A Manufacturing Collaboratory Case Study

....................................................................................................................................I ACKNOWLEDGMENTS............................................................................................................. II TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................................III 1.1. BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................... 1 1.2. ROLE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN .............................................................................. 4 1.3. THE RESEARCH STUDY........................................................................................................... 5 1.4. LITERATURE REVIEW AND RESEARCH EXPECTATIONS ............................................................ 6 1.4.1. Distributed teams in organizations................................................................................. 6 1.4.2. Contribution to research on collaborative tools............................................................ 7 1.4.3. Challenges to effectiveness of distributed teams............................................................. 8 1.4.4. Collaborative tools to overcome geographic dispersion ............................................... 9 1.4.5. Collaborative needs of engineers ................................................................................ 10 1.4.6. Effect of collaborative tool introduction on communication, performance and trust. . 11 1.4.7. Review of research questions and expectations........................................................... 14 2. DESCRIPTION OF RESEARCH.......................................................................................... 15 2.1. CONTEXT OF THE CASE-STUDY ............................................................................................ 15 2.1.1. Collaborative Product Development ........................................................................... 15 2.1.2. The Product ................................................................................................................. 17 2.1.3. The Research site......................................................................................................... 18 2.1.4. Power and political issues within the team.................................................................. 21 2.1.5. Cultural differences ..................................................................................................... 24 2.1.6. Work and management styles ...................................................................................... 24 2.1.7. Technical Issues........................................................................................................... 25 2.1.8. Collaboration processes within the team..................................................................... 27 2.2. DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AND EVALUATION APPROACH................................................. 27 2.2.1. User-centered Design .................................................................................................. 27 2.2.2. Interview method ......................................................................................................... 28 2.3. BASELINE INTERVIEW DATA AND OBSERVATIONS................................................................ 30 2.4. REQUIREMENTS FOR COLLABORATION ................................................................................ 33 2.4.1. Synchronous communication ....................................................................................... 33 2.4.2. Asynchronous communication ..................................................................................... 34 2.4.3. Time zone issues .......................................................................................................... 34 2.4.4. Scheduling ................................................................................................................... 34 2.4.5. Security ........................................................................................................................ 35 2.4.6. Design specific............................................................................................................. 35 2.4.7. Other............................................................................................................................ 36 2.5. PREINTERVENTION QUESTIONNAIRE.................................................................................. 36 2.5.1. Background items ......................................................................................................... 37 2.5.2. Independent variables.................................................................................................. 39 2.5.3. Outcome measures....................................................................................................... 44 2.6. POSTINTERVENTION QUESTIONNAIRE................................................................................ 48 2.6.1. Items eliminated from Survey Time 2 ......................................................................... 48 2.6.2. Items altered in Survey Time 2 .................................................................................... 50 2.6.3. New items in Survey Time 2......................................................................................... 50 2.6.4. Items repeated from Survey Time 1. ............................................................................ 51 3. ANALYSIS AND RESULTS .................................................................................................. 52 3.1. TIME 1 ANALYSIS OF INTERVIEW DATA ............................................................................... 52

[1]  Jonathan Grudin,et al.  Meeting at the desktop: An empirical study of virtually collocated teams , 1999, ECSCW.

[2]  J. H. Davis,et al.  An Integrative Model Of Organizational Trust , 1995 .

[3]  Susan G. Straus,et al.  Does the medium matter? The interaction of task type and technology on group performance and member reactions. , 1994, The Journal of applied psychology.

[4]  G. Olson,et al.  From Laboratories to Collaboratories: A New Organizational Form for Scientific Collaboration , 1997 .

[5]  Koichi Hayashi,et al.  Interlocus: workspace configuration mechanisms for activity awareness , 1998, CSCW '98.

[6]  Jonathan J. Cadiz,et al.  Coordination, overload and team performance: effects of team communication strategies , 1998, CSCW '98.

[7]  Judith S. Olson,et al.  Distance Matters , 2000, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[8]  S. Kiesler,et al.  Group and computer-mediated discussion effects in risk decision making. , 1987 .

[9]  S. R. Hiltz,et al.  Experiments in group decision making: Communication process and outcome in face-to-face versus computerized conferences. , 1986 .

[10]  Amy Knutilla,et al.  Collaboration Technologies for Global Manufacturing , 1999 .

[11]  Sara Kiesler,et al.  Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication , 1984 .

[12]  Sharon Walbridge,et al.  Teams and technology: Fulfilling the promise of the new organization , 1997 .

[13]  Steve Whittaker,et al.  Shared Workspaces: How Do They Work and When Are They Useful? , 1993, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

[14]  A. Strauss,et al.  The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research aldine de gruyter , 1968 .

[15]  Vladimir Zwass,et al.  Actualizing Organizational Memory with Information Systems , 1995, Inf. Syst. Res..

[16]  E.,et al.  GROUPS : INTERACTION AND PERFORMANCE , 2001 .

[17]  James H. Liu,et al.  Distance Matters: Physical Space and Social Impact , 1995 .

[18]  Sirkka L. Jarvenpaa,et al.  Is Anybody Out There? Antecedents of Trust in Global Virtual Teams , 1998, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[19]  Linda S. Lotto Qualitative Data Analysis: A Sourcebook of New Methods , 1986 .

[20]  J. Herbsleb,et al.  Ensuring Privacy in Presence Awareness Systems: An Automated Verification Approach , 2000 .

[21]  Gretchen M. Spreitzer,et al.  Giving Up Control without Losing Control , 1999, Group & Organization Management.

[22]  Telecommunications Board,et al.  National Collaboratories: Applying Information Technology for Scientific Research , 1993 .

[23]  Michael H. Zack,et al.  Interactivity and Communication Mode Choice in Ongoing Management Groups , 1993, Inf. Syst. Res..

[24]  R. Bies,et al.  Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome , 1989 .

[25]  S. Weisband Group discussion and first advocacy effects in computer-mediated and face-to-face decision making groups , 1992 .

[26]  Robert E. Kraut,et al.  Coordination in software development , 1995, CACM.

[27]  Jeffrey L. Bradach,et al.  Price, Authority, and Trust: From Ideal Types to Plural Forms , 1989 .

[28]  Kathryn Henderson,et al.  On Line and On Paper: Visual Representations, Visual Culture, and Computer Graphics in Design Engineering , 1998 .

[29]  T. S. Bateman,et al.  Job Satisfaction and the Good Soldier: The Relationship Between Affect and Employee “Citizenship” , 1983 .

[30]  Jessica Lipnack,et al.  Virtual Teams: Reaching Across Space, Time, and Organizations with Technology , 1997 .

[31]  D. Katz,et al.  The motivational basis of organizational behavior. , 1964, Behavioral science.

[32]  Raghu Garud,et al.  Communication Patterns as Determinants of Organizational Identification in a Virtual Organization , 1999, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[33]  G. Williger,et al.  National Science Foundation , 1962, American Antiquity.

[34]  C. Handy Trust and the virtual organization , 1999 .

[35]  Sirkka L. Jarvenpaa,et al.  Communication and Trust in Global Virtual Teams , 1999, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[36]  Wanda J. Orlikowski,et al.  Learning from Notes: organizational issues in groupware implementation , 1992, CSCW '92.

[37]  J. Lewis,et al.  Trust as a Social Reality , 1985 .

[38]  J. Stoker,et al.  Advances in Interdisciplinary Studies of Work Teams , 1997 .

[39]  A. Tellegen,et al.  in Psychological Science , 1996 .

[40]  John E. Anderson,et al.  Justifying the information technology investment for organizational memory , 1997, Proceedings of the Thirtieth Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[41]  Charles A. O'Reilly,et al.  Being different: Relational demography and organizational attachment. , 1991 .

[42]  Sara A. Bly,et al.  Managing a trois: a study of a multi-user drawing tool in distributed design work , 1991, CHI.

[43]  Maureen S. Battistella,et al.  Connections: New Ways of Working in the Networked Organization , 1991 .

[44]  Mary Walton Car: A Drama of the American Workplace , 1997 .

[45]  Audris Mockus,et al.  Distance, dependencies, and delay in a global collaboration , 2000, CSCW '00.

[46]  Wolfgang Prinz,et al.  NESSIE: An awareness environment for cooperative settings , 1999, ECSCW.

[47]  Bonita L. Daly,et al.  The influence of face-to-face versus computer-mediated communication channels on collective induction , 1993 .

[48]  P. Bordia Face-to-Face Versus Computer-Mediated Communication: A Synthesis of the Experimental Literature , 1997 .

[49]  James D. Herbsleb,et al.  NotMeeting: a field trial of NetMeeting in a geographically distributed organization , 1999, SIGG.

[50]  Seymour Sudman,et al.  Experiments in the measurement of the size of social networks , 1985 .

[51]  A. Strauss,et al.  Discovery of Substantive Theory: A Basic Strategy Underlying Qualitative Research , 1965 .

[52]  J. McGrath,et al.  Group Task Performance and Communication Technology , 1993 .