Electronic Meeting Systems: Evidence from a Low Structure Environment

The research literature to date on electronic meeting systems EMS has been dominated by studies of high structure systems. High and low structure are defined here in terms of the preponderance of influence that technology and groups exert on each other. High structure EMS attempt to directly influence group structure and processes through explicit rules and procedures embedded in the software. Low structure EMS do not explicitly build in rules or procedures that govern group interaction. Low structure EMS are hypothesized to increase task focus through the use of shared flexible software tools and shared views of joint work. Results of two experiments, that compare low structure EMS-supported groups to manually-supported groups on equality of participation, degree of task focus, task performance and member satisfaction, for two different tasks, are reported. The experiments found that this low structure EMS had no effect on participation equality or member satisfaction. Contrary to the hypotheses, the EMS was found to decrease task focus. The EMS led to marginally better task performance on a simple evaluative task, and to worse performance on a complex generative task. A revision of the study's theoretical model is developed which takes into account the nature of the task.

[1]  S. Barley.  Technology as an occasion for structuring: evidence from observations of CT scanners and the social order of radiology departments. , 1986, Administrative science quarterly.

[2]  Leonard Berkowitz,et al.  A survey of social psychology , 1975 .

[3]  M. Horton,et al.  The impact of face-to-face collaborative technology on group writing , 1991, Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[4]  Gerardine DeSanctis,et al.  Understanding the differences in collaborative system use through appropriation analysis , 1991, Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[5]  Jacob Cohen.  Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , 1969, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[6]  James F. Wittenberger.  Animal Social Behavior , 1981 .

[7]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  Experience at IBM with group support systems: A field study , 1989, Decis. Support Syst..

[8]  Sirkka L. Jarvenpaa,et al.  Computer Support for Meetings of Groups Working on Unstructured Problems: A Field Experiment , 1988, MIS Q..

[9]  Herbert H. Meyer,et al.  THE VALIDITY OF THE IN‐BASKET TEST AS A MEASURE OF MANAGERIAL PERFORMANCE , 1970 .

[10]  P. Goodman.  Groups That Work (and Those That Don't)Groups That Work (and Those That Don't) by Hackman Richard. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1991, 512 pp. , 1992 .

[11]  James D. McKeen,et al.  Enhancing Computer-Mediated Communication: An experimental investigation into the use of a Group Decision Support System for face-to-face versus remote meetings , 1990, Inf. Manag..

[12]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  Facilitating Group Creativity: Experience with a Group Decision Support System , 1987, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

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

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

[15]  Gerardine DeSanctis,et al.  Understanding the use of Group Decision Support Systems: The Theory of Adaptive Structuration , 1990 .

[16]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  Bringing automated support to large groups: The Burr-Brown experience , 1990, Inf. Manag..

[17]  Kenneth L. Kraemer,et al.  Computer-based systems for cooperative work and group decision making , 1988, CSUR.

[18]  Gerardine DeSanctis,et al.  A foundation for the study of group decision support systems , 1987 .

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

[20]  Starr Roxanne Hiltz,et al.  Computer Support for Group Versus Individual Decisions , 1982, IEEE Trans. Commun..

[21]  J. Hackman,et al.  Interventions into group process: An approach to improving the effectiveness of groups , 1974 .

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

[23]  Ramesh Sharda,et al.  Decision support system effectiveness: a review and an empirical test , 1988 .

[24]  L. Floyd Lewis,et al.  A decision support system for face-to-face groups , 1987, J. Inf. Sci..

[25]  Gerardine DeSanctis,et al.  Using computing to improve the quality team process: some initial observations from the IRS-Minnesota project , 1991, Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[26]  Donald B. Rubin,et al.  Multiple Contrasts and Ordered Bonferroni Procedures , 1984 .

[27]  Randall Steeb,et al.  A Computer-Based Interactive System for Group Decisionmaking , 1981, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

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

[29]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  Using Two Different Electronic Meeting System Tools for the Same Task: An Experimental Comparison , 1990, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[30]  I. Steiner.  Group process and productivity , 1972 .

[31]  P. Khandwalla.  Mass Output Orientation of Operations Technology and Organizational Structure. , 1974 .

[32]  A. Giddens.  Central Problems In Social Theory , 1979 .

[33]  Jeffrey K. Liker,et al.  Determinants and patterns of control over technology in a computerized meeting room , 1990, CSCW '90.

[34]  Ilze Zigurs,et al.  A Study of Influence in Computer-Mediated Group Decision Making , 1988, MIS Q..

[35]  E. Schein.  Process Consultation : Its Role in Organization Development , 1969 .

[36]  M. Markus,et al.  Information technology and organizational change: causal structure in theory and research , 1988 .

[37]  Marilyn M. Mantei.  Observation of executives using a computer supported meeting environment , 1989 .

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

[39]  J. Thompson,et al.  Strategies, Structures, and Processes of Organizational Decision , 1959 .

[40]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  Electronic meeting systems , 1991, CACM.

[41]  Kenneth L. Kraemer,et al.  The impact of technological support on groups: An assessment of the empirical research , 1989, Decis. Support Syst..

[42]  R. Bales,et al.  Symlog, A System for the Multiple Level Observation of Groups , 1979 .

[43]  R. Gill,et al.  The in-tray (in-basket) exercise as a measure of management potential , 1979 .

[44]  G. Stasser,et al.  Information sampling in structured and unstructured discussions of three- and six-person groups. , 1989 .

[45]  Gerardine DeSanctis,et al.  Use of group decision support systems as an appropriation process , 1989, [1989] Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Volume IV: Emerging Technologies and Applications Track.

[46]  Poppy Lauretta McLeod,et al.  An Assessment of the Experimental Literature on Electronic Support of Group Work: Results of a Meta-Analysis , 1992, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[47]  R. A. Cooke,et al.  Teamwork in planning innovative projects: improving group performance by rational and interpersonal interventions in group process , 1990 .

[48]  J. McGrath.  Groups: Interaction and Performance , 1984 .

[49]  L W Fry,et al.  Technology-structure research: three critical issues. , 1982, Academy of Management journal. Academy of Management.

[50]  Paul Scott,et al.  User interface requirements for face to face groupware , 1990, CHI '90.