Technology-Mediated Collaboration, Shared Mental Model and Task Performance

This study takes a direct observation research approach to examine how the impact of collaboration mode on team productivity and process satisfaction is mediated by shared mental model. Team cognition and social impact theories are integrated to provide a framework for explaining how technology-mediated collaboration constrains or enhances team shared mental model development and its subsequent impact on task outcomes. Partial least squares analysis revealed that technology-mediated collaboration impacts shared mental model development. The results also demonstrate that timely and accurate development of shared mental model facilitates increases in both productivity and team process satisfaction. Direct observation of team process behaviors suggests that collaboration modes differ not only in their impact on communication facilitation but efficacy-based, motivational, and social influence factors e.g., self-efficacy and team-efficacy, perceived salience and credibility of contributions, social influence on action, etc. as well. Shared mental model development requires quality communication among team members that are motivated to participate by a positive team climate that promotes idea convergence.

[1]  M. Hoegl,et al.  Teamwork Quality and the Success of Innovative Projects , 2001 .

[2]  Laura Alonso Díaz,et al.  Are the Functions of Teachers in e-Learning and Face-to-Face Learning Environments Really Different? , 2009, J. Educ. Technol. Soc..

[3]  Jennifer Blaskovich,et al.  Exploring the Effect of Distance: An Experimental Investigation of Virtual Collaboration, Social Loafing, and Group Decisions , 2008, J. Inf. Syst..

[4]  Narda R. Quigley,et al.  Comparing Consensus- and Aggregation-Based Methods of Measuring Team-Level Variables , 2007 .

[5]  L. James,et al.  Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. , 1984 .

[6]  David A. Bergin,et al.  Patterns of Motivation and Social Behavior Associated with Microcomputer Use of Young Children. , 1993 .

[7]  Weiguo Fan,et al.  Examining the Success of Websites beyond E-Commerce: An Extension of the is Success Model , 2009, J. Comput. Inf. Syst..

[8]  Mark A. Fuller,et al.  I Know I Can, But Can We? , 2007 .

[9]  Carol Stoak Saunders,et al.  The Social Construction of Meaning: An Alternative Perspective on Information Sharing , 2003, Inf. Syst. Res..

[10]  Jessica Mesmer-Magnus,et al.  Measuring Shared Team Mental Models: A Meta-Analysis , 2010 .

[11]  A. Banks,et al.  Differentiating knowledge in teams: The effect of shared declarative and procedural knowledge on team performance , 2007 .

[12]  Nick Bontis,et al.  End-user adoption of animated interface agentsin everyday work applications , 2007, Behav. Inf. Technol..

[13]  T. Mitchell,et al.  Building Better Theory: Time and The Specification of When Things Happen , 2001 .

[14]  Nancy L. Leech,et al.  A typology of mixed methods research designs , 2009 .

[15]  A. Burton-Jones Minimizing Method Bias Through Programmatic Research , 2009 .

[16]  E. Entin,et al.  Communication overhead: The hidden cost of team cognition. , 2004 .

[17]  J. Fleiss,et al.  Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. , 1979, Psychological bulletin.

[18]  Susan A. Brown,et al.  Role-Based Experiences, Media Perceptions, and Knowledge Transfer Success in Virtual Dyads , 2006 .

[19]  Debra L. O'Connor,et al.  Measuring Sharedness of Team-Related Knowledge: Design and Validation of a Shared Mental Model Instrument , 2007 .

[20]  Michel Tenenhaus,et al.  PLS path modeling , 2005, Comput. Stat. Data Anal..

[21]  Wynne W. Chin Issues and Opinion on Structural Equation Modeling by , 2009 .

[22]  C. Cramton The Mutual Knowledge Problem and Its Consequences for Dispersed Collaboration , 2001 .

[23]  Slava Kalyuga,et al.  When Less Is More in Cognitive Diagnosis : A Rapid Online Method for Diagnosing Learner Task-Specific Expertise , 2008 .

[24]  Barbara H Wixom,et al.  A Theoretical Integration of User Satisfaction and Technology Acceptance , 2005, Inf. Syst. Res..

[25]  Moez Limayem,et al.  How Habit Limits the Predictive Power of Intention: The Case of Information Systems Continuance , 2007, MIS Q..

[26]  Laku Chidambaram,et al.  Is Out of Sight, Out of Mind? An Empirical Study of Social Loafing in Technology-Supported Groups , 2005, Inf. Syst. Res..

[27]  D. Knippenberg,et al.  Group information elaboration and group decision making: The role of shared task representations , 2008 .

[28]  J. Michael Pearson,et al.  The Role of Media Richness in Information Technology-Supported Communication in Group Cohesion, Agreeability, and Performance , 2008, J. Organ. End User Comput..

[29]  Joseph A. Bonito,et al.  Shared Cognition and Participation in Small Groups , 2004, Commun. Res..

[30]  Andrew B. Hargadon,et al.  Enhancing Creativity Through "Mindless" Work: A Framework of Workday Design , 2006, Organ. Sci..

[31]  Charles E. McDowell,et al.  Pair programming improves student retention, confidence, and program quality , 2006, CACM.

[32]  Wynne W. Chin,et al.  A critical look at partial least squares modeling , 2009 .

[33]  Wilfred W. F. Lau,et al.  Exploring the effects of gender and learning styles on computer programming performance: implications for programming pedagogy , 2009, Br. J. Educ. Technol..

[34]  Eileen M. Trauth,et al.  Understanding Computer-Mediated Discussions: Positivist and Interpretive Analyses of Group Support System Use , 2000, MIS Q..

[35]  M. Boos,et al.  Facilitating Group Decision-Making: Facilitator's Subjective Theories on Group Coordination , 2009 .

[36]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  Developing and Validating an Observational Learning Model of Computer Software Training and Skill Acquisition , 2003, Inf. Syst. Res..

[37]  Youngjin Yoo,et al.  Media and Group Cohesion: Relative Influences on Social Presence, Task Participation, and Group Consensus , 2001, MIS Q..

[38]  D. A. Kenny,et al.  The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. , 1986, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[39]  Colleen Garton,et al.  Managing Without Walls: Maximize Success with Virtual, Global, and Cross-cultural Teams , 2006 .

[40]  Pieter J. Beers,et al.  Computer support for knowledge construction in collaborative learning environments , 2005, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[41]  Ying Zhou,et al.  Shared mental models as moderators of team process-performance relationships , 2010 .

[42]  Elaine Harris,et al.  Facilitating Innovation Through Cognitive Mapping of Uncertainty , 2009 .

[43]  Kathleen M. Eisenhardt,et al.  Integrating Knowledge in Groups: How Formal Interventions Enable Flexibility , 2002, Organ. Sci..

[44]  J. Rentsch,et al.  Quantifying congruence in cognition: Social relations modeling and team member schema similarity. , 2004 .

[45]  Joseph R. Miles,et al.  Co-leader similarity and group climate in group interventions: Testing the co-leadership, team cognition-team diversity model. , 2010 .

[46]  C. Dreu Cooperative outcome interdependence, task reflexivity, and team effectiveness: a motivated information processing perspective. , 2007 .

[47]  Iris Vessey,et al.  The Role of Cognitive Fit in the Relationship Between Software Comprehension and Modification , 2006, MIS Q..

[48]  Youngjin Yoo,et al.  The Impact of Knowledge Coordination on Virtual Team Performance Over Time , 2007, MIS Q..

[49]  B. Latané The psychology of social impact. , 1981 .

[50]  Nancy J. Cooke,et al.  Measuring Team Knowledge: A Window to the Cognitive Underpinnings of Team Performance , 2003 .

[51]  Aleksander P. J. Ellis System Breakdown: The Role of Mental Models and Transactive Memory in the Relationship between Acute Stress and Team Performance , 2006 .

[52]  George P. Huber,et al.  Cross-Understanding: Implications for Group Cognition and Performance , 2010 .

[53]  Wynne W. Chin,et al.  Structural equation modeling analysis with small samples using partial least squares , 1999 .

[54]  Izak Benbasat,et al.  The Effect of Relationship Encoding, Task Type, and Complexity on Information Representation: An Empirical Evaluation of 2D and 3D Line Graphs , 2004, MIS Q..

[55]  Kimberly A. Furumo The Impact of Conflict and Conflict Management Style on Deadbeats and Deserters in Virtual Teams , 2009, J. Comput. Inf. Syst..

[56]  Hans-Georg Gemünden,et al.  Interteam Coordination, Project Commitment, and Teamwork in Multiteam R&D Projects: A Longitudinal Study , 2004, Organ. Sci..

[57]  Christian J. Resick,et al.  Team Composition, Cognition, and Effectiveness: Examining Mental Model Similarity and Accuracy , 2010 .

[58]  Venugopal Balijepally,et al.  Are Two Heads Better than One for Software Development? The Productivity Paradox of Pair Programming , 2009, MIS Q..

[59]  Gwendolyn E. Campbell,et al.  Measuring teamwork mental models to support training needs assessment, development, and evaluation: two empirical studies† , 2001 .

[60]  Debbie S. Moskowitz,et al.  Convergence of self-reports and independent observers : dominance and friendliness , 1990 .

[61]  E. Vance Wilson,et al.  Context Counts: Effects of Work versus Non-Work Context on Participants' Perceptions of Fit in E-mail versus Face-to-Face Communication , 2008, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[62]  S. Green,et al.  The effects of three social decision schemes on decision group process , 1980 .

[63]  Lorne Olfman,et al.  Enterprise Systems Training Strategies: Knowledge Levels and User Understanding , 2010, J. Organ. End User Comput..

[64]  S. Mohammed,et al.  Team Mental Model: Construct or Metaphor? , 1994 .

[65]  Pamela J. Hinds,et al.  Understanding Conflict in Geographically Distributed Teams: The Moderating Effects of Shared Identity, Shared Context, and Spontaneous Communication , 2005 .

[66]  D. Cicchetti Guidelines, Criteria, and Rules of Thumb for Evaluating Normed and Standardized Assessment Instruments in Psychology. , 1994 .

[67]  F. Fischer,et al.  A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning , 2006, Comput. Educ..

[68]  T. Williams,et al.  Linking Strategy to Structure: The Power of Systematic Organization Design , 2007 .

[69]  Brian S. Butler,et al.  Team Cognition: Development and Evolution in Software Project Teams , 2007, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[70]  Wynne W. Chin,et al.  Managing Client Dialogues During Information Systems Design to Facilitate Client Learning , 2005, MIS Q..

[71]  E. Salas,et al.  Group dynamics and shared mental model development. , 2001 .

[72]  Alan R. Dennis,et al.  Media, Tasks, and Communication Processes: A Theory of Media Synchronicity , 2008, MIS Q..

[73]  C. Marlene Fiol,et al.  Identification in Face-to-Face, Hybrid, and Pure Virtual Teams: Untangling the Contradictions , 2005, Organ. Sci..

[74]  Gaby Odekerken-Schröder,et al.  Using PLS path modeling for assessing hierarchial construct models: guidelines and impirical illustration , 2009 .

[75]  Paula R. Kaiser,et al.  The Effect of Process Training on Process and Outcomes in Virtual Groups , 2000 .

[76]  Peng Xu,et al.  Impact of Knowledge Support on the Performance of Software Process Tailoring , 2008, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[77]  V. Ramesh,et al.  Cognitive fit between conceptual schemas and internal problem representations: the case of geospatio-temporal conceptual schema comprehension , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication.

[78]  David Wilemon,et al.  Factors influencing product development team satisfaction , 2001 .

[79]  D. Tjosvold,et al.  Team learning from mistakes : the contribution of cooperative goals and problem-solving , 2004 .