Advertisement

Exploring Why Virtual Teamworking is Effective in the Lab but More Difficult in the Workplace

  • Anne H. Anderson
  • Jim Mullin
  • Rachel Mcewan
  • Jay Bal
  • Jean Carletta
  • Edward Grattan
  • Pat Brundell
Part of the Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Series book series (CULS, volume 5)

Abstract

In this chapter we report a series of studies on the use of multimedia communication technologies. These studies in the lab and in the workplace have explored how people in distributed teams communicate and collaborate. We have identified several aspects of the process of communication and collaboration process which multimedia technologies can support very effectively and others that are more problematic for distributed virtual teams. The investigations we conducted explored the communication process in detail, examining aspects of the turn taking process, the patterns of interactions among team members and how these related to the way the communication technologies had been implemented. The results indicated that the way facilities are implemented and factors such as status and organizational relationships can have noticeable impacts on the behaviour of virtual teams. Suggestions will be made about how to exploit multimedia technologies to deliver real benefits for virtual team working.

Keywords

Supply Chain Team Member Asynchronous Transfer Mode Virtual Team Original Equipment Manufacturer 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson, A.H, Bader, M, Bard, E.G., Boyle, E., Doherty, G., Garrod, S., Isard, S., Kowtko, J. McAllister, J., Miller, J., Sotillo, C., Thompson, H., & Weinert, R. (1991). The HCRC Map Task Corpus. Language and Speech, 34, 351–366.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, A.H. & Boyle, E. (1994). Forms of introduction in dialogues: their discourse contexts and communicative consequences. Language and Cognitive Processes, 9(1), 101–122.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, A.H., O'Malley, C., Doherty-Sneddon, G., Langton, S., Newlands, A., Mullin, J., Fleming, A., & van der Velden, J. (1997). The impact of VMC on collaborative problem solving. In K. Finn, A. Sellen & S. Wilbur eds. Video-Mediated Communication. (pp.133–156). Mahwah, New Jersey: LEA.Google Scholar
  4. Anderson, A.H., Mullin, J. Katsavras, E., McEwan, R., Grattam, E., Brundell, P. & O'Malley, C. (1999). Multi-mediating multiparty interactions. In M.A. Sasse & C. Johnson (Eds.) Human-Computer Interaction-INTERACT'99, (pp.313–320). IOS Press: Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  5. Bales, R. F. (1950). Interaction Process Analysis: a method for the study of small groups. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  6. Bos, N., Olson, J., Gergle, D., Olson, G. & Wright, Z. (2002). Effects of four computer-mediated communications channels on trust development. Proceedings of CHI 2002, (pp.135–140). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bradner, E. & Mark, G. (2001). Social presence in video and application sharing. In Proceedings of the Conference on Supporting Group Work (GROUP'01, (pp.154–161). Boulder, Colorado: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bradner, E. & Mark, G. (2002). Why distance matters: Effects on co-operation persuasion and deception. Proceedings of Computer Supported Co-operative Work 2002, (pp.226–235). New York: ACM PressGoogle Scholar
  9. Carletta, J., Anderson, A. H. & McEwan, R. (2000). The effects of multimedia communication technology on non-collocated teams: a case study. Ergonomics, 43(8), 1237–1251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carletta, J., Garrod, S. & Fraser-Krauss, H. (1998). Communication in Autonomous and Traditional Workplace Groups-The Consequences for Innovation, Small Group Research, 29(5), 531–559.Google Scholar
  11. Chapanis, A. (1975). Interactive human communication. Scientific American, 232, 36–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clark, H.H. & Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1986). Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition, 22, 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clark, H.H. (1996). Using Language. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
  14. Dabbs, J & Ruback R. (1987). Dimensions of group process: amount and structure of vocal interaction. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 20, 123–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. De Meyer (1991). Tech talk: how managers are simulating global R & D communication. Sloan Management Review, Spring, 49–58.Google Scholar
  16. Doherty-Sneddon, G., Anderson, A.H., O'Malley, C., Langton, S., Garrod, S. & Bruce, V. (1997). Face-to-face interaction and video mediated communication: a comparison of dialogue structure and co-operative task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 3(2), 105–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dunbar, K. (1996). How scientists really reason: Scientific reasoning in real-world laboratories. In R.J. Steinberg & J. Davidson (Eds.) The Nature of Insight. MIT Press: Cambridge. Mass.Google Scholar
  18. Eggins, S. Slade, D. (1997). Analysing Casual Conversation. London and Washington: Cassell.Google Scholar
  19. Eiseneberg, A. (1986) Teasing: verbal play in two Mexicano homes. In B. Schiefflin & E. Ochs (Eds.) Language Socialization across Cultures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. El-Shinnawy, M. & Vinze, A. (1997). Technology, culture and persuasiveness: a study of choice shifts in group settings. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 47, 473–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Farris, G. (1973). The technical supervisor: beyond the Peter Principle, Technical Review 75.Google Scholar
  22. France, E., Anderson, A.H. & Gardner, M. (2001). The impact of status and audio conferencing technology on business meetings. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 54, 857–876.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Grenier, R. & Metes, G. (1995). Going Virtual. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  24. Herbsleb, J., Mockus, A., Finholt, T. & Grinter, R. (2000). Distance, dependencies, and delays in global collaboration. In Proceedings of Computer Supported Cooperative Work 2000, New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  25. Isaacs, E. & Tang, J. (1997). Studying video-based collaboration in context: from small groups to large organizations. In K. Finn, A. Sellen & S. Wilbur (Eds.) Video Mediated Communication. (pp. 173–198). Mahwah, New Jersey: LEA.Google Scholar
  26. Kiesler, S. & Sproull, L. (1992). Group decision making and communication technology, Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 52, 96–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kraut, R., Fish, R., Root, R. & Chalfont, B. (1990). Informal communication in organizations:from, function and technology. In S. Oskamp & S. Sccapapan (Eds.) People's Reactions to Technology in Factories, Offices and Aerospace. (pp.145–199). Beverley Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  28. Lipnack, J. & Stamps, J. (1997). Virtual teams: reaching across space, time and organizations with technology. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  29. Mullen, B., Salas, E. & Driskell, J. (1989). Salience, motivation and artifact as contributions to the relation between participation rate and leadership. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 545–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nohria, N. & Eccles R. (1992). Face-to-face; making network organizations work. In N. Nohria & R. Eccles (Eds.) Networks and Organizations. (pp..288–308). Harvard Business School Press: BostonGoogle Scholar
  31. Nunnamaker, J. (1997). Future research in groups support systems: needs, some questions and possible directions. International Journal of Human Computer Studies,47, 357–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Monk, A., McCarthy, J., Watts, L. & Daly-Jones, O. (1996). Measures of process. In M. MacLeod & D. Murray (Eds.) Evaluation for CSCW. (pp. 125–138). Berlin: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  33. O'Conaill, B., Whittaker, S. & Wilbur, S. (1993). Conversations over videoconferences: an evaluation of videomediated interaction. Human-Computer Interaction, 8, 382–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Olson, Olson & Meader (1995). What mix of video and audio is useful for remote real-time work? Proceedings of the Conference of Human Factors in Computing, (pp.33–45). Denver, CO: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  35. Olson, G. & Olson, J. (2000). Distance matters. Human Computer Interaction, 15, 139–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Potter, R. & Balthard, P. (2002). Virtual team interaction styles: assessment and effects. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 56, 423–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sellen, A. (1995). Remote conversations: the effect of mediating talk with technology. Human Computer Interaction,7, 347–374.Google Scholar
  38. Schober, M. & Clark, H.H. (1989). Understanding by addressees and overhearers. Cognitive Psychology, 27, 211–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Short, J. Williams, E. & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. London: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  40. Silevrman, D. (1993). Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analysing Talk, Text and Interaction. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  41. Snow, C., Snell, S. & Davison, S. (1996). Use transnational teams to globalize your company. Organizational Dynamics, 24(4), 50–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tang, J. & Isaacs, E. (1993). Why do users like video? Studies of multimedia supported collaboration. Computer Supported Collaborative Work: an International Journal, 1, 163–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tang, J. & Isaacs, E. & Rua, M. (1994). Supported distributed groups with a montage of lightweight interactions. Proceedings of Compuer Supported Collaborative Work 94, (pp.23–34). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  44. Vroom, V. & Yetton, P. (1973). Leadership and Decision Making. Pittsbugh, PA.: University of Pittsburg Press.Google Scholar
  45. West, M. A. (1996). Reflexivity and work group effectiveness: a conceptual integration. In M.A. West (Ed.) Handbook of Work Group Psychology. Wiley: Chichester.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anne H. Anderson
  • Jim Mullin
  • Rachel Mcewan
  • Jay Bal
  • Jean Carletta
  • Edward Grattan
  • Pat Brundell

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations