Transcript Can Communication Medium Limitations Foster Better Group

Slide 1
© Ned Kock
The E-Collaboration Paradox:
Evidence from Two Empirical
Studies
Ned Kock
Slide 2
© Ned Kock
The e-collaboration paradox
• Media naturalness proposition
– The less face-to-face-like a medium is, the more
obstacles exist for effective communication.
• Compensatory adaptation proposition
– Often individuals avoid using “unnatural”
media, but, if they decide to use them, those
individuals compensate for the communication
obstacles posed by the media.
Slide 3
© Ned Kock
Study 1
An Experimental Study of 20 Process
Redesign Dyads
Analysis Method Used: Comparison of
Means (ANOVA & Mann-Whitney U
Tests)
Slide 4
© Ned Kock
Participants
• The research study involved subjects with
substantial hands-on experience in process
redesign in the defense sector, recruited from
management and engineering ranks of a
large defense contractor.
• Their ages ranged from 23 to 60, with a
mean age of 35. Fifty-nine percent of the
subjects were males.
Slide 5
© Ned Kock
Treatment conditions
• The subjects were randomly assigned to dyads and
to communication media conditions.
• Each dyad completed two similar process redesignrelated tasks using different communication media
for each task.
• Half of the dyads (i.e., 10 dyads) completed one of
the tasks face-to-face while the other half
completed the same task electronically.
• After this, all dyads moved on to the next task,
using different media than they had used in the
previous task – that is, the dyads previously
interacting face-to-face now interacted
electronically and vice-versa.
Slide 6
© Ned Kock
Electronic communication
medium
• A set of Web-based threaded online discussion
boards created the electronic communication media
employed in the experiment.
• The online discussion boards were developed using
Microsoft Frontpage 2000 and Active Server Pages.
• They were used in a quasi-synchronous manner –
i.e., they were “refreshed” at short time intervals,
creating an online chat-like environment where the
discussions were threaded.
• One Web-based online discussion board was
created for each dyad. All online discussion boards
were identical.
Slide 7
© Ned Kock
Variables and measures
• Cognitive effort
– Measured based on NASA’s task load index (a.k.a.
NASA-TLX) developed by Hart and colleagues (Hart
and Staveland, 1988).
• Communication ambiguity
– Measured based on an instrument previously developed
and validated by Kock (2001), answered on a 1 to 7
Likert-type scale.
• Message preparation
– Measured based on an instrument previously developed
and validated by Kock (2001), answered on a 1 to 7
Likert-type scale.
© Ned Kock
Variables and measures
Slide 8
Slide 9
© Ned Kock
Variables and measures
• Fluency
– Measured by counting the number of words exchanged
by the members of the dyads and dividing it by the
number of minutes each dyad took to complete the task
(Kock, 1998).
• Task outcome quality
– Measured by comparing the process sketches generated
by the dyad members with “correct” models (Kock and
Murphy, 2001). Two different coders generated
“similarity scores” used to assess task outcome quality
independently.
Slide 10
© Ned Kock
Results
Variable
Cognitive
effort
Communication
ambiguity
Message
preparation
Task outcome
quality
Mean
face-to-face
55.01
St. dev.
face-to-face
20.23
Mean
electronic
77.76
St. dev.
electronic
25.12
F
p
9.94
< .01
2.47
1.55
4.44
2.00
12.11
< .01
2.99
1.78
4.41
1.79
6.34
< .05
4.06
1.69
3.91
1.61
.09
.77
Table 1a: Descriptive statistics and one-way MANOVA results for all variables but fluency
Variable
Fluency
Mean
face-to-face
71.01
St. dev.
face-to-face
15.75
Mean
electronic
16.58
St. dev.
electronic
5.93
Z
p
-2.83
< .01
Table 1b: Descriptive statistics and Mann-Whitney U test results in connection with fluency
Slide 11
© Ned Kock
Results
Fluen cy
Task outcome quali ty
Electronic
Message pr epara tion
Face-to-face
Com munication ambiguity
Cognitive effor t
0
2
4
6
8
Slide 12
© Ned Kock
Results
– The results suggest that the use of an ecollaboration tool, when compared with the faceto-face medium, increased perceived cognitive
effort by about 41%, perceived communication
ambiguity by about 80%, and perceived message
preparation by about 47%, while at the same
time reducing fluency by approximately 77%.
– The study also suggests that the use of the ecollaboration tool had no significant impact on
the quality of the outcomes generated by the
dyads.
Slide 13
© Ned Kock
Conclusion
• The study supports the e-collaboration paradox
notion
– Media naturalness proposition
• The less face-to-face-like a medium is, the more obstacles exist
for effective communication – obsv. cognitive effort,
communication ambiguity.
– Compensatory adaptation proposition
• Often individuals avoid using “unnatural” media, but, if they
decide to use them, those individuals compensate for the
communication obstacles posed by the media – obsv. message
preparation, fluency, task outcomes.
Slide 14
© Ned Kock
Study 2
An Survey Study of 290 New Product
Development Teams
Analysis Method Used: Structural
Equation Modeling (PLS)
Slide 15
© Ned Kock
Participants
• Contact persons in a variety of technology-based
companies in the Northeastern USA were selected
to participate in the study.
• To be included in this study, each company must
have developed a product that had been launched
into the marketplace and commercialized for at
least six months.
• Data from 290 new product development projects
in 66 companies were obtained.
Slide 16
© Ned Kock
Research instrument
• A questionnaire developed based on previous
research on NPD teams (Kessler and
Chakrabarti, 1999; Lynn et al 2000) was
used.
• All constructs in the study were measured
using multiple-item scales, which in turn
were Likert-type scales (0 = “Strongly
Disagree” to 10 = “Strongly Agree”).
Slide 17
© Ned Kock
Constructs and measures
Slide 18
© Ned Kock
Constructs and measures
Slide 19
© Ned Kock
Structural model
H1
(neutral)
Electronic
communication
use
H3
(positive)
Procedural
structuring
H5
(positive)
H2
(neutral)
Team
efficiency
H4
(positive)
H6
(positive)
Team
effectiveness
© Ned Kock
Slide 20
Results
H1
(β=-.009)
Electronic
communication
use
Team
efficiency
R2=.226
H3
(β=.351)*
Procedural
structuring
H4
(β=.460)*
R2=.123
H6
(β=.488)*
H5
(β=.090)
Notes:
T values were calculated through the
bootstrapping method; * Significant at p
< .001 in a one-tailed test
H2
(β=.102)
Team
effectiveness
R2=.315
Slide 21
© Ned Kock
Conclusion
• The study supports the e-collaboration paradox
notion
– Media naturalness proposition
• The use of electronic communication (as opposed to the face-toface medium) induces procedural structuring, which suggests an
attempt (through procedural structuring) to compensate for
media obstacles.
– Compensatory adaptation proposition
• Procedural structuring has a stronger effect on task outcome
variables than electronic communication use, as individuals
compensate (or perhaps overcompensate) for the
communication obstacles posed by the electronic
communication media.
Slide 22
© Ned Kock
Implications
• Development of e-collaboration tools in
situations where compensatory adaptation is:
– Desirable and unhindered
– Desirable but hindered (e.g., cognitive fatigue
situations)
– Undesirable (e.g., entertainment-related B2C
situations)
Slide 23
© Ned Kock
Key references
Final slide
• Kock, N. (2004), The Psychobiological Model: Toward a New
Theory of Computer-mediated Communication Based on
Darwinian Evolution, Organization Science, V.15, No.3, pp.
327-348.
• Kock, N. (2001), Compensatory Adaptation to a Lean
Medium: An Action Research Investigation of Electronic
Communication in Process Improvement Groups, IEEE
Transactions on Professional Communication, V.44, No.4, pp.
267-285.
• Kock, N. (1998), Can Communication Medium Limitations
Foster Better Group Outcomes? An Action Research Study,
Information & Management, V.34, No.5, pp. 295-305.
Available from: http://www.tamiu.edu/~nedkock/
© Ned Kock
Emergence of
modern humans,
i.e., Homo sapiens
sapiens, about
100,000 years ago.
Emergence of early
Homo sapiens
grades, e.g., Homo
sapiens
neanderthalensis.
Emergence of
genus Homo, e.g.,
Homo habilis and
erectus.
Emergence of the
genus
Australopithecine,
e.g.,
Australopithecus
afarensis and
africanus.
Early
Slide
development of
symbolic
communication
artifacts, e.g.,
cave paintings,
about 30,000
years ago.
FtF
communication
through
complex speech.
FtF
communication
through
rudimentary
speech.
FtF
communication
through facial
expressions and
simple sounds.
24
© Ned Kock
E-communication behavior
theories
Slide 25
© Ned Kock
E-communication behavior
theories (contd. 1)
Slide 26
© Ned Kock
E-communication behavior
theories (contd. 2)
Slide 27
© Ned Kock
E-communication behavior
theories (contd. 3)
Slide 28