Transcript Distributed groups overview - Organization Communication 2014

Distributed Work
Overview
• Today
• Review evidence about effects of distributed
work on task & social outcomes in teams
• Try to understand what problems arise & why
they occur
• Subsequent classes will delve into several of
these problems areas in depth
•
•
•
•
•
•
Common ground & communication effectiveness
The visual element in communication
Why face-to-face communication is distinct
Familiarity
Identity and goal conflicts
Diversity
2
Overview
• Distance collaborations are increasing
• Fewer collaborations start & complete as
distance between collaborators grow
• Distributed software teams take longer to
complete comparable work
• Distributed scientific teams are less
successful in science, education & group
maintenance
• Distributed teams endure more conflict
4
Despite problems, distance work is
frequent & increasing
• How many of you have been part of distributed
teams?
• 67% of companies anticipate increased reliance
on virtual teams
• 80% for companies with 10,000+ employees
• 35% of respondents rated difficulty of
management as top challenge for virtual teams
• 92% said trust is critical for virtual teams
•
Survey by Institute for Corporate Productivity
5
Rise in long distance collaboration
Figure 1. Percent of U.S. publications with international
collaborators by field, 1981-2001 [Sources: National Science Board
(1993-2004),
• International scientific collaboration
6
Distance decreases probability of
collaboration among scientists
• Small distances make a large difference
Figure: Probability of Joint Research Publication in an R&D Lab
7
Problems
8
Distributed software development takes twice as
long
• Distributed software is increasingly common
• But software development takes longer when performed by
geographically distributed teams
• Compare software development efficiency, when all developers are
at one location or distributed across sites
• Two different software development organizations
• Time to complete an “MR” (Modification Request)
Study
Espinosa
Herbsleb
Team type
Single site Multiple site Ratio
48.2
97.2
2.0
5.0
12.7
2.5
Days from start to completion of modification requests
Espinosa, et al. (2007). Familiarity, complexity, and team performance in geographically
distributed software development. Organization Science, 18(4), 613-630.
Herbsleb et al . (2001). An empirical study of global software development: distance and speed. Paper
presented at the Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on software engineering.
9
Cummings & Kiesler (2005; 2007)
Study of Large NSF Projects
• Two studies of the outcomes of large NSF
funding initiatives
• 71 Knowledge & Distributed Intelligence projects
1998/99
• 491 Information Technology Research Projects,
2001-2003
• PIs complete questionnaires describing
• Collaboration composition
• Coordination techniques used
• Scientific & educational success
10
Six types of outcomes
11
Research Model & Consistent Findings
•
•
•
•
Multi-university projects were
less successful than singleuniversity projects
More successful projects
used a variety of specific
coordination mechanisms
Multi-university projects used
fewer coordination
mechanisms than singleuniversity projects
Reduced use of coordination
mechanisms mediated the
relationship between # of
university and performance
Knowledge Outcomes**
Tools Outcomes
t
Training Outcomes**
Outreach Outcomes
Collaboration Outcomes
Leverage Outcomes
t
Number Universities
12
Why?
• What intervening variables influence collaboration
and are harmed by:
• Distance
• Difference in location or setting
• Technology-mediated communication
?
?
Distance
Inputs
Processes
Outputs
• Performance
• Satisfaction
• Group maintenance
15
Why?
• What intervening variables influence collaboration
and are harmed by:
• Distance
• Difference in location or setting
• Technology-mediated communication
Distance
16
With distance
Coordination/Task
• Fewer
communication
events
• Less effective
communication per
episode
Motivation/Socioemotional
• Differences
between distributed
groups
• Lack of common
identity
17
Frequency of Communication
•Communication declines rapidly with
distance
• Communication frequency halves with
doubling of distance with asymptote at
~30 meters
• Shape of curve similar for face-to-face &
phone communication.
• Less steep for email & IM communication
Allen, T. (1977). Managing the flow of technology.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
18
Causes & consequences of reduced
communication
•Why?
•Consequences
19
Causes & consequences of reduced
communication
Why?
Much communication is spontaneous/unintentional
Communication conceived as a Brownian process, enabled by chance encounters
when people come together in space & time
Consequences
Less awareness
Coordination
Information exchange
Liking
20
Information Sharing
Information sharing is less even & complete across
sites than within
•
•
•
•
Frequency of communication
Willingness to share
Knowledge of who knows what
Effects of technology
Priorities are better aligned and coordination is more
successful within sites than between
21
Social Identity
Groups split across location tend to be less cohesive
than collocated groups
• Pre-existing differences across sites (culture, local
loyalties, language)  cleavages
• Reduced contact  less individual liking
• Social categorization effects: Us vs. them
Less cooperation between sites than within sites
22
Motivation
Identity
Information
Herbsleb et al: Differences between collocated and distributed
software development
Survey item
I lose time trying to figure out who to contact regarding my work
People I need to communicate with are difficult to find
There have been times when I was accidentally excluded from
information which was shared byt my coworkers
I often get useful, worked related information through casual
conversation
My coworkers provide timely information about changes in current plans
I feel like I'm part of the same team as my coworkers
I feel accepted by my coworkers as team members
My coworkers and I share the same team spirit
My coworkers and I have work styles that fit well together
During meetings, my coworkers and I do our best to produce mutually
beneficial solutions to problems
I assist my coworkers with heavy worklaods, beyond what I am required
to do
My coworkers assist me with heavy workloads, beyond what they are
required to do
Collocated Distributed
Low <
High
Low
Low
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
<
<
>
Low
>
>
>
>
>
>
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Equal
Equal
High
High
High
>
Low
Herbsleb, J. D., Mock<us, A., Finholt, T. A., & Grinter, R. E. (2001). An empirical study of global software development:
distance and speed. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on software engineering.
23
Shared Context:
Cramton, Mutual Knowledge Problem
Members confronted by different contexts & pressures
• Members in different organizations  different value systems
• Members in different nations  different calendars and deadlines
• Members in different units  different workloads
Remote members don’t recognize contextual constraints on
behavior  attribute problems to personal instead of
situational causes
• E.g., Absence attributed to unresponsiveness or laziness, instead
of competing demands or holiday.
Cramton, C. D. (2001). The mutual knowledge problem and its consequences
for dispersed collaboration. Organization Science, 12(3), 346-371.
24
Interpersonal conflict
28
Quality of Communication Episodes
• Many telecom technologies lack important features of
face-to-face communication
• Email: Non-interactive, simultaneous, sequence not preserved
• Phone: Looses visual information –both context of discussion &
details of discussants
• Video: Delay, asymmetrical fields of view, problems of resolutions &
control
• Technology mediated communication is generally
more effortful & less effective than face-to-face
communication
• More difficult to develop common ground
• More difficult to express subtleties of emotion
• Technology mediated communication can offer useful
features unavailable in face-to-face settings &
improve conversation
• Simultaneous input
• Archive of the discussion
29
Resources Available from Collocation
• Shared space
• Development of common ground
• Pick up information from the periphery
• Ease of reconfiguration
30
Collocation Improves Communication
31
32