249588.pdf

Management Information Systems Research Center, University of Minnesota is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to MIS Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

Impact of Communication Medium and Computer Support on Group Perceptions and Performance: A Comparison of Face-to-Face and Dispersed Meetings Author(s): Laku Chidambaram and Beth Jones Source: MIS Quarterly, Vol. 17, No. 4 (Dec., 1993), pp. 465-491Published by: Management Information Systems Research Center, University of MinnesotaStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/249588Accessed: 05-06-2015 07:06 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

This content downloaded from 111.68.96.19 on Fri, 05 Jun 2015 07:06:44 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Communication Medium and Performance

Impact of Communication Medium and Computer Support on Group Perceptions and Performance: A Comparison of Face- to-Face and Dispersed Meetings*

By: Laku Chidambaram College of Business

Administration University of Hawaii at Manoa 2404 Maile Way Honolulu, HI 96822 U.S.A.

Beth Jones Finance and Business Systems Eastern Kentucky University Combs 212 Richmond, KY 40475 U.S.A.

Abstract Economic, social, and political institutions worldwide are relying increasingly on communication technology to perform a variety of functions: holding electronic town meetings where hundreds of people in numerous cities par- ticipate simultaneously; forging strategic links with business partners, thereby forming "virtual corporations" that can be instantly disbanded; redefining the conventional notion of a college campus by offering classes via interactive media to non-traditional students; and enabling con- sumers with personal digital assistants to remain connected with their children and families at all

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the TIMS/ORSA Joint National Meeting in Nashville, Tennessee, May 1991.

times. In this environment, where geographic and temporal boundaries are shrinking rapidly, electronic meeting systems (EMS) are playing an important role. This study examines the impact on teams of using EMS in dispersed and face-to-face settings. The results suggest that EMS can be effective in augmenting traditional audio- conferencing by strengthening the medium and allowing additional communication cues to be exchanged among participants. They also indicate that EMS can improve decision-making performance, given proper task-technology fit and adequate facilitation. As businesses expand globally, such systems will provide instant communication capabilities and help coordinate dispersed decision-making activities.

Keywords: Electronic meeting systems, group decision support systems, communication media, audio-conferencing, dispersed/remote meeting support, group performance, group perceptions

ISRL Categories: AI0110, HA0301, HA0802, HA0808, HA1101

Introduction The increasing globalization of business, erosion of corporate hierarchies, and reliance on cross- functional project teams have placed tremendous demands on managers' abilities to coordinate dispersed business activities. There is growing recognition that information technology can help managers in their efforts to coordinate such activities. Articles in popular business periodicals and newspapers provide glimpses of new systems being used by groups in many corporations for a wide variety of activities, ranging from product design to performance evaluation (Nunamaker, et al., 1991). These systems support group tasks like idea generation, conflict resolution, negotiation, alternative evaluation, and decision making. Recently, research into the efficacy of such group support systems (GSS) has received center-stage attention from MIS researchers and practitioners (Bulkeley, 1992; Finley, 1992; Jessup and Valacich, 1992). Another stream of research, with a longer history, deals with the examination of electronic com-

MIS Quarterly/December 1993 465



munication media and their role in enhancing group and organizational communication. Researchers in this field of computer-mediated communication (CMC) have studied various behavioral and technical issues related to traditional face-to-face meetings, audio- teleconferencing, video-teleconferencing, computer-conferencing, and electronic mail (Chapanis, et al., 1972; Rice and Associates, 1984). With recent advances in communication and computing technology, the fields of group support systems and computer-mediated communication are rapidly converging toward a broader class of electronic meeting systems (EMS). An EMS is

...an information technology-based environment that supports group meetings, which may be distributed geographically and temporally. The IT [information technology] environment in- cludes, but is not limited to, distributed facilities, computer hardware and software, audio and video technology, procedures, methodologies, facilitation, and applicable group data (Dennis, et al., 1988, p. 593).

Electronic meeting systems use information technology to support groups by integrating the task focus of GSS and the communication focus of CMC systems (Dennis, et al., 1988). Such systems could potentially offer firms tremendous opportunities to make quick and effective decisions, improve their ability to communicate these decisions globally, solicit and secure feedback instantaneously from diverse constituents, and coordinate geographically dispersed teams efficiently. In the future, these systems can help reduce the growing costs associated with executive travel and shrink geographic distances.

While the predominant mode of communication among organizational groups has been (and con- tinues to be) face-to-face meetings (Mosvick and Nelson, 1987), technological advances have per- mitted many firms to explore other modes of communication, such as video-conferencing, audio-conferencing, and electronic mail. Fortune 500 firms like IBM report that their patterns of organizational communication are changing from traditional face-to-face exchanges to electronically mediated interactions (Business Week, 1988). With the ability of EMSs to support both group communication and group decision-making processes, firms now have a potentially powerful op- tion for expanding their channels of corporate

communication. The important questions for managers are (1) how these systems will impact existing patterns of communication and (2) whether they will improve the performance of their organizational teams. This paper examines the perceptions and performance of decision- making groups using an EMS in face-to-face and dispersed settings. As numerous studies have pointed out, face-to- face communication is perhaps the richest medium of communication (Daft and Lengel, 1986); our attempt is not to disprove that asser- tion. Rather, we seek to evaluate whether an EMS can compensate for the reduced "human touch" that occurs in dispersed settings. With the wide variety of EMS and communication media available to managers, perhaps the biggest challenge is to select the appropriate media/ system combination. The results of this study will help managers better evaluate the potential im- pacts of an EMS in both face-to-face and dispersed settings and thereby assist them in choosing what, if any, system ought to be used for enabling task-oriented group interaction.

Background Daft and Lengel (1986), examining the question, "Why do organizations process information?" proposed two reasons: uncertainty reduction and equivocality resolution. Uncertainty reduction refers to eliminating the lack of information and is often an objective exercise involving the gathering of various kinds of information from a variety of sources. High levels of uncertainty exist when organizations lack information about specific issues. Such organizations have to ask numerous questions about these issues to obtain answers and reduce their uncertainty. Equivocali- ty resolution refers to reducing ambiguity and requires individuals to discuss relevant issues, resolve differences, exert influence, establish evaluation criteria, and develop a shared understanding. High levels of equivocality are associated with organizational confusion and ambiguity, not because of lack of information but because of the existence of multiple interpreta- tions and conflicting views. Hence, the process of equivocality resolution requires a high level of socio-emotional communication and personal interaction to develop a common Weltanschauung.

466 MIS Quarterly/December 1993



While the concepts of uncertainty reduction and equivocality resolution are related, they basical- ly deal with different issues. An example cited by Daft and Lengel (1986) will serve to illustrate the point. When playing the game of "20 questions," players attempt to discover the identity of an unknown object. However, they can receive only yes-no answers to their questions. With each answer, they collect more information about the object, and their probability of correctly identifying the object increases. This process of acquir- ing information can be described as uncertainty reduction.

Examining a different scenario, let us assume that we are still interested in playing the 20 questions game. However, in this case we are not yet sure of the rules. What is required is for all the players to get together and decide on what the rules ought to be. There may be lots of squab- bling and debating, with no clear answers or solutions in sight. However, with a sharing of views and a building of consensus, the ground rules for the game may begin to emerge. This process of reducing ambiguity and developing a shared understanding in a given situation is referred to as equivocality resolution.

Thus, information processing in organizations involves both uncertainty reduction and equivocality resolution. Structural mechanisms (like rules and regulations, special reports, formal information systems, and group meetings, etc.) exist in many organizations to help deal with these dual themes juxtaposed by Daft and Lengel (1986). However, these mechanisms vary widely in their ability to support both uncertainty reduction and equivocality resolution. For instance, written rules and regulations found in many firms help increase knowledge and thus reduce uncertainty. They apply to well-defined, recurring situations. When new situations arise, however, they are not very useful in resolving ambiguity; thus, they score low on equivocality resolution. On the other hand, group meetings allow sharing of ideas, exchanging of opinions, and the building of consensus-all of which is critical to equivocality resolution. Group meetings, however, are generally not the best forum for collection of hard facts per se and may not be well-suited for uncertainty reduction (Daft and Lengel, 1986). The above two examples can be seen as anchor- ing the two extremities of a continuum. Kydd and

Ferry (1991) adapted this continuum to fit emerging group communication and decision-making technologies. Figure 1 (adapted from Kydd and Ferry) suggests that communication media differ in their relative abilities to reduce uncertainty and resolve equivocality. Following the line of reasoning developed earlier, we could argue that a medium strong in uncertainty reduction (like e- mail) is relatively weak in equivocality resolution. Similarly, a medium high in equivocality resolution (like a face-to-face meeting) is low in uncertainty reduction.1 The differences in the relative strengths of the media shown in Figure 1 could cause differences in the perceptions and performance of groups using them.

Media that facilitate the immediate exchange of a wide range of communication cues are often regarded as rich media, while those that allow the exchange of a restricted range of such cues over a longer period are considered lean media (Short, et al., 1976). Equivocality resolution requires rich media, while uncertainty reduction occurs best in lean media. As the continuum in Figure 1 suggests, some media are richer than others. For instance, e-mail is shown to the left of video-conferencing, suggesting that e-mail generally does not permit immediate feedback and is confined to written communication only. Video-conferencing, on the other hand, permits participants to see each other, listen to each other, and respond immediately to messages. Issues requiring debate and discussion (i.e., equivocality resolution) will be more difficult to resolve via a lean medium like e-mail because it is restricted in its ability to support a wide range of communication cues in real time. E-mail, however, can help answer routine questions and acquire "hard" information to reduce uncertainty more efficiently than video-conferencing. To summarize the above discussion, media vary in their ability to reduce uncertainty and resolve equivocality. As Figure 1 indicates, media high in one are generally low in the other. The introduction of an EMS adds an interesting twist to this continuum. An EMS is a hybrid medium that exhibits some aspects of lean media, such as computer conferencing and e-mail, and some aspects of rich media, such as group meetings.

Kydd and Ferry (1991) note some exceptions to these arguments.




Structure facilitates less rich, impersonal media

E-mail

Structure facilitates -

rich, personal media

Voice Mail Computer-conferencing Audio-conferencing Video-conferencing EMS Meetings F-t-F Meetings

-~'~"^-"~--^^^ (Clarify, reach agreement, decide which questions to ask) ^^^--- ^^^ Equivocality Resolution

Uncertainty Reduction (Obtain additional data, seek answers to explicit questions)

Note: Adapted from Kydd and Ferry (1991), who adapted the original framework from Daft and Lengel (1986).

Figure 1. Continuum of Communication Media

Moreover, many of these systems can support group decision-making activities in addition to their ability to support group communication. The specific features of the EMS used in this study are discussed in the research methodology section.

Relevant Research and Hypotheses Researchers have studied the differences in perceptions and performance of groups using many of the media listed in Figure 1. This study, however, focuses only on two modes of communication (crossed with computer-support): face-to-face meetings (without EMS and with EMS) and audio-conferencing (without EMS and with EMS). Key characteristics of these four conditions are presented in Table 1 and serve to illustrate the potential sources of differences in the perceptions and performance of groups. As presented in Table 1, the two modes of communication and the two levels of computer support offer four media/system combinations with various strengths and weaknesses. The earlier discussion of Kydd and Ferry's (1991)

media continuum focused on the relative strengths of these combinations with regard to uncertainty reduction and equivocality resolution. Table 1 illustrates additional sources of differences. For instance, an EMS offers group members the ability to input comments anonymously and simultaneously. Moreover, it provides members easy access to information and helps them focus on the task at hand by enforcing a structured interaction process (Zigurs, et al., 1988). These factors, in addition to affecting performance, also affect perceptions of how effective the media are, whether they help bring group members closer together or drive them apart, etc.

Other differences presented in the table, and ex- plored in detail below, deal with the ability of media to permit the easy exchange of a wide range of information. Face-to-face meetings have broader bandwidth2 than most other media because they allow participants to exchange a variety of verbal and non-verbal information. In other words, they permit richer communication than do other types of media. Also, such

2 Bandwidth is used here in a non-technical sense; it refers to the ability of a medium to allow a broad range of communication stimuli and responses.




Table 1. Factors Influencing Group Perceptions and Performance: A Comparison of Face-to-Face and Dispersed Groups

Communication Media Face-to-Face Meeting Audio-Conferencing

Factors No EMS With EMS No EMS With EMS

Anonymity No Yes Limited Yes

Simultaneity No Yes No Yes

Easy Access to Ideas Yes Yes Limited Yes Unseen Audience No No Yes Yes

Bandwith 1 (Broadest) 2 4 3 Focus on Ideas 4 (Least) 2 3 1

"Naturalness" of Setting 1 (Most) 3 2 4 Equivocality Resolution 1 (Best) 2 4 3 Uncertainty Reduction 4 (Worst) 3 2 1

meetings are often considered a more natural form of group interaction than comparable non- face-to-face forums (Daft and Lengel, 1986). Audio-conferencing, on the other hand, is limited only to verbal interaction; visual cues (or other non-verbal acts like smiling, smirking, etc.) can- not be exchanged. Hence, audio-conferencing has narrower bandwidth than face-to-face communication and is regarded as a less effective medium for intense socio-emotional interaction involving heated debates, negotiation, and decision making. The interaction of computer-support and communication media offer two interesting hybrid situations, i.e., face-to-face meetings with EMS and audio-conferencing with EMS. This interaction could alter the individual strengths and weaknesses of media or systems viewed separately. If such an interaction occurs, group performance and perceptions could also be altered. The discussion below elaborates on the relevant results from previous studies related to the factors in Table 1 and presents our hypotheses about group perception and performance.

Perceptions of media Studies of dispersed EMS have examined various perceptual measures, such as satisfac-

tion with decision process, acceptance of final decision, and extent of choice shift (Cass, et al., 1991; Gallupe and McKeen, 1990; Smith and Vanecek, 1988). Few studies, however, have examined how groups perceive EMS as a medium of communication. This study, in addition to examining computer-mediated group performance, also looks at members' perceptions of EMS-in face-to-face and dispersed settings-as a medium of communication. Three key variables of media perception, with a long tradition in communication studies (Short, et al., 1976), were examined in this study as well: social presence, communication effectiveness, and communications interface.

Social Presence Social presence refers to the ability of a medium to allow group members to feel the actual presence of a communicator (Short, et al., 1976). Media differ widely in terms of social presence. For example, video-conferencing has a higher social presence than electronic mail (Rice and Associates, 1984). Media that are high in social presence also permit the transmission of rich information, i.e., they offer multiple channels of communication for exchanging verbal, non- verbal, and visual cues and permit the transmission of information rich in socio-emotional content (Daft and Lengel, 1986; Daft, et al., 1987).




Information richness and social presence are closely related concepts; media high in one are often regarded as being high in the other as well.

Looking at the findings from previous studies helps us form our expectations about social presence. First, introduction of computer support has generally tended to lower social presence among group members (Siegel, et al., 1986). Results from communication studies indicate that e-mail and computer-conferencing have lower social presence and are less "warm" than face- to-face communication (e.g., Fulk, et al., 1987). Based on these results, EMS meetings, in general, can be expected to exhibit lower social presence than non-EMS meetings. Second, face- to-face meetings are widely regarded as the richest medium for communication (Daft and Lengel, 1986; Kydd and Ferry, 1991; Van Over and Kinney, 1990). Short, et al.'s (1976) study suggests that groups can effectively transmit and receive a broader range of verbal and non-verbal cues in face-to-face meetings than in audio con- ferences. Other studies have also confirmed these findings (e.g., Chapanis, et al., 1972; Fulk, et al., 1987; Siegel, et al., 1986). In this study, the specific features of the EMS used limited the verbal interaction of groups during certain steps (e.g., brainstorming). Such limitations could be expected to reduce the social presence of EMS groups. This leads to the following hypotheses: H1: Perceptions of social presence will dif-

fer between groups.

Hla: Perceptions of social presence will be greater for non-EMS groups than EMS groups.

Hlb: Perceptions of social presence will be greater for face-to-face groups than dispersed groups.

Communication Effectiveness

Regarding communication effectiveness, the earlier discussion of equivocality resolution and uncertainty reduction suggests that certain media are better suited for one than they are for the other. Hence, the purpose of the meeting (for which a medium is used) will affect perceptions about the medium itself. Media that are ill-suited for equivocality resolution (e.g., audio- conferencing) will be perceived as being ineffec- tive when used for negotiating or bargaining

(Kydd and Ferry, 1991). Other contextual factors that affect perceptions of media include type of task performed and task analyzability. Rich media (e.g., face-to-face communication) are better suited to perform tasks that are low in analyzability and high in ambiguity, while lean media (e.g., computer-conferencing and e-mail) are better suited to perform analytical tasks with little ambiguity (Hiltz, et al.,1986; Rice and Associates, 1984; Van Over and Kinney, 1990). A poor fit between medium and task will negative- ly affect members' perceptions of the medium.

The decision-making tasks used in this study were case studies; each had all the information required to make decisions within the case itself. Participants were required to make a careful analysis of the case to identify the problem(s) and generate solutions. Extending the argument made earlier, it appears that the use of a computer-supported medium like EMS for performing such tasks indicates a good fit (between task and technology) and, thus, would lead groups to believe that the computer-supported medium was more effective than the non- computer supported one. Cass, et al. (1991) found this to be true with dispersed groups working on a preference/allocation task.

Previous studies indicate that another issue that affects perceptions of communication effectiveness is the time taken to make decisions (Short, et al., 1976). Longer times to complete tasks lead members to perceive the medium used as being less effective than alternative media. With a notable exception (Bui, et al., 1987), decision times have generally been longer for dispersed groups than for face-to-face groups (e.g., Gallupe and McKeen, 1990; Siegel, et al., 1986). Linking this fact with the results from communication studies, one can expect perceived communication effectiveness to be lower among dispersed groups than face-to-face ones.

For the reasons discussed above, our expectations for communication effectiveness are as follows:

H2: Perceptions of communication effectiveness will differ between groups.

H2a: Perceptions of communication effectiveness will be greater for EMS groups than non-EMS groups.




H2b: Perceptions of communication effectiveness will be greater for face-to-face groups than dispersed groups.

Communications Interface Communications interface refers to the actions required by the medium of the participants to ac- tivate a communication channel in order to exchange information with the group. For example, pushing the "talk" switch of a walkie-talkie to communicate with a partner refers to the communications interface of that medium. Percep- tions about the communications interface are affected by previous experience with the medium, naturalness of setting, ease of use of medium, and ease of learning (Daft and Lengel, 1986; Short, et al., 1976). EMS settings compared to non-EMS settings are less natural for novice groups and require a longer time for members to learn and adapt (Chidambaram, et al., 1990-91). Introduction of an EMS into an ad hoc group with little or no group history tends to increase the degree of apprehension about the meeting and the communication media. As Kydd and Ferry (1991) state: "Perhaps [EMSs] in their current form increase the level of already existing equivocality rather than providing support for resolving it" (p. 329). This statement is probably more true for novice groups than for groups experienced with the technology and/or having a history of working together. In this study all participants were novices to the EMS technology. As suggested in Table 1, the most natural setting for novice groups is a face-to-face meeting. It resembles previous non-task meeting en- vironments, requires little or no training, and the minimal protocols necessary for conducting meetings can be learned and enforced easily (Mosvick and Nelson, 1987). Audio-conferencing requires a lot of coordination among participants, intervention by a facilitator to ensure that all participants are heard, and strict enforcing of meeting protocols (Menkus, 1987). Hence, it has a less natural communications interface than face-to-face meetings. Therefore, we make the following hypotheses regarding the communications interface: H3: Perceptions of communications inter-

face will differ between groups.

H3a: Perceptions of communications interface will be better for non-EMS groups than EMS groups.

H3b: Perceptions of communications interface will be better for face-to-face groups than dispersed groups.

Performance of groups Several researchers have studied the performance of EMS-aided groups in a variety of settings (e.g., Cass, et al., 1991; Jarvenpaa, et al., 1988; Van Over and Kinney, 1990; Zigurs, et al., 1988). These studies have examined various aspects of performance: quality of decisions made by groups, nature of discussion and/or decision processes used to arrive at the final decision, quality of ideas generated, number of issues examined, and meeting efficiency. This study examined three widely used measures of group performance: quality of final decision made by the group, quality of the decision process used to arrive at the decision, and the number of alternative solutions examined.

Group decision making is closely linked with both uncertainty reduction and equivocality resolution. Computer support for group communication and decision making (as indicated in Figure 1) reduces uncertainty more than it resolves equivocality.3 A face-to-face meeting, on the other hand, resolves equivocality more than it reduces uncertainty. Interesting interactions can occur with different combinations of these two factors. For purposes of this study, decision making essentially involved analysis of a case that had all the necessary information in the case description itself. Such structured analysis per se is a hallmark of uncertainty reduction. However, developing a group consensus on what the important issues are and how to solve them involves equivocality resolution. Thus, effective decision-making performance by groups requires both uncertainty reduction and equivocality resolution. The discussion below reviews previous research related to group performance and presents our hypotheses.

3 This helps explain why every computer-oriented medium (e-mail, computer-conferencing, GSS) is located to the left of a comparable non-computer medium (audio-conferencing, face-to-face meetings) in Figure 1.




Quality of Final Decisions There is little consensus on whether computer support increases the quality of final decisions made by groups. Some studies (e.g., Jarvenpaa, et al., 1988; Van Over and Kinney, 1990; Zigurs, et al., 1988), including a meta-analysis by Ben- basat and Lim (1992), have shown that the quality of decisions made by computer-supported groups is higher than those made by groups without computer support. Other studies (Beauclair, 1987; Easton, 1988; Easton, et al., 1990) have indicated that computer support has no impact on decision quality. A few studies have even suggested that computer support may actually lower the quality of the final decision (e.g., Watson, et al., 1988). Thus, the evidence-while pointing to the potential benefits of computer support in some cases-is not conclusive.

However, research has clearly shown that an EMS increases decision quality for high- complexity tasks (Gallupe, et al., 1988). More- over, business periodicals continue to point out the growing technological sophistication of such support systems and examples of their success, especially in dealing with complex issues (De- Jean, 1988; Finley, 1992). The tasks used in this study were validated in previous studies and verified to be sufficiently complex (e.g., Chidam- baram, et al., 1990-91). A second issue related to quality of decisions con- cerns the communication medium. Face-to-face meetings have the broadest bandwidth and offer the best medium for equivocality resolution (see Table 1). Audio-conferencing, on the other hand, has the narrowest bandwidth and is not well-suited for equivocality resolution (Daft and Lengel, 1986; Short, et al., 1976). As suggested earlier, an important aspect of decision making involves exchange of ideas, discussion, evaluation, and feedback; in essence, it requires a rich medium. Hence, face-to-face meetings can be expected to produce decisions of higher quality than dispersed meetings.4 The following hypotheses reflect our expectations about decision quality:

4 Please note there is some contrary evidence in the literature to refute this claim (e.g., Bui, et al., 1987; Smith and Vanecek, 1988).

H4: The quality of the final decisions made will differ between groups.

H4a: The quality of the final decisions will be better for EMS groups than non-EMS groups.

H4b: The quality of the final decisions will be better for face-to-face groups than dispersed groups.

Quality of Decision Process The quality of decision process refers to the path taken by groups to arrive at the final decision. While there is bound to be a relationship between this and the quality of the decision itself, they are different in that one represents the final destina- tion and the other represents the journey. Com- puter support improves the quality of task- oriented discussions in EMS groups by providing an anonymous vehicle for interaction (Valacich, et al., 1992). Anonymity (offered by the EMS) reduces the evaluation apprehension of members and increases their focus on ideas. Such increased topic focus can improve the interaction process among EMS groups. On the other hand, in some cases, the anonymity can lower satisfaction, generate hostility, and increase dysfunctional behavior (Siegel, et al., 1986; Valacich, et al., forthcoming). However, these negative occur- rences tend to take place with large, loosely knit groups and may not be a major concern with small, task-oriented groups.

The arguments made in the previous section about face-to-face groups essentially hold true in this case as well: traditional face-to-face meetings offer a better vehicle for expressing and receiv- ing the full range of visual cues (smiles, nods, frowns, etc.), verbal cues (words, grunts, guffaws, etc.), and non-verbal cues (touches, pats, etc.). Dispersed groups are limited to a single channel of communication: verbal messages. Thus, the process of equivocality resolution, which requires the broadest possible channel, is limited to a narrow medium, thereby sacrificing important signals vital for a high quality interaction.

This leads to the following hypotheses regarding the quality of the decision process among groups:

H5: The quality of the decision processes used will differ between groups.




H5a: The quality of the decision process will be better for EMS groups than non-EMS groups.

H5b: The quality of the decision process will be better for face-to-face groups than dispersed groups.

Number of Alternatives

The quantity of ideas generated by brainstorming groups and the number of alternatives examined by decision-making groups serve as surrogates for group creativity (Fellers, 1989; Osborn, 1957). Previous research has identified "production blocking" as a major dysfunctional behavior affecting group creativity (Diehl and Stroebe, 1987). Production blocking refers to the inability of group members to speak out whenever "the light bulb turns on." Group protocols dictate that members have to defer their comments until the person having the floor is done talking. Such turn-taking may curb, and ultimately limit, the number of ideas generated by groups. A significant benefit of the EMS is that it provides a medium for the simultaneous generation of ideas by group members. In EMS- aided groups, members can freely communicate with the group without the limitations imposed by production blocking. Hence, EMS-aided groups tend to generate more ideas and explore more alternatives than non-EMS groups (Valacich, et al., forthcoming). We expect similar results from this study.

The arguments made earlier about face-to-face meetings being a richer medium than audio- conferencing also apply to the creativity of groups. Face-to-face groups, in general, tend to have greater levels of communication and explore more issues than dispersed groups (Hiltz, et al., 1986; Siegel, et al., 1986). Our hypotheses concerning the creativity of groups essentially concur with this finding and are stated as follows:

H6: The number of alternatives examined will differ between groups.

H6a: The number of alternatives will be higher for EMS groups than non-EMS groups.

H6b: The number of alternatives will be higher for face-to-face groups than dispersed groups.

The table in Appendix A summarizes the relevant results from key studies discussed above. This table is limited to studies of dispersed EMS and does not include the large number of studies that deal solely with either communication systems (audio-conferencing, video-conferencing, etc.) or group support systems. In order to be included in the table, a study had to have aspects of both communication support and group decision support.

Research Methodology

Research design A 2 x 2 factorial design (with repeated measures on one factor) was used to test the hypotheses presented earlier (see Figure 2). As depicted in Figure 2, the two factors that were manipulated were computer support and communication medium. Computer support (the between- subjects factor) had two levels: half of the groups received computer support and the other half did not. Communication medium (the within-subjects factor) also had two levels: face-to-face meetings and audio-conferencing. The initial assignment of subjects to groups and groups to treatments was randomly determined.

The repeated measures factor was communication medium, i.e., all groups met in both face-to- face and dispersed settings (either with an EMS or without an EMS.) Thus, groups assigned to an EMS-supported environment performed two tasks, one in a face-to-face setting and one in a dispersed setting. Similarly, groups assigned to a non-EMS environment also performed the same two tasks. The order in which each group received the treatment (i.e., face-to-face vs. dispersed) and the tasks (i.e., Task 1 vs. Task 2) was balanced within treatments and matched across treatments. Such a design ensured that each group served as its own control in a given setting (Keppel, 1982), while task order and treatment order were equivalent across settings.5 The repeated measures design described above resulted in four treatment conditions:

5Post hoc analyses revealed that there were no significant task or treatment-order effects.




Communication Medium (Within subjects factor)

Face-to-face (F-t-F) Audio-conferencing

No

Computer Support (Between subjects factor)

Yes

Figure 2. 2 x 2 Repeated Measures Research Design

* Face-to-face meeting with no EMS * Face-to-face meeting with EMS * Audio-conferencing with no EMS * Audio-conferencing with EMS.

Treatments Groups in all four treatment conditions followed the same sequence of events illustrated below:

Read case - Identify problems - Discuss issues - Generate ideas -- Evaluate options -- Make decision

Computer-supported groups, in both face-to-face and dispersed settings, used Ventana Corpora- tion's GROUPSYSTEMS, an EMS software package developed originally at the University of Arizona. The EMS was installed on a Novell 3.0 local area network using thick/thin ethernet as the primary transport vehicle.

Face-to-Face Meetings Face-to-face groups with computer support used the EMS in a "decision room" setting similar to the one described in Dennis, et al. (1988). The room had six individual terminals connected by a local area network to a facilitator's workstation. This workstation was in turn connected to a public screen, which displayed relevant information based on the input of members. Each member

of a group had access to a terminal and could view information on the public screen.

Face-to-face groups without computer support made decisions in a room similar to the one used by the computer-supported groups. However, in place of the public screen, a flip chart was provided for recording and displaying public information. In addition, there was also a white board, a black board, and a bulletin board for use by the group. Each individual member was provided paper and pencil to facilitate his or her decision making. Manual groups were required to follow a structure similar to the structure imposed by the EMS on computer-supported groups: generation of ideas, evaluation of alternatives, and choice of solution.

A facilitator was present in both settings to assist groups with the experimental structure and the process. The facilitator welcomed subjects and asked them to introduce themselves to each other. He or she then outlined the agenda (from a pre-tested script) and explained the three techniques that were to be used: brainstorming, discussion, and voting. This was followed by a short training task to illustrate the techniques and the structure of the experiment. Subjects were then given a case to read. After reading the case, they were asked to brainstorm ideas either verbally or electronically (depending on the treatment). In the manual setting, the facilitator wrote down the ideas as they were generated by group members on the flip chart. In the computer-




supported setting, ideas generated were displayed on the public screen.

This was followed by the second phase of the study, which involved discussion of the ideas generated, with the objective of trimming down the list to a manageable subset of ideas that the entire group understood and approved. After the list was trimmed down to a manageable subset (determined by the group) the final phase of the experiment, voting, was initiated. This phase involved individual rank-ordering of the alternatives agreed to by the group. Either the facilitator or the system-depending on whether the treatment was non-EMS or EMS-consolidated the scores and displayed the final results on the bulletin board or public screen, respectively.

Audio-Conferencing In the audio-conferencing setting, subjects were in separate offices and could not see each other. All subjects were linked by an audio-conferencing facility (i.e., a conference call using speaker- phones). Additionally, subjects in the dispersed/ EMS treatment had individual terminals connected to GROUPSYSTEMS. Each group member was provided a paper and pencil to facilitate his or her decision making. A facilitator was also part of the audio-conference and assisted the group with the structure of the experiment and the interaction process.

The facilitator welcomed subjects over the phone and asked them to introduce themselves to each other. He or she outlined the agenda (from a pre- tested script) and explained the three techniques that were to be used: brainstorming, discussion, and voting. This was followed by a short training task to illustrate the technology and the structure of the experiment. Subjects were then asked to read a case placed on their desks. After reading the case, they were asked to brainstorm ideas either verbally over the phone or electronically via their terminals (depending on the treatment). In the non-EMS setting, the facilitator kept a record-and subsequently broadcast-the ideas generated by group members. (Group members were also asked to write down the ideas as they were announced.) In the EMS setting, ideas ap- peared on the individual terminals.

As in the face-to-face setting, brainstorming was followed by the second phase of the experiment,

which involved discussion of the ideas generated, with the objective of trimming down the list to a manageable subset of ideas that the entire group understood and approved. The facilitator served as the group secretary and performed all actions demanded by the group over the phone, such as deleting irrelevant ideas, merging similar ideas, creating new ideas, and editing unclear ideas. After the list was trimmed down to a manageable subset (as determined by the group), the final phase of the experiment, voting, was initiated. In non-EMS settings, ranks were reported individually to the facilitator, who then consolidated them and announced the final results to the entire group. In EMS settings, subjects entered their ranks individually using an electronic voting tool, and the system consolidated the scores and displayed the results on each individual screen.

Experimental procedures Besides manipulating the two independent variables, computer-support and communication medium, all other potential sources of variation were either controlled or randomized. For instance, task types and task complexity were controlled, while facilitator assignment to groups6 and group assignment to treatments were randomized.

Subjects Subjects for the study were drawn from a junior- level business course and received course credit for participation. After reading and signing a con- sent form, subjects completed a pre-session survey, which gathered some background data. They were then randomly assigned to a group; groups were then randomly assigned to an experimental treatment. Groups comprised three or four members. Previous research has shown that there is no significant difference in behavior between three and four-person groups (Watson, et al., 1988; Zigurs, et al., 1988).7 Assignment of groups was balanced to ensure that there were

6 Post hoc analyses of variance verified that in interactions with communication medium and computer support, facilitators neither had a significant main effect nor an interaction effect on group outcomes.

7Post hoc analyses confirmed that group size had no significant impact on group behavior and performance.




six groups-three comprising three members and three comprising four members-in each of the four cells represented in Figure 2.

Tasks

Two tasks that had been previously tested and validated were used in this study (Chidambaram, et al., 1990-91; Miranda, 1990). Both tasks used in this study can be classified as Type 4 tasks- decision making tasks with no a priori right or wrong answer-in McGrath's task circumplex (McGrath, 1984).8 The tasks required the groups to simulate a board of directors of an American winery meeting to deal with the problems of global expansion. Task 1 required the board to recommend how the shattered image of the winery could be redeemed in overseas markets, while Task 2 required the board to suggest what new product line to add to its international offer- ings. Previous studies have indicated that no specialized knowledge, other than a general business background, is necessary for completing the tasks (Chidambaram, et al., 1990-91; Miranda, 1990). A brief summary of the two tasks is provided in Appendix B.

Dependent variables The two classes of dependent variables examined in this study were media perceptions and group performance. Media perceptions were evaluated by a previously validated post-session questionnaire that measured social presence, communication effectiveness, and communications interface. (Please see Appendix C for a copy of the instrument.) The 20-item instrument that measured these three constructs was developed primarily from the work of Short, et al. (1976).9 Subjects reported their perceptions of media by rating bi-polar adjectives on a semantic differential scale from 1 to 7. A score of 1 indicated negative perceptions of the medium, while a score of 7 indicated positive

8 Post hoc analyses confirmed that there were no significant differences in group behavior and performance between the two tasks.

9 It must be noted that there exist instruments that measure other related constructs, such as perceived decision quality. See for instance, Gouran, et al. (1978). However, these constructs were not explicitly measured in this study.

perceptions. Post hoc analysis revealed that the instrument had a Cronbach's alpha of 0.96, indicating a high level of overall reliability. Each of the three constructs measured using the instrument also had high individual reliabilities: * Social presence, a seven-item construct, had

a reliability of 0.91. * Communication effectiveness, an eight-item

construct, had a reliability of 0.93. * Communications interface, a four-item con-

struct, had a reliability of 0.88.

Group performance was measured using three different constructs: quality of the final decision, quality of the process used to arrive at that decision, and the number of alternatives examined. All decisions made (and alternatives examined) by the groups were typed on individual sheets of paper and given to an expert panel of five judges. The judges had no knowledge of the treatment received by the groups and in- dependently rated the decisions made. Judges graded the final decision of each group on a scale of 1 to 100, with low scores indicating poor decisions and high scores indicating good decisions; inter-rater reliability for all five judges was 0.87. The same judges also rated the quality of the decision process used (to arrive at the final decision) by examining the content and quality of alternatives examined, choice shifts made during group discussion, and the final voting record; the inter-rater reliability in this case was 0.93. Finally, the number of unique alternatives examined by the groups was captured from computer logs, participant notes, and flip charts.

Results and Discussion As recommended by Winer, et al. (1991), a multivariate analysis of variance for repeated measures designs (repeated measures MANOVA) was used to test the 12 primary hypotheses representing the groups' perceptions and performance.10 Partly for the sake of par- simony, and partly because of the difficulty in

'0 Since there was only one within-subjects factor, communication medium, with two levels (i.e., repeated measures), there was only a single contrast possible for this effect. Hence, the multivariate and univariate results were identical. (See NoruSis, 1987, for more information).




making a priori predictions at the individual cell level about the combined effects of computer support and communication medium, interaction hypotheses were not explicitly generated. However, in analyzing variances, where significant interactions are observed, the interpretation of the interaction should take precedence over that of the main effect (Keppel, 1982). According- ly, in this study when interactions were present, we focused our attention on them. Specifically, follow-up univariate tests, as suggested by Huck, et al. (1974), were conducted to identify precisely the nature and location of differences. These tests included the adjusted independent sample t-tests for the between-subjects factor (computer support) and the equivalent paired t-tests for the within-subjects factor (communication medium).

Perceptions of media Results of the statistical analysis confirmed Daft and Lengel's (1986) propositions about face-to- face meetings being perceived by participants as the "warmest" medium, permitting the exchange of a wide range of socio-emotional communication. The introduction of an EMS in face-to-face meetings generally had little or no impact on these positive perceptions of the medium. However, our results showed that introduction of an EMS in dispersed meetings either significantly improved or at least did not reduce the participants' perceptions of the audio-conferencing medium. The audio-conferencing medium is often viewed as a lean medium that restricts participants' abilities to exchange a wide range of information. The addition of an EMS, however, increased the bandwidth of the medium and provided participants with a more expressive channel of communication.

Chapanis, et al.'s (1972; 1977) studies suggest that the written word is terse and task-specific, while the spoken word is verbose and expressive.11 Each has its strengths and can be used for different purposes in an organizational context: the written medium for very structured activities and the verbal medium for more open- ended activities. In this study, the audio-

t1 Chapanis, et al. (1972; 1977) also found that dispersed voice communication was no worse than face-to-face communication in performing cooperative tasks.

conferencing medium augmented with an EMS offered the advantages of both written and spoken media. Group decision making (as opera- tionalized here) is a combination of unstructured activities (e.g., group discussion) and structured activities (e.g., voting). Audio-conferencing augmented with EMS offered participants a medium that allowed both structured and unstructured activities to occur more effectively than audio-conferencing alone. This match between activities and the medium partly explains the positive perceptions of participants using audio-conferencing augmented with an EMS.

All three measures of media perception-social presence, communication effectiveness, and communications interface-were significantly affected by interactions between computer support and communication medium. Thus, appropriate univariate follow-up tests (as described earlier) were conducted to identify precisely the nature of the differences.12 A summary of all the results related to participants' media perceptions is provided in Tables 2a and 2b, while the discussion below explores each of these results in detail.

Social Presence

Hla: Perceptions of social presence will be greater for non-EMS groups than EMS groups. (Supported for face-to-face groups only)

Hlb: Perceptions of social presence will be greater for face-to-face groups than dispersed groups. (Supported for all groups)

As the results presented in Tables 2a and 2b indicate, both computer support and communication medium jointly had a significant effect on social presence. A follow-up analysis showed that in face-to-face settings, social presence was significantly lower among EMS groups than non- EMS groups (t4ldf=3.56, p=0.001). Among dispersed groups, however, the addition of an EMS to audio-conferencing did not lower the social presence of the hybrid medium. Thus, the conventional wisdom that computer support

12 Calculated t-values and p-levels for the relevant univariate tests are presented parenthetically where appropriate after each hypothesis.




Table 2a. Perceptions of Media: Means (and Standard Deviations)

Communication Medium Computer Support (Within Subjects Factor) Grand Means

(Between Subjects Factor) Face-to-Face Dispersed (Std. Dev.) Social Presence

No EMS 5.46 3.16 4.32 (0.73) (0.82) (1.40)

With EMS 4.34 3.26 3.78 (1.27) (1.33) (1.40)

Grand Means 4.89 3.20 (1.19) (1.09)

Communication Effectivness No EMS 5.54 3.71 4.63

(1.21) (1.05) (1.46) With EMS 5.17 4.81 4.98

(1.07) (1.29) (1.19) Grand Means 5.37 4.26

(1.15) (1.27) Communications Interface

No EMS 5.37 3.38 4.38 (1.28) (1.28) (1.62)

With EMS 4.79 4.09 4.44 (1.46) (1.47) (1.49)

Grand Means 5.07 3.74 (1.39) (1.41)

lowers social presence was borne out in face-to- face settings but not in dispersed settings.

Results from this study about face-to-face communication are consistent with those from previous studies that indicate the introduction of a computerized communication medium generally lowers social presence (Daft, et al., 1987; Siegel, et al., 1986). Information richness and social presence theories generally agree that groups can most effectively transmit and receive the broadest range of verbal and non-verbal cues in face-to-face meetings compared to any other medium (Daft and Lengel, 1986). Introduction of any other factor, for example an EMS, only seeks to constrict the breadth of the channel and limit the nature of communication that can occur. For instance, the inability of groups to talk during idea generation when using an EMS could lead them to perceive the medium as being restrictive. Such limitations on the exchange of visual and verbal cues helps explain the lower social presence

among EMS-aided groups in a face-to-face setting.

Audio-conferencing has traditionally had the lowest social presence of any medium (Short, et al., 1976). While this was true in this study as well, the introduction of an EMS did not lower social presence further among dispersed groups. These results challenge conventional wisdom, which suggests addition of computer-support-another traditionally lean medium-to audio-conferencing can only lower social presence further among dispersed groups. In summary, face-to-face groups and dispersed groups differed in their perceptions about computer support: in the case of the former the EMS reduced social presence, while in the case of the latter it did not.

Communication Effectiveness H2a: Perceptions of communication effec-

tiveness will be greater for EMS groups




Table 2b. Perceptions of Media: Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance

Source of Variation Sum of Squares DF F Sig. of F Social Presence

Between Subjects Effect Within Cells 51.68 39 Computer Support 6.24 1 4.71 0.04

Within-Subjects Effect Within Cells 36.92 39 Communication Medium 55.99 1 59.13 0.00 Comp. Support x Comm. Medium 8.74 1 9.23 0.00

Communication Effectiveness Between-Subjects Effect

Within Cells 46.36 40 Computer Support 2.13 1 1.84 0.18


Communications Interface Between-Subjects Effect



than non-EMS groups. (Supported for dispersed groups only)

H2b: Perceptions of communication effectiveness will be greater for face-to-face groups than dispersed groups. (Sup- ported for non-EMS groups only)

As in the case of social presence, both computer support and communication medium had a significant effect on perceived communication effectiveness (see Tables 2a and 2b). A follow-up analysis showed that among dispersed groups, perceptions of communication effectiveness were significantly higher for EMS groups than non- EMS groups (t39df=2.94, p=0.006). Among face-to-face groups, however, the EMS had no significant effect on their perceptions of communication effectiveness. Also, not surprisingly, groups without computer support perceived face- to-face meetings as being a significantly more effective medium for communication than audio- conferencing (t41df = 5.34, p = 0.000).

The results indicate that the introduction of an EMS did not affect the perceptions of communication effectiveness of face-to-face groups; however, it significantly enhanced the perceptions of dispersed groups. Rich media (like face- to-face meetings) are better suited to perform tasks, such as negotiation and decision making, that are high in ambiguity than are lean media, such as audio-conferencing (Hiltz, et al., 1986; Van Over and Kinney, 1990). However, the introduction of an EMS in a dispersed setting provides an additional channel of communication, thereby strengthening a traditionally weak medium like audio-conferencing. In addition to verbal interactions, the dispersed EMS setting provides an enhanced medium for expressing written comments, sharing ideas, exchanging task-oriented information, and focusing on ideas (independent of the authors who generated them). These factors could have caused dispersed EMS groups to overcome some of the inherent drawbacks of audio-conferencing and




helped improve their perceptions of communication effectiveness.

Moreover, groups in the unsupported audio- conferencing mode generally took longer to complete the task than those in the computer- supported audio-conferencing mode. Overall, groups in this unsupported medium took the longest average time to complete the task. Other studies (e.g., Gallupe and McKeen, 1990) have reported similar results when comparing remote groups with face-to-face groups. Longer decision times have been linked with poor perceptions of communication effectiveness. Thus, it is not suprising that the unsupported audio-conferencing medium was perceived the least effective of all the other media. However, the addition of an EMS dramatically improved the perceptions of this medium.

Communications Interface H3a: Perceptions of communications interface

will be better for non-EMS groups than EMS groups. (Not supported)

H3b: Perceptions of communications interface will be better for face-to-face groups than dispersed groups. (Supported for non-EMS groups only)

As was the case with social presence and communication effectiveness, both computer support and communication medium had a significant effect on perceptions of communications interface (see Tables 2a and 2b for details.) Once again, a follow-up analysis revealed precisely the nature of the differences: among groups without computer support, members had significantly better perceptions of the communications interface in face-to-face meetings than in dispersed settings (t41df=5.16, p=0.000); there was no other significant effect. There is little doubt, as the results of this study and others indicate, that face-to-face meetings offer the most natural interface for group communication. Introduction of any artifact, like electronic communication support, only serves to reduce the inherent "naturalness" of this medium. However, in the case of audio- conferencing (a medium with a decidedly restricted interface), the introduction of an EMS (another medium that could further constrict the interface) did not in fact reduce participants'

perceptions of the hybrid medium. Overall, as in the case of social presence and communication effectiveness, the introduction of an EMS produced the same pattern of results-though less pronounced-in participants' perceptions of the communications interface. In summary, the introduction of an EMS in dispersed settings resulted in more positive perceptions of a traditionally lean medium, while its introduction in face-to-face settings had little impact on group perceptions. These results indicate that the hybrid medium-EMS-augmented audio conferencing-with its additional channel of communication, has broader bandwidth and better social presence than "regular" audio- conferencing. Thus, the constricted nature of audio-conferencing tends to be less limiting for participants with computer support than those without such support.

Performance of groups In general, group performance was better for EMS groups than non-EMS groups. The addition of computer support helped groups explore more alternatives and improved the quality of their decision-making process. The EMS, however, had little impact on the quality of the final decision. Structural features of EMS, such as anonymity and simultaneity, have helped improve group performance in other studies (see Dennis, et al., 1988). Results from this study also tend to generally support these findings (see Tables 3a and 3b for details). The discussion below focuses on the three aspects of group performance examined in this study: quality of final decisions, quality of the decision process, and the number of alternatives.

Quality of Final Decisions H4a: The quality of the final decisions will be bet-

ter for EMS groups than non-EMS groups. (Not supported)

H4b: The quality of the final decisions will be better for face-to-face groups than dispersed groups. (Not supported)

As Tables 3a and 3b indicate, neither computer support nor communication medium had a statistically significant effect on the quality of the final decision. Previous studies have produced




mixed results about the impact of computer support on the quality of a group's final decision: in some cases it has improved decision quality (e.g., Benbasat and Lim, 1992; Jarvenpaa, et al., 1988; Van Over and Kinney, 1990), while in a few cases it has reduced decision quality (e.g., Watson, et al., 1988), and in other cases it has had no impact on quality (e.g., Easton, 1988; Easton, et al., 1990). Results from this study also add to the growing body of contradictory evidence about the impact of computer support on decision quality.

Benbasat and Lim's (1992) meta-analysis of group support systems research, while indicating the positive impact of computer support on decision quality, highlights the moderating influence of the task used. Previous research has shown that an important aspect of the task that affects the quality of decisions made by EMS groups is task complexity. For instance, in Gallupe, et al.'s (1988) study, an EMS helped groups working on complex tasks to make high-quality decisions; however, it had no impact on groups working with simple tasks. While the tasks used in this study were validated in different settings in other studies (Chidambaram, et al., 1990-91; Miranda, 1990) and verified to be moderately complex, it is possible that the tasks were not complex enough. However, post-experimental debriefings, expert judges' opinions, and evidence from previous studies preclude this explanation.

Another possible, and more likely, explanation for the EMS's lack of impact on decision quality is the existence of learning effects in groups using an EMS. Chidambaram and Bostrom (1993) show that use of an EMS by naive, ad hoc groups with no history of working together does not result in high-quality decisions initially. Their results indicate that while EMS groups may generate more alternatives and become more cohesive than non-EMS groups during their very first meeting, the quality of their decisions takes longer to increase. After several meetings, when group members have appropriated the technology and have begun to incorporate it into their decision- making processes, they may then be able to produce high-quality decisions (Chidambaram and Bostrom, 1993; Poole and DeSanctis, 1990). Sub- jects in this study were randomly assigned to groups formed expressly for completing the experimental treatments. Hence, group members had no history of working together and could be

expected to take time to become familiar with each other and the technology. After such adap- tation occurs, they could be expected to produce high-quality decisions.

As an anonymous reviewer suggested, the mixed results about decision quality from various studies can partly be attributed to the implicit notion of a generic EMS employed in such studies. A more precise picture might emerge if the focus shifts to the specific features of an EMS used in a study. For instance, some research has shown that more-encompassing Level 2 EMS features13 do improve performance over Level 1 features (Easton, et al, 1989; Sambamurthy and DeSanctis, 1990). However, in this study, despite the use of Level 2 features (e.g., issue analysis and electronic voting), decision quality did not improve significantly. It is clear that further research is required to resolve this issue.

Hypothesis 4b suggests that groups in face-to- face settings will make better decisions than dispersed groups. However, the results from this study do not support this hypothesis, i.e., there was no significant difference between the quality of decisions made by face-to-face and dispersed groups. While results from a few studies (e.g., Smith and Vanecek, 1988) suggest that dispersed groups can, in some instances, make better decisions than face-to-face groups, these results have not been widely replicated.

Quality of Decision Process H5a: The quality of decision process will be bet-

ter for EMS groups than non-EMS groups. (Supported)

H5b: The quality of decision process will be better for face-to-face groups than dispersed groups. (Not supported)

As Tables 3a and 3b indicate, only the introduction of an EMS had a significant effect on the quality of the decision process in both face-to- face and dispersed settings. Previous EMS research has generally tended to focus on quality of final decisions made, neglecting the processes undertaken by groups in arriving at their decisions. This study presents some interesting

13 See DeSanctis and Gallupe (1987) for a discussion of different levels of EMS. Generally, higher level EMSs donate additional system features.




Table 3a. Performance of Groups: Means (and Standard Deviations)

Communication Medium Computer Support (Within Subjects Factor) Grand Means

(Between Subjects Factor) Face-to-Face Dispersed (Std. Dev.) Quality of Final Decision

No EMS 72.87 71.20 72.03 (13.84) (15.35) (13.96)

With EMS 78.10 76.83 77.47 (5.57) (5.26) (5.21)

Grand Means 75.48 74.02 (10.42) (11.33)

Quality of Decision Process No EMS 62.63 65.53 63.08

(8.84) (16.57) (12.67) With EMS 82.13 82.20 82.17

(4.15) (3.62) (3.71) Grand Means 72.38 72.87

(12.13) (15.03) Number of Alternatives

No EMS 10.00 8.50 9.25 (3.74) (5.72) (4.67)

With EMS 25.17 22.33 23.75 (12.50) (9.37) (10.64)

Grand Means 17.58 15.42 (11.84) (10.34)

evidence about the quality of decision processes used by groups. The introduction of computer support, in the form of an EMS, had a significantly positive impact on the quality of the decision process used by groups. The EMS provides an anonymous vehicle for interaction, thereby reducing evaluation apprehension and improving topic focus during discussion. While anonymity may be a double-edged sword, it has generally had positive effects on interaction processes in small decision-making groups (Valacich, et al., forthcoming). Our findings tend to support this result as well.

Results from this study also show that the structures embedded in an EMS can collectively help groups to take a more task-oriented approach (with little or no personal rancor) in making group decisions. This is especially true in the case of maintaining the productivity of groups. In some non-EMS groups, the inability to effectively de- link idea generation and alternative evaluation

creates animosity and causes increased inhibi- tion, which ultimately lowers productivity. EMS structures, such as anonymity, can combat these negative factors by more effectively separating idea generation and evaluation. Hence, an EMS helps change the inherent focus of traditional idea generation from "who said that?" to "what was said?" In firms where brainstorming (or any other creative group endeavor) is integral to organizational well-being, an EMS can help main- tain a high level of productivity by preventing groups from losing their creative edge over time.

Number of Alternatives H6a: The number of alternatives will be higher

for EMS groups than non-EMS groups. (Supported)

H6b: The number of alternatives will be higher for face-to-face groups than dispersed groups. (Not supported)




Table 3b. Performance of Groups: Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance

Source of Variation Sum of Squares DF F Sig. of F Quality of Final Decision

Between Subjects Effect Within Cells 2090.85 10 Computer Support 177.13 1 0.85 0.38


Quality of Decision Process Between-Subjects Effect



Number of Alternatives

Between-Subjects Effect Within Cells 1113.50 10 Computer Support 1261.50 1 11.33 0.00


As Tables 3a and 3b indicate, only computer- support had a significant effect on the number of alternatives examined. In concordance with results from previous studies, the introduction of an EMS had a significantly positive effect on the number of alternatives examined by groups (Lewis, 1982; Valacich, et al. forthcoming).

Perhaps one of the clearest differences in performance was between the number of alternative solutions examined by computer-supported and non-computer-supported groups. EMS groups generated and examined on average over twice as many alternatives as did non-EMS groups. As Diehl and Stroebe (1987) point out, "production blocking" is a major dysfunctional behavior ex- hibited by groups generating ideas. An EMS reduces production blocking by providing a vehicle for simultaneous generation of ideas. No time or ideas are wasted in "yielding and taking the floor," as in conventional meetings. While the

number of ideas generated by a group, in itself, does not provide a complete picture of a group's overall performance, it provides a measure of the group's creativity (Osborn, 1957) and is loosely correlated with decision-making performance (Fellers, 1989).

Conclusion The key findings from this study can be sum- marized as follows. When audio-conferencing was augmented with computer support, it improved perceptions of communication effectiveness significantly without lowering the social presence of the medium. In face-to-face meetings, introduction of computer support lowered social presence but did not decrease perceptions of communication effectiveness. Also, computer support had a clearly positive effect on the performance of both face-to-face and dispersed groups.




Results from this study suggest that the addition of an EMS to dispersed meetings can help off- set the negative aspects of audio-conferencing- "leanness" of the medium, inability to exchange "rich" information, and poor perceptions of the setting-by strengthening the communication channel. The merger of structured computer support (via an EMS) with the ability to exchange unstructured verbal messages (via audio- conferencing) provides a uniquely hybrid medium-one that blends the advantages of both media-capable of handling uncertainty reduction and equivocality reduction.

As discussed in the previous section, some of the results support findings from other studies. For instance, they confirm the perception that face- to-face meetings, compared to other types of media, have a broader bandwidth, permit the exchange of richer information, and offer a more natural setting for group communication (Daft, et al., 1987; Gallupe and McKeen, 1990; Hiltz, et al., 1986). The results also support findings from some studies about the positive impact on performance of an EMS (Benbasat and Lim, 1992; Dennis, et al., 1988; Van Over and Kinney, 1990). Notably, however, the results appear to contradict those of Cass, et al. (1991).14 While we found the perceptions of EMS groups in dispersed settings to be significantly better than their non-EMS counterparts, Cass, et al. (1991) find the reverse to be true. The reasons for this apparent con- tradiction between the two studies are due to the differences in technologies used (GROUP- SYSTEMS, a facilitated EMS, versus SAMM, a non-facilitated system), tasks performed (decision making versus preference allocation), and treatments rendered (structured versus unstructured sequence of experimental activities).

Limitations of the study As the contrast with the results from the Cass, et al. (1991) study suggest, caution should be ex- ercised in extrapolating the results from this study to users of other electronic meeting systems. Fur- ther, the results may also be circumscribed by how a particular system is used. For instance,

14 The primary focus of Cass, et al. (1991) was member satisfaction with group outcomes and meeting processes.

in this study the verbal channel was limited in the EMS setting during certain activities, such as brainstorming. Such a constraint could have influenced users to perceive the medium as being restrictive. However, in other settings, such as the Cass, et al. (1991) study, users are permit- ted unrestricted verbal and electronic access, which could in turn influence their perceptions of the medium differently. As with any lab experiment, the controlled nature of the setting, the use of student subjects, the narrow focus of the task, and the restrictions imposed on users by the treatment limit the applicability of our results to other settings and populations.

Implications for management Despite these limitations, the results of this study point to the efficacy of using an EMS in a dispersed setting. Specifically, the ability of an EMS to broaden the bandwidth of a medium like audio- conferencing by providing a vehicle for written communication has important implications for managers. Organizations can augment traditional modes of teleconferencing with an EMS to perform a wider range of tasks, including negotiation and decision making, that involve equivocality resolution. Without an EMS, such activities could be done efficiently only in a face- to-face environment (Kydd and Ferry, 1991). However, a word of caution is in order. Dispersed meetings augmented with an EMS may offer interesting opportunities, but special coordination problems do exist (Dufner and Hiltz, 1990). In dispersed settings, particular care should be taken to fit the EMS to appropriate tasks and to provide adequate facilitation. In this study, both were done.

In addition to offering an additional channel of communication, results from this study also suggest that such hybrid systems can offer participants the more conventional advantages of electronic meeting support, such as anonymity and simultaneity. Thus, groups using these systems-with adequate facilitation and training-can improve their productivity by minimizing disruptive behavior and maintaining their focus on the task at hand. Managers may also be able to use these hybrid systems to effectively link geographically dispersed decision makers and thereby reduce the costs associated with executive travel.




Directions for future research The Kydd and Ferry (1991) media continuum discussed in this study rates media on an ab- solute scale. Media perceptions, however, are rarely deterministic. In other words, claims that one medium, such as face-to-face communication, has the widest bandwidth or the highest social presence are rather simplistic. Social processes determine perceptions of media, and these processes are influenced by the context in which the media are used. For instance, a medium like e-mail, considered low in social presence in one organization, may be considered high in another organization. Thus, the use of a particular EMS in different contexts can cause media perceptions to differ widely. While this study is an initial attempt to understand the media perceptions of dispersed EMS users, future studies should examine various types of meeting support systems in a variety of group settings to reach definitive conclusions. Such studies should use process tracing methods, such as protocol analysis and content analysis, to analyze the actual social processes underlying group interaction and communication.

Future studies also need to examine the impact of communication technologies in more realistic settings. Contextual realism can be improved by using longitudinal designs to study the continual use of emerging communication technologies in organizations. With the growing popularity of video-conferencing-a channel with greater bandwidth than audio-conferencing-among organizations (Chidambaram and Chismar, 1993), future studies should identify the impact of adding an EMS to this rich medium. Since "real world" groups meet on a regular basis over a long period of time, such technologies may be used differently over time. However, many lab studies, including this one, examine groups only for short periods of time. In order to understand the long-term effects of using hybrid EMS systems in dispersed settings, longitudinal studies of organizational groups need to be undertaken.

As Davis' (1987) vision of firms providing their products at "any time and any place" becomes a reality, new means of delivering services, effective communication channels, and improved methods of coordination will form the foundation for remaining globally competitive. As the results

from this study suggest, technologies such as EMS can help provide such a foundation for organizations. Moreover, they can co-exist with and augment existing infrastructures, such as local area networks and audio-conferencing facilities. Organizational communication with such an infrastructure will ensure that every team member's voice is heard, every stakeholder's opi- nion is considered, and every customer's need is met.

References Beauclair, R. An Experimental Study of the Ef-

fects of GDSS Process Support Applications on Small Group Decision Making, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, 1987.

Benbasat, I. and Lim, L.H. "The Effects of Group, Task, Context, and Technology Variables on the Usefulness of Group Support Systems: A Meta-Analysis," working paper, 91-MIS-020, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, 1992.

Bui, T., Sivasankaran, T.R., Fijol, Y., and Wood- bury, M.A. "Identifying Organizational Oppor- tunities for GDSS Use: Some Experimental Evidence," Proceedings of the Seventh Inter- national Conference on Decision Support Systems, September 1987, pp. 68-75.

Bulkeley, W.M. 'Computerizing' Dull Meetings is Touted as an Antidote to the Mouth that Bored," Wall Street Journal, January 28, 1992, pp. B1, B7.

Business Week Special Report (Telecommunica- tions). "A Scramble for Global Networks," Business Week, March 21, 1988, pp. 140-148.

Cass, K., Heintz, T.J., and Kaiser, K.M. "Using a Voice-Synchronous GDSS in Dispersed Locations: A Preliminary Analysis of Partici- pant Satisfaction," Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences, Volume III, IEEE Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, 1991, pp. 554-563.

Chapanis, A., Ochsman, R.B., Parrish, R.N., and Weeks, G.D. "Studies in Interactive Com- munication: I. The Effects of Four Com- munication Modes on the Behavior of Teams During Cooperative Problem-Solving," Human Factors (14:6), December 1972, pp. 487-509.




Chapanis, A., Parrish, R.N., Ochsman, R.B., and Weeks, G.D. "Studies in Interactive Com- munication: II. The Effects of Four Com- munication Modes on the Linguistic Performance of Teams During Cooperative Problem-Solving," Human Factors (19:2), April 1977, pp. 101-126.

Chidambaram, L. and Bostrom, R.P. "Evolution of Group Performance Over Time: A Repeated Measures Study of GDSS Effects," Journal of Organizational Computing (3:4), October- December 1993, forthcoming.

Chidambaram, L. and Chismar, W.G. "Manag- ing Global Communication Networks: Key Challenges for the Nineties," International Journal of Information Management (13:3), June 1993.

Chidambaram, L., Bostrom, R.P., and Wynne, B.E. "A Longitudinal Study of the Impact of Group Decision Support Systems on Group Development," Journal of Management Infor- mation Systems (7:3), Winter 1990-91, pp. 7-25.

Daft, R.L. and Lengel, R.H. "Organizational In- formation Requirements, Media Richness and Structural Design," Management Science (32:5), May 1986, pp. 554-571.

Daft, R.L., Lengel, R.H., and Trevino, L.K. "Message Equivocality, Media Selection and Manager Performance: Implications for Infor- mation Systems," MIS Quarterly (11:3), September 1987, pp. 355-366.

Davis, S. Future Perfect, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading, MA, 1987.

DeJean, D. "The Electronic Workgroup," PC Computing (1:10), October 1988, pp. 72-84.

Dennis, A.R., George, J.F., Jessup, L.M., Nunamaker, J.F., Jr., and Vogel, D.R. "Infor- mation Technology to Support Electronic Meetings," MIS Quarterly (12:4), December 1988, pp. 591-624.

DeSanctis, G. and Gallupe, B.R. "A Foundation for the Study of Group Decision Support Systems," Management Science (33:5), May 1987, pp. 589-609.

Diehl, M. and Stroebe, W. "Productivity Loss in Brainstorming Groups: Toward the Solution of a Riddle," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (53:3), 1987, pp. 497-509.

Dufner, D.K. and Hiltz, S.R. "Distributed Group Support Systems: Experimental Design and Pilot Study," Proceedings of the Twenty-Third

Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences, Volume III, IEEE Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, 1990, pp. 386-393.

Easton, A.C. An Experimental Investigation of Automated Versus Manual Support for Stakeholder Identification and Assumption Surfacing in Small Groups, unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona, Tuc- son, AZ, 1988.

Easton, G.K., George, J.F., Nunamaker, J.F., Jr., and Pendergast, M.O. "Using Two Different Electronic Meeting System Tools for the Same Task: An Experimental Comparison," Journal of Management Information Systems (7:1), Summer 1990, pp. 85-100.

Easton, A.C., Vogel, D.R., and Nunamaker, J.F., Jr. "Stakeholder Identification and Assump- tion Surfacing in Small Groups: An Ex- perimental Study," Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences, Volume III, IEEE Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, 1989, pp. 344-352.

Fellers, J. The Effect of Group Size and Com- puter Support on Group Idea Generation for Creativity Tasks: An Experimental Evaluation Using a Repeated Measures Design, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, 1989.

Finley, M. "New Technology is Changing How Meetings are Conducted," Office Systems (9:5), May 1992, pp. 44-47.

Fulk, J., Steinfield, C., Schmitz, J., and Power, G. "A Social Information Processing Model of Media Use in Organizations," Communication Research (14:5), 1987, pp. 529-552.

Gallupe, B.R. and McKeen, J.D. "Enhancing

249588.pdf

Documents

Transcript of 249588.pdf