Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Macrocognition in Collaboration: Analyzing Processes of Team Knowledge Building with CoPrA

  • Published:
Group Decision and Negotiation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Sophisticated collaboration software allows teams that are dispersed in space and time to work together. Nevertheless, to reach their common goals, distributed teams—and the professional facilitators who support them by intervention techniques—are faced with the communication challenges arising from dispersed settings, including task coordination and effective information exchange. When distributed teams use collaboration software, however, traces of their collaboration are left behind. These traces provide an underused source of data which can be analyzed and be used to inform the design of interventions aimed at improving collaboration in distributed teams. This paper investigates the untapped potential for understanding collaboration, and in particular, the macro-cognitive processes of team knowledge building. These processes rely on information shared and knowledge structures developed by team members which are also referred to as team cognition. We performed a qualitative content analysis applying the COllaboration PRocess Analysis technique, CoPrA, and a framework for measuring team knowledge building. Communication data was collected from 18 participants assigned to six distributed teams. While working collaboratively on a problem-solving task teams were supported with synchronous collaboration software. The results show that by using a cognitive perspective on teams, all the hypothesized processes of team knowledge building could be identified in collaboration traces. Moreover, our analysis shows that CoPrA enables us to identify key characteristics of (1) team behavior, e.g., whether teams are rather solution-oriented or problem minded, show consensus-oriented behavior, withhold evaluative arguments, discuss ideas in breadth and/or depth, or spend much effort on coordination as well as (2) behavior of team members, e.g., who show non-participation, are willing to share or predominantly guide coordination. Future research could adopt this approach to improve our understanding of the dynamics of collaboration patterns and its effects on team performance to inform collaboration facilitation in distributed settings.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alexander C, Ishikawa S, Silverstein M (1977) A pattern language: towns, buildings, constructions. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Andriessen E (2002) Working with groupware: understanding and evaluating collaboration technology CSCW. Springer, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Arisholm E, Sjoberg DIK (2004) Evaluating the effect of a delegated versus centralized control style on the maintainability of object-oriented software. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 30(8):521–534

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Austin JR (2003) Transactive memory in organizational groups: the effects of content, consensus, specialization, and accuracy on group performance. J Appl Psychol 88(5):866–878

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bales RF (1950) Interaction process analysis: a method for the study of small groups. Addison-Wesley, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Briggs RO, de Vreede GJ (2009) Thinklets: building blocks for concerted collaboration. University of Nebraska, Center for Collaboration Science

  • Briggs RO, De Vreede GJ, Nunamaker JF (2003) Collaboration engineering with thinklets to pursue sustained success with group support systems. J Manag Inf Syst 19(4):31–64

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown MG (1996) Keeping score: using the right metrics to drive world-class performance. Productivity Press Inc., New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Calvo RA, O’Rourke ST, Jones J, Yacef K, Reimann P (2011) Collaborative writing support tools on the cloud. IEEE Trans Learn Technol 4(1):88–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chidambaram L, Tung LL (2005) Is out of sight, out of mind? An empirical study of social loafing in technology-supported groups. Inf Syst Res 16(2):149–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choi SY, Lee H, Yoo Y (2010) The impact of information technology and transactive memory systems on knowledge sharing, application, and team performance: a field study. MIS Q 34(4):855–870

    Google Scholar 

  • Connolly T, Jessup LM, Valacich JS (1990) Effects of anonymity and evaluative tone on idea generation in computer-mediated groups. Manag Sci 36(6):689–703

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cramton CD (2001) The mutual knowledge problem and its consequences for dispersed collaboration. Organ Sci 12(3):346–371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Damian DE, Eberlein A, Shaw MLG, Gaines BR (2003) An exploratory study of facilitation in distributed requirements engineering. Requir Eng 8(1):23–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Vreede GJ, Briggs RO, Massey AP (2009) Collaboration engineering: foundations and opportunities: editorial to the special issue on the journal of the association of information systems. J Assoc Inf Syst 10(3):121–137

    Google Scholar 

  • den Hengst M, Adkins M (2007) Which collaboration patterns are most challenging: a global survey of facilitators. In: 40th annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS) 2007. pp 248–257

  • Deokar AV, Kolfschoten GL, de Vreede GJ (2008) Prescriptive workflow design for collaboration-intensive processes using the collaboration engineering approach. Glob J Flex Syst Manag 9(4):11–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Economist Intelligence Unit (2009) Managing virtual teams: taking a more strategic approach

  • Espinosa A, Lerch J, Kraut R (2004) Explicit versus implicit coordination mechanisms and task dependencies: one size does not fit all. In: Salas E, Fiore S (eds) Team cognition: understanding the factors that drive process and performance. American Psychological Association, Waschington, pp 107–129

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Espinosa JA, Cummings JN, Pickering C (2012) Time separation, coordination, and performance in technical teams. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 59(1):91–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferraté A (2010) Google wave: up and running. Reinventing Communication & Collaboration on the Web O’Reilly Media, Sebastopol

  • Fiore SM, Rosen MA, Smith-Jentsch KA, Salas E, Letsky M, Warner N (2010a) Toward an understanding of macrocognition in teams: predicting processes in complex collaborative contexts. Hum Factors J Hum Factors Ergonomics Soc 52(2):203–224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiore SM, Smith-Jentsch KA, Salas E, Warner N, Letsky M (2010b) Towards an understanding of macrocognition in teams: developing and defining complex collaborative processes and products. Theor Issues Ergonomics Sci 11(4):250–271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forsyth DR (2009) Group dynamics. Wadsworth Publishing Company, Belmont

    Google Scholar 

  • Franz TM (2012) Group dynamics and team interventions: understanding and improving team performance. Wiley-Blackwell, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Gläser J, Laudel G (2009) Experteninterviews Und Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse, vol 3. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden

  • Gupta S, Bostrom RP (2009) Technology-mediated learning: a comprehensive theoretical model. J Assoc Inf Syst 10(9):686–714

    Google Scholar 

  • Haythornthwaite C, Wellman B, Mantei M (1995) Work relationships and media use—a social network analysis. Group Decis Negot 4(3):193–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hutchins SG (2011) Evaluating a macrocognition model of team collaboration using real-world data from the Haiti Relief Effort. In: Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting 55(1):252–256

  • Janis IL (1982) Groupthink: psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascos. Houghton Mifflin, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanawattanachai P, Yoo Y (2007) The impact of knowledge coordination on virtual team performance over time. MIS Q 31(4):783–808

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerr DS, Murthy US (2004) Divergent and convergent idea generation in teams: a comparison of computer-mediated and face-to-face communication. Group Decis Negot 13(4):381–399

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolfschoten G, de Vreede G-J (2007) The collaboration engineering approach for designing collaboration processes. In: Haake J, Ochoa S, Cechich A (eds) Groupware: design, implementation, and use, vol 4715. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer Berlin / Heidelberg, pp 95–110

  • Kolfschoten G, de Vreede GJ (2009) A design approach for collaboration processes: a multimethod design science study in collaboration engineering. J Manag Inf Syst 26(1):225–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kozlowski SWJ, Ilgen DR (2006) Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychol Sci Public Interest 7(3):77–124

    Google Scholar 

  • Letsky MP, Norman WW (2008) Macrocognition in teams. In: Letsky MP, Norman WW, Fiore SM, Smith CAP (eds) Macrocognition in teams: theories and methodologies. Ashgate Publishing Company, Hampshire, pp 1–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowry PB, Nunamaker JF, Curtis A, Lowry MR (2005) The impact of process structure on novice, virtual collaborative writing teams. IEEE Trans Prof Commun 48(4):341–364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacMillan J, Entin EE, Serfaty D (2004) Communication overhead: the hidden cost of team cognition. In: Salas E, Fiore SM (eds) Team cognition: understanding the factors that drive process and performance. American Psychological Association, Washington, pp 61–82

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Maier NRF (1958) The appraisal interview: objectives, methods and skills. Wiley, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Majchrzak A, Malhotra A, Stamps J, Lipnack J (2004) Can absence make a team grow stronger? Harv Bus Rev 82(5):131–137

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathieu JE, Heffner TS, Goodwin GF, Salas E, Cannon-Bowers JA (2000) The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. J Appl Psychol 85(2):273–283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mohammed S, Dumville BC (2001) Team mental models in a team knowledge framework: expanding theory and measurement across disciplinary boundaries. J Organ Behav 22(2):89–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orlitzky M, Hirokawa RY (2001) To err is human, to correct for it divine. Small Group Res 32(3): 313–341

    Google Scholar 

  • Orvis KL, Zaccaro SJ (2008) Team composition and member selection: optimizing teams for virtual collaboration. In: Nemiro J, Beyerlein M, Bradley L, Beyerlein S (eds) The handbook of high-performance virtual teams, vol 10. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp 243–263

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborn AF (1953) Applied imagination, principles and procedures of creative problem-solving. Charles Scribner’s Sons, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Poole MS, Holmes ME (1995) Decision development in computer-assisted group decision-making. Hum Commun Res 22(1):90–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Potter RE, Balthazard PA (2002) Understanding human interaction and performance in the virtual team. J Inf Technol Theory Appl 4(1):1–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Rittgen P (2007) Negotiating models. In: Krogstie J, Opdahl A, Sindre G (eds) Advanced information systems engineering, vol 19. Springer, Berlin, pp 561–573

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Romano NC, Pick JB, Roztocki N (2010) A motivational model for technology-supported cross-organizational and cross-border collaboration. Eur J Inf Syst 19(2):117–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seeber I, Maier R, Weber B (2012) CoPrA: a process analysis technique to investigate collaboration in groups. Proceedings of the 2012 45th Hawaii international conference on system sciences, IEEE Computer Society, Hawaii, USA, pp 363–372

  • Stahl G (2005) Group cognition in computer-assisted collaborative learning. J Comput Assist Learn 21(2):79–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stahl G (2010) Perspectives: group cognition factors in sociotechnical systems. Hum Factors J Hum Factors Ergonomics Soc 52(2):340–343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Staples DS, Webster J (2008) Exploring the effects of trust, task interdependence and virtualness on knowledge sharing in teams. InfSyst J 18(6):617–640

    Google Scholar 

  • Trauth EM, Jessup LM (2000) Understanding computer-mediated discussions: positivist and interpretive analyses of group support system use. MIS Q 24(1):43–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van der Aalst W, Adriansyah A, Alves de Medeiros A, Arcieri F, Baier T, Blickle T, Bose R, van den Brand P, Brandtjen R, Buijs J, Burattin A, Carmona J, Castellanos M, Claes J, Cook J, Costantini N, Curbera F, Damiani E, de Leoni M, Delias P, van Dongen B, Dumas M, Dustdar S, Fahland D, Ferreira D, Gaaloul W, van Geffen F, Goel S, Günther C, Guzzo A, Harmon P, ter Hofstede A, Hoogland J, Ingvaldsen J, Kato K, Kuhn R, Kumar A, La Rosa M, Maggi F, Malerba D, Mans R, Manuel A, McCreesh M, Mello P, Mendling J, Montali M, Nezhad H, zur Muehlen M, Muñoz-Gama J, Pontieri L, Ribeiro J, Rozinat A, Pérez H, Pérez R, Sepúlveda M, Sinur J, Soffer P, Song M, Sperduti A, Stilo G, Stoel C, Swenson K, Talamo M, Tan W, Turner C, Vanthienen J, Varvaressos G, Verbeek E, Verdonk M, Vigo R, Wang J, Weber B, Weidlich M, Weijters T, Wen L, Westergaard M, Wynn M (2011) Process mining manifesto. In: Daniel F, Barkaoui K, Dustdar S (eds) Business process management workshops ’11. Springer-Verlag, pp 169–194

  • van der Aalst W, van Dongen B, Günther C, Mans R, de Medeiros A, Rozinat A, Rubin V, Song M, Verbeek H, Weijters A (2007) Prom 4.0: comprehensive support for real process analysis. In: Kleijn J, Yakovlev A (eds) Petri nets and other models of concurrency - Icatpn 2007, vol 4546. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer Berlin / Heidelberg, pp 484–494

  • van Dongen BF, de Medeiros AKA, Verbeek HMW, Weitjers AJMM, van der Aalst WMP (2005) The prom framework: a new era in process mining tool support, vol 3536. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, Berlin

  • Wegner D (1987) Transactive memory: a contemporary analysis of the group mind. In: Mullen B, Goethals G (eds) Theories of group behavior. Springer, New York, pp 74–84

    Google Scholar 

  • West MA (2004) Effective teamwork: practical lessons from organizational research, 2nd edn. BPS Blackwell, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Winter R, vom Brocke J, Fettke P, Loos P, Junginger S, Moser C, Keller W, Matthes F, Ernst A (2009) Patterns in busines and information systems engineering. Bus Inf Syst Eng 1(6):468–474

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang XJ, Venkatesh V, Brown SA (2011) Designing collaborative systems to enhance team performance. J Assoc Inf Syst 12(8):556–584

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was co-funded by the European Commission under the Information and Communication Technologies theme of the 7th Framework Programme, Integrating Project ARISTOTELE (contract no. FP7-257886).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Information Systems, Production and Logistics Management, Innsbruck University School of Management, University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria

    Isabella Seeber & Ronald Maier

  2. Department of Informatics, Faculty of Mathematics, Computer Science and Physics, University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria

    Barbara Weber

Authors
  1. Isabella Seeber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ronald Maier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Barbara Weber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Isabella Seeber.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Seeber, I., Maier, R. & Weber, B. Macrocognition in Collaboration: Analyzing Processes of Team Knowledge Building with CoPrA. Group Decis Negot 22, 915–942 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-012-9337-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-012-9337-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation