be supposed to be relevant, but may also be subjected to argumentation for the account of certain limitations and the fact that these criteria were evaluated by the members of the virtual groups themselves, which puts a level of subjectivity on the results acquired. Thus it is highly recommended to use the results of the preset research for the similar studies with the use of other more objective methods of evaluation. Criteria 2001 –Semester 1 (co-locative 2003- Semester 1 (co-locative) 2001 – Semester 1 (groupware) 2003 - Semester 1 (groupware) Efficiency 49.55% 30.11% 74.21% 71.18% Quality NA NA NA NA Consensus 78.87% 94.22% 79.92% 94.75% Commitment 86.33% 58% 69.24% 48.97% Table: comparison of decision outcomes in 2001 and 2003 In addition, two questions had to be submitted by the participants, the final trial evaluation and the icebreaker evaluation. This represents the feedback of the students and their satisfaction levels towards the collaborative exercise. Figure a: Final trial evaluations The chart shown above clearly show that the students found the activity quite easy and had fun doing it. The charts also underline the fact that the students did not find the activity to be helpful in making them learn anything. The comparative analysis clearly represents quite low value in most of the items which indicates that students did not find the icebreaking activity interesting. From the results acquired it is evident that the efficiency and the commitment level of the decision outcomes paradigm decreased in spite of the groupware use for the fulfillment of the common task. It is also evident, that in the co-locative group these indices have also not increased. The reasons may be as follows: 1. The co-locative work of the group for the fulfillment of the common task was performed without any groupware use. The decrease of efficiency in the co-locative group may be caused by the absence of any groupware use. The level of efficiency has not decreased much, but for the absence of any technological assistance, it appears that co-location is not the decisive factor in determining efficiency. 2. The efficiency criterion has also decreased for the group which used groupware. Though, it is essential to note that the levels of efficiency between the co-locative group and the group which used groupware are drastically different. Thus, the use of groupware positively influences the virtual group collaboration, and is better than when the group is co-located but uses no technologies for the fulfillment of the common task. The decrease of the efficiency index between the years 2001 and 2003 for the group which used groupware may be explained by the two assumptions: either the fact that through 2001-2003 the kind of groupware used was the same and didnt account any technological advances; or the fact that by the end of the trial the number of the respondents using groupware decreased, which is to be proved through the analysis of the forms which the participants filled. Anyway, it appears that efficiency experiences serious impact depending on physical location of the group. 3. The levels of consensus for the both groups have not shown drastic difference, but it is important to note, that the level of consensus is the single out of the four decision outcomes criteria, which has increased through the trial. Possible reason for this is the assumption, that process of collaboration, either with co-location, or with the use of groupware, assists in coming to agreement as for the main questions which arise during the fulfillment of the common task. However, it is also evident, that physical location does not influence consensus criteria. 4. It is interesting to have more thorough look at the commitment criterion. First of all, for the co-locative group this index has decreased, which may be caused by the fact that by the end of the trial the participants have no more been too much devoted to the fulfillment of the common task, and neglected the importance of the experiment. In comparison with co-located group, the level of commitment for the participants, who used groupware, is significantly lower, and even more decreases by the end of the trial in 2003. This may be determined by the fact that the use of groupware is often taken by the respondents not as assistance in the collaboration but as the means of replacing their work in fulfilling different tasks. What is meant is that groupware is used not with physical work, but instead of it, which certainly negatively influences the level of commitment. In general, it has become clear that physical location of the group creates better impact on its commitment to the fulfillment of common tasks. Though the results are rather mixed and vague, it is necessary to take into account the number of limitations, which is recommended to omit in the similar studies. The main limitation of the work is that the evaluation of all criteria was performed by the participants themselves, which puts high levels of subjectivity on the analysis. It is recommended for the aims of the present and future similar studies to perform the same research through the use of other objective methods, as the use of the questionnaires is not the objective means of evaluation of the virtual group performance. Though the use of such methodology has become a common means of research in the sphere of computer sciences and virtual groups’ performance through the use of various technologies and the influence of various factors, this means don’t provide the readers with the results relevant enough to be used in the future works. Another limitation of the work is represented by the limited number of participants, which should be bigger for the provision of the more relevant results. It is also stated that the number of the students participating in the research is different in 2001 and 2003, which have also influenced the relevance of results. For the better results it is necessary to perform the similar research for the groupware impact in the fulfillment of the common task between the equal numbers of students in the two equal periods of time. An important limitation of the work is the omission of the Quality criterion of the decision outcomes paradigm. For acquiring more relevant results it is possible to perform the similar research in the sphere of the groupware use for the fulfillment of the common task in the virtual group through the use of the four criteria. With this aim it will be necessary to outline the impact of the groupware use not only on the performance of the virtual group, but on the results which the virtual groups under research acquire through the use of groupware. The quality criterion will be used for objective evaluation of the positive or negative changes which take place in the results of the common tasks fulfillment. Accounting present limitations the results of this work are to be used as the basis for future researches and studies, through the use of more objective evaluation methods and all four criteria of the decision outcomes paradigm. Conclusion This study investigates how physical location influences the outcomes of the group collaboration when they fulfill a common task. Data from the international trial conducted between AUT and Uppsala University in 2001 and 2003 was used for the research. Summing it up, the findings clearly suggest that the difference when working together and when apart has an impact on the overall performance of the group and mixed results were observed. Different ideas would be exchanged which is an added advantage helps in achieving the assigned task. The work shows, that the level of general performance of the group is not very much different depending on the physical location of its participants. The use of groupware has only positively influenced the level of efficiency, with the other two criterions looking closer to the results of the co-located group. However, it is also important to remember that the level of commitment has decreased, and thus it is not possible to make a single conclusion, as the results are mixed. On the other hand, the lower levels of commitment were assumed to be the results of wrong acceptance of the groupware by the virtual group members in their fulfillment of the common task. This was also proposed to be implied by the wrong explanation of the research tasks and aims to the participants. The work has provided mixed results, the relevance of which may be subjected to arguments accounting the limitations discussed in the paper. However, it is highly recommended that the results acquired are used for the similar researches in the future. The relevance of the work is in the fact that scarce literary sources provide the research of the groupware impact on the virtual groups performance for the fulfillment of the common tasks. AST and its seven proposition has been used as a solid basis for the explanation of the acquired results, as this theory provides the reader with clear and understandable explanations of the relationships and processes which take place inside the virtual groups as a result of the interaction between the members themselves and between the members and the groupware. The work can be used by those who study and work in the sphere of computer sciences for better understanding of the processes which take place among the members of virtual groups in their fulfillment of common tasks with the use of groupware. 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. Clear, T. (2001). A Cyber icebreaker for an Effective Virtual Group? Paper presented at the ITiCSE `01 -6th Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, University of Canterbury, Kent. 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. Dube, L., & Pare, G. (2001). Global Virtual Teams. Communications of the ACM, 44 (12), 71-73. Ellis, C., Gibbs, S., & Rein, G. (1991). Groupware Some Issues and Experiences. Communications of the ACM, 34 (1), 39-58. Maybury, M. (2001). Collaborative virtual environments for analysis and decision support. Communications of the ACM, 44 (12), 51-54. 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. Whitworth, B. (1997). Generating Group Agreement in Cooperative Computer Mediated Groups: Towards An Integrative Model of Group Interaction, PHD Thesis, University of Waikato. Read More