Decision making performance of interacting groups: an experimental investigation of the effects of task type and communication mode

Research on the effectiveness of computer-mediated communication (CMC) has begun to explore the interaction between task type and communication mode. This study investigates the interaction between communication process goals and communication modes using teams with a shared history performing two tasks: idea-generation, requiring the conveyance of information, and problem-solving, requiring convergence on the best solution. Results reveal a significant interaction between communication mode and communication process goals. When the goal of the communication process was conveyance of information, CMC teams and face-to-face teams performed equally well. However, when the communication process goal involved convergence, face-to-face communication resulted in better performance than CMC.

[1]  S. Kiesler,et al.  Group processes in computer-mediated communication☆ , 1986 .

[2]  Gerardine DeSanctis,et al.  Using a GDSS to Facilitate Group Consensus: Some Intended and Unintended Consequences , 1988, MIS Q..

[3]  Kil-Soo Suh,et al.  Impact of communication medium on task performance and satisfaction: an examination of media-richness theory , 1999, Inf. Manag..

[4]  Alan R. Dennis,et al.  Rethinking media richness: towards a theory of media synchronicity , 1999, Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences. 1999. HICSS-32. Abstracts and CD-ROM of Full Papers.

[5]  Ilze Zigurs,et al.  An Exploratory Study of Roles in Computer-Supported Groups , 1994, MIS Q..

[6]  Gerardine DeSanctis,et al.  Computer-Based Support for Group Problem-Finding: An Experimental Investigation , 1988, MIS Q..

[7]  J. Valacich,et al.  Idea Generation in Computer-Based Groups: A New Ending to an Old Story , 1994 .

[8]  T. Connolly,et al.  Toward Atheory of Automated Group Work , 1990 .

[9]  Starr Roxanne Hiltz,et al.  An Assessment of Group Support Systems Experimental Research: Methodology and Results , 1998, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[10]  Alan R. Dennis,et al.  Investigating the Moderators of the Group Support Systems Use with Meta-Analysis , 2002, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[11]  Laku Chidambaram,et al.  Relational Development in Computer-Supported Groups , 1996, MIS Q..

[12]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  Communication Concurrency and the New Media , 1993 .

[13]  Robert O. Briggs,et al.  Graduate business students as surrogates for executives in the evaluation of technology , 1996 .

[14]  Robert D. McPhee,et al.  Group decision‐making as a structurational process , 1985 .

[15]  J. Valacich,et al.  Effects of anonymity and evaluative tone on idea generation in computer-mediated groups , 1990 .

[16]  John F. Affisco,et al.  Task and technology fit: a comparison of two technologies for synchronous and asynchronous group communication , 1999, Inf. Manag..

[17]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  ELECTRONIC BRAINSTORMING AND GROUP SIZE , 1992 .

[18]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  Information Technology to Support Electronic Meetings , 1988, MIS Q..

[19]  Milam W. Aiken,et al.  A comparison of two electronic idea generation techniques , 1996, Inf. Manag..

[20]  William Remus,et al.  Graduate students as surrogates for managers in experiments on business decision making , 1986 .

[21]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  A Study of Collaborative Group Work With and Without Computer-Based Support , 1990, Inf. Syst. Res..