collaborative computing work groups (166166499)

7/29/2019 Collaborative Computing Work Groups (166166499)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/collaborative-computing-work-groups-166166499 1/45

Collaborative Computing Work Groups

CAUSE INFORMATION RESOURCES LIBRARY

The attached document is provided through the CAUSEInformation Resources Library.

As part of the CAUSE Information Resources Program, theLibrary provides CAUSE members access to a collection ofinformation related to the development, use, management, andevaluation of information resources- technology, services,and information- in higher education. Most of the documentshave not been formally published and thus are not in generaldistribution.

Statements of fact or opinion in the attached document aremade on the responsibility of the author(s) alone and do notimply an opinion on the part of the CAUSE Board of Directors,officers, staff, or membership.

This document was contributed by the named organization tothe CAUSE Information Resources Library. It is theintellectual property of the author(s). Permission to copy

or disseminate all or part of this material is grantedprovided that the copies are not made or distributed forcommercial advantage, that the title and organization thatsubmitted the document appear, and that notice is given thatthis document was obtained from the CAUSE InformationResources Library. To copy or disseminate otherwise, or torepublish in any form, requires written permission from thecontributing organization. For further information: CAUSE,4840 Pearl East Circle, Suite 302E, Boulder, CO 80301; 303-449-4430; e-mail [email protected].

To order a hard copy of this document contact CAUSE or sende-mail to

[email protected].

Collaborative Computing Work Groups



by

Jacqueline RobertsonB.A, Grad Dip Soc Sci (Social Research)Department of Sociology.

Submitted in fulfilment of the requirementsfor theMaster of Arts (Qualifying)University of Tasmania, November 1991.

This thesis contains no material which has been accepted for the award ofany other higher degree or graduate diploma in any other tertiaryinstitution. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the thesis containsno material previously published or written by another person, exceptwhen due reference is made in the text.

Jacqueline RobertsonNovember 1991.

Executive Summary

This paper investigates the use of information technology to support group work.Groups are a more productive, innovative, creative and effective way of carrying out work . Group work has many benefits but its main advantage is that it allows information to be shared and resources to be pooled. To enable group work to becarried out efficiently and effectively groups need to overcome problems leading

to disunity, or productivity losses. The main problems in group work arecoordination and communication. Information technology provides a way ofreducing these problems and of allowing groups to work more effectively.

One way of achieving this is through computer mediated communication, allowing individuals to communicate with one another via their computers. The advantageof computer mediated communication is that it is a quick and efficient means ofcommunication. It allows individuals to communicate across the barriers ofdistance and time.



There are various forms of computer mediated communication. Computerconferencing is one example. It allows people in dispersed locations to carryout synchronous discussions via their computer terminals. This paper presentsresearch into the differences between computer conferences and focus groups, asan example of how computer mediated interaction differs from face to faceinteraction. Because computer conferences lack the non-verbal cues and normsassociated with regular face to face conversation there is no mechanism toregulate the discussion, or signal changing of speakers, thus they tend to bedisorderly and confused. Attempts to apply more structure have not beensuccessful. The structured conference is slower, participants are not asinvolved and tend to lose interest. There are instances when computerconferencing can be a suitable substitute for a face to face meeting,particularly in problem solving where members need to reach consensus.

There are stages of the problem solving process where it is more appropriate tohave a face to face meeting. This is particularly true in the problemdefinition stage. In an organizational context where it is possible for membersto meet face to face interaction can occur. However what if the groupincorporates a number of individuals who are situated at different locations and for whom it is impractical, unfeasible or simply impossible to meet face toface. One way to overcome this difficulty is by using alternative group methodssuch as nominal group techniques. With the assistance of information technology

nominal group techniques can be a useful way of carrying out a problem solvinggroup, particularly in the problem formulation stage of the project. A specificexample of this type of group using international membership is discussed in the paper.

The use of computing technology creates numerous opportunities for group workwhether it is task or problem based. For this technology to be successfulcareful attention must be paid to its design. Computing companies and softwaredevelopers need to take into account the way individuals work in groups, whatthese groups need and what innovations the technology can provide. As group work becomes more important and as the information technology to support this type

of collaborative work advances, further research into the implications ofinformation technology needs to undertaken. The collaborative computing workgroup is emerging as an important and integral part of the organization.

Acknowledgements

First, I would like to thank Ken Reed for his guidance, advice,suggestions and encouragement. Also, Richard Volpato for his directionand various enlightening insights.

To my colleagues in the M.Qual/M.Soc.Sci "group", Maria Jeffries, KimGrey, Peta Mackay, Lyell Wilson, Marnie Bower and Christopher Pownall ,many thanks for your support, encouragement and understanding.

Thanks to Steven Bittenger and Sue Mulcahy for offering interestingperspectives on the nature of computing work.

Finally, thanks to all the students who gave up their time to participatein the focus groups and to all those people across the international



network who volunteered their services, your enthusiasm and interest wasinspiring.

Table of Contents

Introduction: What are Collaborative Computing Work Groups 1

1 : The Changing Nature of Work 21.1 Societal Change 21.2 Technological Change 41.3 Organizational Change 5

2 : Work Groups and Productivity 92.1Productivity 92.2Characteristics of Groups 102.3Types of Group 122.4Alternate Groups 132.5Advantages of Group Work 142.6Disadvantages of Group Work 15

3 : Work Groups and Computers 183.1 Computer Mediated Communication: Meeting a need193.2Basic Advantages of CMC 20

3.3Electronic News Groups and Bulletin Boards 213.4Electronic Mail 233.5Computer Conferencing 263.6Dispersed Work Groups 263.7Integrating CMC into Group Work 273.8Other Tools for Collaborative WorkÊ 283.9Group Decision Support Systems 283.10 Groupware 29

4 : Face to Face and Computer Mediated Groups- Focus Groups and Computer Conferencing : An Example 314.1 Computer Conferencing 314.2 Focus Groups 32

4.3 The Research Project 324.4 The Results 374.5 Starting Off 374.6 The Role of the Moderator 384.7 Regulating Discussion and Taking Turns 394.8 Prompts 404.9 Non verbal Cues 414.10 Participation an Interaction Patterns 424.11 Control 434.12 Content 434.13 Communcation Efficiency - understanding 444.14 Ambience 454.15 Computer Conferencing : Some Suggestions 46

5 : Computerising Problem Oriented Groups 48Ê5.1 Nominal Group Techniques (NGT) 495.2 Delphi Groups 51Ê5.3 NGT, Delphi and CMC 515.4 NGT Project 525.5 The Topic 525.6 Finding Participants 535.7 Advantages of Using Computerized NGT 54



6 : Collaborative Computing Work Groups - A Conclusion 556.1 Face to Face Groups 556.2 Computer Based Groups 566.3 Combining Methods 586.4 Future Directions 59

Introduction: What are Collaborative Computing Work Groups?

A work group is a collection of two or more people working togethercollectively and cooperatively on a shared project. A collaborativework group is a work group whose members are dependent on one anotherto carry out their work. They must combine their resources andinteract with the other members of the group in order to produce thefinal product. The members of the group work toward a common set ofobjectives, and achieve this by dividing tasks and collaborating. Acollaborative computing work group is one which is not only relianton the other members of the group but also on the computingtechnology to achieve an effective result and to reinforce thecollaboration.

These collabortive computing work groups can take many forms. Theymay be a group of people working in a task force team in an

organization, a group of academics co-authoring a book, a number ofresearchers collaborating on a joint venture, some students workingtogether on a combined project, or a group of committee membersdeveloping a long term plan. These groups all work collaborativelytogether and with the aid of computing technology can do so moreeffectively. The type of work these groups are involved in istypically office based work involving information. This type of workis what Galegher, Kraut and Edigo (1990) call "intellectualteamwork".As we move into the "information society" these types of work groupsare becoming not only an important but a necessary way of carryingout work.

In this paper I will investigate how by adopting alternative grouptechniques and using computing and communications resources groupwork can be not only supported and enhanced but modified. There are arange of group methods and tools which can be used by groups. Theseinclude electronic mail, computer conferencing , groupware andnominal group techniques.

This is an new and growing area and the emerging characteristics ofthese collaborative computing work groups have to be understood interms of wider social change.

1.The Changing Nature of Work

There are three main factors which set the stage for the emergence ofcollaborative computing work groups .These are :¥ societal change and change in the nature of work,¥ technological change and developments in micro computing andcommunications and¥ organizational change and change in the role of management.



1.1 Societal Change

Various models of development have traced the emergence of today'ssociety through sequential stages from a pre-industrial society to anindustrial one. Bell (1973) developed a model of societal changebased on the changes occurring in the economic sector. His theory wasthat just as society had progressed from a pre-industrial society toan industrial one through the process of industrialisation so it willcontinue to develop and move into what he coined the "post-industrialsociety". Bell's model incorporated the move from one stage ofdevelopment to the next facilitated by developments taking place intechnology.

For Bell the move from pre-industrial to post industrial wasaccompanied by change in patterns in employment. In a pre-industrialsociety people had been employed in primary industry such asagriculture. In industrial society there was a rise in employment insecondary industry, particularly in manufacturing, and in postindustrial society the majority of employment is increasingly in thetertiary sector in white collar jobs. As society becomes moreindustrialised and developments in technology increase, work in theprimary and secondary sectors is becoming more intensive andautomated requiring a smaller number of workers to carry it out.

Bell predicted that the increase in the tertiary sector would beparticularly in the number of people employed in services, and thatwork would be carried out by professional and technical workers aswell as scientists. Evidence for his argument on the emergence of theservice industry came from data showing a shift in employment fromprimary and secondary jobs to tertiary jobs especially those inservices. Bell argued that there had been a rise in the consumptionof services. His argument stemmed from the Engel's law which says 'that we have a hierarchy of needs, and that as the most pressing aresatisfied , so our increasing means are devoted to the less pressing;that is, that our proportionate marginal expenditure on necessitiesdecreases as our income increases. Thus as economies become richerthen they will spend less on necessities and there will be a new

demand created, a new need which will be met by services.'(Gershuny,1978 : 71) However this assumed that services had to be produced andthen delivered.

Gershuny follows a different argument. Rather than an increase inconsumption of services there has been an increase in the consumptionof service related goods. He explains the increase in service sectoremployment by showing that people employed in the service industryare also concerned with the production of goods as well as services .for while increased service consumption necessarilyrequires more service workers, more service workers doesnot necessarily imply more consumption of services forservice workers are also concerned in the manufacture of

goods.(Gershuny, 1978)

What Gershuny saw was a move towards a self-service economy ratherthan a service one. The increase in wealth produces new categoriesof demand which are meet by goods rather than services. These aregoods which traditionally were service oriented such as domesticservices which have been replaced by domestic machines, transportservices by cars, and entertainment service by record players,television and video. For Gershuny an increase in income will lead toindividuals making their own choices about what they want and the



self service industry is more geared to this, allowing thepreservation of individual choice and preference.

The importance of information is a key element of the emerging post-industrial society. For Bell this information is in the form of'theoretical knowledge.' The more services are produced, the morethey are produced by specialists. This sort of specialism requiresknowledge or expertise . We have seen this happening in the medicalprofession. Whereas traditionally there was one type of doctor whocarried out all medical functions there are now a number ofspecialists each concerned with there own special area of medicine.The General Practitioner is the mediating point between these variousspecialists.

However if there is a move towards self-service rather than service,then rather than a growth in knowledge or expertise there will be agrowth instead of self-service technologies and information abouttheir use. This paper investigates such technologies and the way theyare integrated into a new type of group work.

1. 2 Technological Change

Advances in technology have boomed in recent years . There are nowmany technologies all competing for acceptance in society.Developments in computing technologies have seen the emergence inimportance of the microcomputer allowing computers to be placed onevery desktop in the work place and in the home. The expanding areaof communications has enabled these personal computers to beconnected via networks, to share resources and to allow communicationbetween the users. Reductions in the costs associated with computingand communications have increased the rate of expansion and adoptionof these technologies in organizations.

There are two types of technology - 'prescriptive' and'permissive'(Galegher and Kraut, 1991). Prescriptive technology is

technology which is developed to solve problems which exist in thecurrent structure, to ' remedy flaws in current practices', whereaspermissive technologies are those which enable things to be donewhich were not possible before.Technology allows us to do what wehave done in the past more efficiently . Computers enable work to beautomated. Thus a greater amount can be achieved at a quicker rate.They also allow us to do what we were unable to achieve with the oldstructures , giving us new ways, opportunities and possibilities forwork.

Thus these emerging computing and communication technologies havefirst - level, efficiency effects and second -level, or social system

effects . (Sproull and Kiesler, 1991).First -level effects of communication technology are theanticipated technical ones- the planned efficiency gains orproductivity gains that justify an investment in newtechnology....Second-level effects from communicationtechnologies come about primarily because new communicationtechnology leads people to pay attention to differentthings, have contact with different people, and depend onone another differently. Change in attention means changein how people spend their time and in what they think is



important. Change in social contact patterns means changein who people know and how they feel about them . Change ininterdependence means change in what people do with andfor each other and how these coupled functions areorganized in norms, roles, procedures, jobs anddepartments.(4,5)

Technology changes the way people work and the structure of theworking environment. As society becomes more modernised and astechnology comes to be more predominant in the work place then therewill be structural changes in the nature of work and how this work iscarried out. As we move further into the "information age"technology is growing in importance. As new technologies aredeveloped and modified the possibility of a self-service societywhere people use the technology to obtain information for themselves,rather than going through intermediaries or being serviced by others,is coming into existence.

1.3 Organizational Change

Work is becoming increasingly information based with more peopleworking in the tertiary sector in skilled, white collar jobs.Technology has had an enormous impact on the nature of work.

Computing technology in particular has revolutionised office basedwork. As society becomes more complex and reliant on information, andas technology places additional pressures on the old work structures,organizations must adapt to meet these demands. Organizationsincreasingly need to assess the usefulness of their traditionalstructures and look for more productive and effective innovations inthe way they produce, organize and manage work.

In response to international competition and theaccelerating pace of technological and market change,organizations have attempted to become more flexible andadaptable. One way to do this is to push decision makingdown the organizational hierarchy, assigning the freedom

and responsibility to respond to threats and opportunitiesto task forces and project teams.(Andona and Caldwell,1990: 174)

With the increase in complexity in society, the growth in importanceof information based work and changes in the technology to supportthis work, it is becoming necessary for organizations to reassess andreorganize their structures and to adapt to meet these changes. Aswork becomes increasingly information based and specialised therewill be a rise in the importance of specialists in the organization,which in turn will lead to the degeneration of the hierarchicalstructure of the organization. No longer will the power be held atthe top of the hierarchy. There will be decline of middle management,

a flatter organizational structure will result , and work will beconcentrated in the hands of teams or groups.

As work becomes more and more dependent on information thenorganizations will come to rely on those who are able to carry outthis type of work effectively. There will be an increase in thenumber of specialists within the organization, who can deal withinformation work. These specialised workers will be organised intask-focused teams and will operate collaboratively much the same asin such organizations as the hospital or the orchestra. (Drucker,



1988) The new organization will see the decline of the oldhierarchical structure and the emergence of a much flatterorganizational structure. (Kanter, 1989 ; Drucker, 1988) Knowledgewill no longer come from the top of the hierarchy but will beconcentrated in the lower levels with the specialists. This willresult in the weakening of middle management.

Organizations must change if they want to be competitive and thisinvolves adopting innovative structures. No longer can theorganization operate through a hierarchical system of management.'As work units become more participative and team oriented, and asprofessionals and knowledge workers become more prominent, thedistinction between manager and nonmanager begins to erode.'(1989:88)

Managers must learn to work collaboratively both within their owndepartment and across other departments. Managers have to startthinking "cross-functionally", working as integrators andfacilitators. The decline in hierarchical structure will challengethe role of the manager and their power. (Kanter, 1989)

So the new organizations are becoming more and more informationbased and as more specialists are employed the organizationalstructure will become flatter and the role of management will change.

But what is necessary for these new organizations to work, to besuccessful? One of the things which is important is the workersperception of their work and of their involvement in the finalproduct. To achieve this organizations are looking to more short termprojects or assignments . These projects typically involve groups orwhat Drucker calls 'task-focused teams.'

The best way to motivate people is by making them believe in theimportance of their work, giving them control over their work andoffering them an opportunity to learn and develop (Kanter, 1989).This can happen if they work on specific projects and workassignments where the gains are short-term . There is a clearerrelationship between the worker and the final product and this will

foster pride and motivation in the worker.

This sense of ownership, along with a definite time frame,can spur higher levels of effort .Whenever people areengaged in creative or problem-solving projects that willhave tangible results by deadline dates , they tend to comein at all hours, to think about the project in their sparetime, to invest in it vast sums of physical and emotionalenergy. Knowing that the project will end and thatcompletion will be an occasion for reward and recognitionmakes it possible to work harder.(Kanter 1989: 92 )

Drucker follows a similar argument. He sees that there needs to be

more emphasis on the individuals to be responsible for their work andtheir communication with others. The only way that such anorganization will survive is if people work together .'The key tosuch a system is that everyone asks :Who in this organization dependson me for what information? And on whom, in turn do I depend?'(Drucker, 1988 :49 )To work effectively within the organizationspecialists must have sense of the whole, 'a common vision' so thatthey can work toward something so that they can 'perceive andcomplete a whole task.' This will only occur if workers have 'prideand professionalism' in their work and that they will achieve this by



working in task forces as 'self-governing units'.(Drucker, 1988)

With changes at the societal level in the economic sector resultingin an increased number of people employed in the tertiary sector ininformation based jobs, coupled with developments in computingtechnology and communications there has developed a need fororganizational change. As work becomes more specialised andconcentrated in the hands of the specialists there needs to be a wayof coordinating this work. Thus the need for work to be carried outby work groups. If a worker has only specialised knowledge and skillsin his particular area then he is dependent on other workers toprovide the missing links. As work becomes more dispersed such workcan be "serviced" by a range of support staff or can be supportedthrough self-service supports and collegial work styles.

2. Why Work in Groups?

It is becoming more important for work to be carried out by groupsrather than by individuals. The question then becomes whether or notgroup work is necessarily more productive than non-group work.Working in groups has several main advantages which all lead toincreases in productivity. However there are also some disadvantagesin group work which cannot be overlooked.

2.1 Productivity

Changes in technology have led to changes in the type of work peopledo and in the way they carry out their work. Traditional measures ofproductivity were based on the nature of the work performed.Unskilled labour required measures of output typically based aroundthe number of lines written, or number of forms processed . Howeverinformation work requires new standards of assessment. Technology hasincreased the speed and the amount of work which can be processed.More work can be completed in less time and with less effort.

Information work requires different types of skills. It requiresspecialised mind skills. The basis for the evaluation of which can nolonger be the amount of work produced but rather the quality of thework. New productivity measures need to be developed to assess thisinformation work .

Efficiency has been replaced by effectiveness as a measure ofproductivity. More attention should be paid to alternative ways ofcompleting tasks and innovative approaches to work.

Johnson and Rice (1987 ) in their study looking at the adoption ofword processing in organizations obtained data from around 200organizations . They found that there are 'many approaches that

organizations may take to improve productivity, performance,innovation and creativity. ' These included the development of team-building and group problem solving skills, improving the flow of workbetween departments, and ongoing productivity measurement, along withothers.

Thus in considering whether a group is productive we need to takeinto account not only whether it is efficient but also whether it iseffective. Is working in groups a more efficient, effective,innovative and creative way of working? Are groups more productive?



2.2 Characteristics of Groups

There are numerous types of work groups of varying combinations.Their compositions differ as do the purposes for which they have beenassembled. In discussing groups and the technology used to supporttheir work it is necessary to define those characteristics whichallow us to draw comparisons and to distinguish between them.

Task Oriented and Problem OrientedTask oriented groups incorporate a number of members who areinvolved in carrying out specific tasks. They are usually projectbased groups brought together for a set period of time to worktogether until the project has been completed. Alternatively they aremembers of a particular organization who form a continuing group tocarry out a set of related tasks. Often these types of groups arecalled teams.

Problem oriented groups are often convened for only a short time,sometimes only one meeting . They usually involve a group of peoplewho join their resources to solve a particular problem, whether it isto brainstorm ideas, plan a course of action or make a decision.These groups are usually held to discuss a certain issue or set of

issues. They can take the form of meetings, discussion groups,conferences, workshops. The key element that divides this type ofgroup from task oriented groups is discussion.

Some groups may incorporate stages where they are task oriented andothers where they are problem oriented.

Formal and Ad HocThe formal work group has relatively permanent membership,ongoing tasks, and routinized reporting relationships withinthe organization. Members typically work in close proximity.

Over time they elaborate personal relationships, division oflabor, norms, and routines for communication to support theirwork.... Over time, skills and information of group membersbecome more group-specific and norms more implicit. There isless communication on how to work together and more on the workitself. These processes improve coordination and increasecommitment to the group. (Finholt, Sproull, Kiesler, 1990 : 291- 292)

Ad hoc groups 'are convened for a particular purpose, consist ofmembers who would not otherwise work together , and disband aftercompleting their assigned task.'(Finholt, Sproull, Kiesler, 1990 :292 ) Ad hoc groups are temporary and are more flexible than formal

groups.

Permanent and TemporaryGroups are held together for varying amounts of time. Some groups mayonly meet once and for just one hour. Others are temporary or short-term and only exist for the duration of the project. There aregroups whose relationship is continuing and who will work togetheron long -term projects and those who are permanently employed andcarry out a number of projects. The membership of work groups andteams is often flexible, membership of the groups change and people



are involved in a number of teams working on various projects. Themove is away from permanent membership of groups with fixed tasks topart -time groups involved in multiple projects.

Face to Face and DispersedFace - to -face groups are those who have come together to meet atthe same time and place, usually to discuss a certain issue as in afocus group, generate ideas through brainstorming or other grouptechniques, or reach a consensus and make a decision about policyissues or planning possible future actions.

The advantage of face to face (ftf) groups is that you have a numberof people together in the one place and can draw on the resources ofmany minds focusing on the particular issue.

The combined effort of the group will produce a wider range ofinformation, insight, and ideas than will the culmination ofthe responses of a number of individuals when these replies aresecured privately. (Stewart and Shamdasani, 1990 : 19)

Dispersed work groups are those which are separated by distance. Themembers are situated at distant locations which often inhibits

regular meetings posing further problems for coordination andcommunication of members.

2.3 Types of GroupsThese group characteristics can be seen in different types of groups.

Self -managing TeamsThese types of teams are also called autonomous work groups.They 'differ form traditional work groups primarily in who controlsthe critical managing processes and the set of tasks the group workson...Self-managing teams are groups of individuals who can self-regulate work on their interdependent tasks'. (Goodman, Devadas and

Griffith, 198 : 296)

These are task oriented groups. They can take many forms . They canbe temporary or permanent ,face to face or dispersed depending on themembership of the group.

Focus GroupsA focus group is a type of indepth interview in which a number ofpeople are brought together to discuss a certain issue or number ofissues. The focus group is a collection of individuals, usuallybetween six and twelve people who are representative of a certainsection of the community. Focus groups are often used in research toobtain a low cost and quick way of gathering data on the attitudes of

a particular group. Often focus groups are used in market researchwhen measuring the effectiveness of a particular advertisingcampaign or product. They may be used in evaluating a particularprogram, or in developing planning strategies. Focus groups areproblem oriented , temporary, ad hoc and face to face.

Brainstorming GroupsThe objective of brainstorming groups is to generate as many ideas aspossible. The idea is to stimulate the members to think innovativelyand creatively about various issues. The important aim in



brainstorming groups is the amount of ideas generated, rather thanthe quality of the ideas. Brainstorming groups are problem oriented,temporary, ad hoc and face to face.

2.4 Alternate GroupsTo allow groups to work more effectively it is sometimes necessary toadopt alternative techniques and tools to support the work of thegroup and to obtain more productive results.

Nominal GroupsNominal Group technique (NGT) is a method for structuring smallgroup meetings that allows individual judgments to beeffectively pooled and used in situations in which uncertaintyor disagreement exists about the nature of a problem or possiblesolution.(Moore, 1987 : 13)

The traditional nominal group technique is a problem oriented group,temporary, ad hoc and face to face. However recent nominal groupshave tended to be dispersed.

Nominal groups are groups in name only. They are usually made up ofmembers who are experts in a particular field. The idea behind anominal group is that you can collect the opinions of variousindividuals and integrate them into a group product. Members ideas on

certain issues are collected, summarised and then redistributed forfurther comment. Nominal group techniques are often adopted byproblem oriented groups.

Delphi GroupsDelphi is a variation of nominal group technique. It involves a groupof experts who remain anonymous and who do not meet. Delphi comesfrom the Greek Oracles of Delphi who were involved in predictingfuture events. Delphi groups then are groups whose main purpose is toforecast changes and trends. Delphi is a method which is often usedin forecasting possible future developments in technology.The delphi method involves getting members to write their forecastson a particular topic. Their ideas are then collected and summarized

and the major points are outlined and sent to the members who areasked to make further predictions based on the information providedby the group.

Computer Mediated GroupsComputer mediated groups can be task oriented or problem oriented.They may be formal or ad hoc, temporary or permanent. However theirkey element is that they are dispersed. They are groups which aresituated at distant locations, who are connected by a computernetwork and who use a computer to communicate with people across thenetwork.

2.5 Advantages of Group Work

A work group is more than a group of people working in the same placeat the same time, and more than the combined results of individuals'work. Work groups involve collaboration. Collaboration involvesworking cooperatively with members of the group relying on each otherto complete their section of the work. Collaboration has a number ofadvantages.

people collaborate because collaboration changes theprocess of research for them in desirable ways...working



with another person was simply more fun than working alone.They also believed that working with another improved thequality of the research product, because of the synthesisof ideas it afforded, the feedback they received from eachother, and the new skills they learned. (Kraut, Edigo andGalegher 1990 : 152)

If you want a job done quickly you split it up into tasks anddelegate. You get different people to concentrate on a specific taskeach. So with each person putting in a maximum effort then theproject will be completed in a shorter time. This is true if you areinterested in achieving quick results. However the same principle isalso true if you are interested in the quality of the work. Thus thesaying : "Two heads are better than one ". If you want to achieve ahigher quality result then you will do so if you combine the minds ofseveral people.

So collaborative groups can be seen to be more productive thanindividual work in so far as they :

¥ Generate a greater number of ideas.This is because there are more people working on producing the ideas.

Osborn (1957), a major proponent of "brainstorming "

techniques in problem solving, posited " the average personcan think up twice as many ideas when working with a groupthan working alone. (Delbecq, Van de Ven and Gustafon 1975: 16)

¥ Produce a better quality of work.By combining the resources of people with different knowledge anddiverse expertise there will be a greater range of inputs and thiswill raise the quality of the work. Johnson and Rice found that'word processing centers and distributed installations worked bestwhen they operated as work groups rather than collections ofindividual operators/users'. (1987 : 199)

¥ Allow information to be shared.As work becomes increasingly specialised it becomes necessary to workcollaboratively , to share knowledge of that specialist area.Specialism implies knowledge of a particular area and collaborativework group involves combining the information from each of thespecialists to produce the final product.

¥ Increase job satisfactionWorking in groups may enhance job satisfaction. Working in groups maysimply be more rewarding than working alone. Group work has theadvantage of providing support . Groups working collaboratively canoffer feedback, alternative opinions, differing perspectives,

encouragement, advice and guidance.

2.6 Disadvantages of Group Work

Group work can be more productive than working alone. However this isnot always the case. There may be some instances where group workdoes not increase productivity but rather results in productivityreductions or losses.

Group work may foster the belief in some people that they are



required to work less and put in less effort than if they wererequired to produce an individual project. 'Diffusion ofresponsibility and lack of ownership of the group product can causeindividuals to put forth less effort to accomplish group tasks thanan individual task. '(Galegher and Kraut 1990 : 2) . An individualmust take responsibility for their work but a member of a group canhide behind the cover of the group as a whole and not feelresponsible for what the group produces.

In problem oriented groups rather than promoting free thinking,helping to generate ideas and reach effective decisions, groups mayhave the reverse effect. This may occur when the group is set orfocused on a particular set of ideas rather than exploring a fullerscope of thoughts. 'Researchers have concluded that when the grouptask is to generate information on a problem, interacting groupsinhibit creative thinking'. (Delbecq, Van de Ven and Gustafon 1975 :16)

There may also be negative effects produced in problem orientedgroups brought about by conformity within the group. A member mayfeel intimidated by other members of the group to conform. Asch(1955) in his experiments on conformity found group pressure had aneffect on the inputs of individual members. This can have negativeconsequences. If members of the group are pressured into accepting

the decision of the other members or of more dominant and high statusmembers then the final product will not be a true representation ofthe opinions of the group.'Life in society requires consensus as an indispensable condition.But consensus, to be productive, requires that each individualcontribute independently out of his experience and insight.'(Asch,1955 : 324)

Problems in problem solving groups also involve domination by louder,higher status members which could result in the opinions of somemembers of the group being overlooked, creating a bias in the outcomeof the group. Also lack of information on all aspects of the problemmay create uncertainty in the group and lead to inability for the

group to reach a consensus.

Other major problems with group work are to do with coordination,communication and control. Because groups are made up of individualmembers working on separate parts of the project there needs to besome way of coordinating the work of the group. Coordination mayinvolve organising the group so that they can all meet at aparticular time, thus coordinating the members of the group orsetting the deadlines of a particular stage in the project so thatthe next stage can begin - coordinating the activities of the group ,or it may involve making sure that at the members work well together. There needs to be some element of control in the group whichensures that the group will work effectively together and the

activities will run smoothly.

Communication can be looked at in two different ways :¥ Communication can be seen to mean connectivity . Thus communicationin groups is important as it allows contact between group members.This is important where the groups are not working in the same placeat the same time. Thus they require a means of communication toconnect them and to integrate the sections of the project they areworking on.



¥ Communication can imply understanding. Thus communication does notonly involve a transaction but also comprehension. A member of aproblem solving group may tell another his idea on a particular issuebut this does not necessarily mean that the other person understandswhat he is trying to say. Thus in communicating an idea there has notonly to be the transfer of the idea from one to another but therecipient must have some understanding of what is being communicated.

Group work is more productive than non-group work in that it canproduce more efficient outcomes. Groups can produce more work at aquicker rate than an individual. Groups also have the advantage thatthey combine the inputs of individuals and integrate them into asingle product. Groups can produce a greater number of ideas, providediffering perspectives, allowing broader and more complex issues tobe considered. They can also produce higher quality results.

However there are also disadvantages in group work such asinefficient cooperation and communication structures.

So that the advantages of group work can be maintained and thedisadvantages of working in groups can be diminished or at leastminimalised groups need to develop ways of overcoming the negativefactors. Computing and communication technologies can provide a way

of assisting groups to reduce the negative factors and to ensuregreater group productivity.

3. Work Groups and Computers

We have already identified some major problems with work groups :

¥ In decision making groups members may be or feel pressured toconform with the general group consensus rather than asserting theirown views. There is also a tendency for these types of group to bedominated by loud and opinionated members or uneven proportion ofcontributions due to status.

¥ÊGroups may also 'inhibit creative thinking' by focusing on one idearather than seeking a number of alternatives.

¥ÊThere may be a tendency for some members of task oriented groups toapply less effort as a result of the 'diffusion of responsibilityand lack of ownership of the group product'. (Galegher and Kraut,1990)

¥ÊTask oriented groups combine a number of people working togethereach carrying out different tasks. This requires an efficient meansof coordinating group members and group processes. This isparticularly important in self -managing teams , and in ad hoc teams.

¥ÊFor members of groups to work together it is necessary for them tocommunicate effectively. Communication is an important aspect ofgroups - both within the group between members and externally withother parts of the organization.

¥ Not only is it important that groups coordinate their activitiesand communicate effectively but they should also develop effectivemethods for controlling group interactions.

The question then becomes what part can technology play in overcoming



the difficulties which are inherent in group work? How can computingtechnology and communications play an effective part in thecollaborative work group structure?

3.1 Computer Mediated Communication : Meeting a Need

Computer mediated communication is a structure whereby computers areused to connect people on a computer network so that they can carryout effective communication.

It is conventionally understood that group productivity ishampered by what are called process losses or, alternatively,transaction costs. Process losses or transaction costs derivefrom the inability of group members to communicate efficiently,and also from certain social pressures that emerge ingroups....A related transaction cost is the time and effort thegroup must spend coordinating its work, along with the extrawork that arises from inefficient coordination.(Finholt ,Kiesler and Sproull,1990 :293)

The two main problems with groups are communication and coordination.A further problem with group work is sharing the work, separatingand dividing tasks or partitioning.

Groups sometimes avoid partitioning tasks, or implement thestrategy badly, because of the transaction costs arising fromhaving to keep track of people's progress, encouraging them todo their work, collecting finished jobs, communicating to othershow the work is going, making group members feel they are partof a group activity , and merging individual or subgroupproducts with the group product.(Finholt , Kiesler andSproull,1990 :295)

What is needed to alleviate these problems? A structure which allowsquick, easy and frequent communication which will lead to animprovement in the coordination and integration of the group iswhat is required. Technology in the form of communications and in

particular computer mediated communications can add great benefits togroup work by providing such a structure.

Taken together they [technologies for collaborative work] havethe potential to provide people with the capacity tocommunicate across boundaries of time and distance and toincrease the ease and effectiveness of their work.( Galegherand Kraut, 1990 : 3)

3.2 Basic Advantages of CMC

Computer mediated communication has several main advantages:

SpeedCommunication via a computer is fast. A message whether it is sentwithin an organization, interstate or overseas will arrive at itsdestination within moments of having been sent. This is a tremendousadvantage in itself. Sending mail through the post is a much slowerprocess. Sending a fax although it is fast relies on the line notbeing busy and also that there is a fax machine nearby. Computer mailcan be sent form terminal to terminal. The sender does not have toleave their desk to send it and it is fast and efficient.



DistanceCMC has the advantage of connecting people who are not in the sameplace, at dispersed locations, via means of a network and/or modem.This is particularly advantageous in situations where groups areseparated by the physical boundaries of distance. CMC is a means ofconnecting people who would otherwise be unable to be members of aparticular group. Thus members who may not be able to participatebecause they cannot get to a particular venue or who may even be in adifferent country can be part of the group via CMC.

TimeComputer mediated communication can be asynchronous. Thus it providesa means of communicating with people across time barriers. The senderdoes not rely on the receiver being free and ready to answerimmediately. If they are out of the office the mail will remain untilthey return. This is particularly useful in overseas transactionswhere time differences apply.

FlexibilityThere are numerous forms of CMC depending on the design involved.Some systems allow messages and memos to be sent while others

incorporate the sending of files and other large documents as well asgraphics and applications. CMC enables messages to be sent to asingle recipient, multiple recipients or broadcasted to an entirenetwork.

AnonymityIn some instances group productivity may be impeded by the impact ofstatus of the members . In these cases it may be favourable to carryout some problem solving activities where the members remainanonymous. This can be achieved with CMC as members cannot see eachother face to face and so can take on aliases and hide theiridentities.

Computer mediated communication can take several forms. The mostcommon of which is electronic mail. It also includes such systems ascomputer conferencing, electronic newsgroups and bulletin boards.

3.3 Electronic News Groups and Bulletin Boards

New GroupsThe traditional news group involves a system where you subscribe togroups on a topic you are interested in. Once included on the mailinglist you receive information that is posted to that news group.Electronic journals are similar in that once subscribed you receive acopy of that particular journal. An alternative way of reading news

from a news group is by logging onto a server, selecting the groupyou are interested in and reading the postings to that group. In somecases members may post their own contributions to a news group.

Bulletin BoardsElectronic bulletin boards provide a forum for discussion wheremembers send messages, problems to be solved, requests forinformation, provide advice on a particular subjects and receivegeneral information on the topic area.



These electronic forums allow discussion to take place across thenetwork. They are asynchronous, people may log on and contribute attheir leisure. The discussion remains alive, continuing regardless ofwho is contributing or what time it is.

The advantages of these types of media is that people can subscribeto the group they are interested in and interact when they feelinclined to, when they have a contribution to make or something theyneed to know. People may simply be spectators to the discussion orthey may take an active part in it.

Electronic bulletin boards provide an effective way for people toshare information on a particular subject. In most cases the membersof the group have never met . These types of media allow people tointeract with people they do not know, obtain advice they wouldotherwise be without and to share information that is important totheir work.

Figure 1: Example of Bulletin Board

3.4 Electronic Mail

Electronic mail or e.mail is often used in two contexts. It is usedto refer to the mail - message, document, memo- which is sent bycomputer across a network and it is also used to describe the'system' by which the mail is transmitted, the actual medium. Thusyou can send "e.mail" and you can send something "via e.mail".

E.mail has the advantage of quickly transmitting messages which wouldtake considerably longer if sent by post. Various networks allow thequick transmittal of messages, other mail and larger documents suchas files and applications to be sent quickly from one destination toanother. The transfer of files is useful in that the person receivingthe document has it already in computer format and is not required

to retype or scan the information in. This also saves running therisk of mailing such media as floppy disks. This is particularlyuseful in the work group setting where people are co-authoringdocuments and books, or collaborating on projects. This can be seenin such as organizations as the university where academic networksare established allowing the people with similar research and studyinterests to communicate, share information and exchange ideas.

E.mail allows messages to be sent within an organization thussubstituting for telephone conversations . Difficulties such astrying to locate a person or catching them when they are free,playing "telephone tag", can be overcome by leaving an e.mail messageon their terminal simply asking them to contact you or leaving the

relevant information for them. Making communication more efficient,allowing less time to be spent on less productive activities. Moredetailed e.mail messages may contain information which has beenclearly thought through and precisely expressed.

Most e.mail systems allow you to send the same message to multiplerecipients or to broadcast a message to a number of people or to aparticular group. This saves the time which may be taken up incontacting numerous people to share the same information, and havingto converse with each in turn about other matters as well. This can



be an effective way of sending office memos for example. In thiscase unlike paper memos - recipients can usually reply directly toyou, even if it is just to indicate that they have received the memoor that they agree with/have noted what you have said.

Another advantage of e.mail is that you can resend or circulate amessage sent to you on to other people who may be interested inlearning the same information.

E.mail messages can usually be saved and stored and referred tolater. You have a written record of what was said. This isparticularly important if you have had a lengthy discussion and haveproduced a number of ideas. E.mail messages can also be printed outand in cases where you have a lengthy message this is often favoured. One disadvantage is delay of response, the sender has no control overwhen they get a reply, or some feedback to their message. Therecipient chooses when to respond. With some e.mail applications suchas CE Software's QuickMail the arrival of a message is accompaniedby a loud chime, and /or a flashing icon so that you know it hasarrived. This helps in drawing attention to the message making itdifficult to be ignored. Some systems require you to check a mail boxfor incoming mail. In these cases it would be necessary to build intoyour day a particular time when you checked for mail. Mail

notification is a useful inclusion in an effective e.mailing system.If the person has to actually go and get or check for mail then theymay forget or be less inclined to do so. However if they are notifiedof a messages arrival by an icon flashing or a loud chime then theyare more likely to attend to the message.With QuickMail you canchoose the type of header such as Urgent, ASAP, or Normal. The urgentoption changes the tone of chime and the flashing of the icon isincreased in a greater attempt to grab the recipient's attention.

In some cases where particularly long messages are used and a lot oftime is used in typing and constructing the message it may be quickerand less time consuming to simply pick up the phone and call theperson. However sending an e.mail message is less likely to interrupt

the work of the recipient. They do not have to stop what they aredoing and reach or run for the phone but can attend to the messagewhen they are ready.

There may be cases when the amount of mail arriving at your addressis so great that you are continually sorting through it, reading andresponding. Some e.mailing systems will let you set a specific timethat they go and collect your mail. It may be that every twentyminutes the mailer goes out to the server and checks for mail. Thismay have disadvantages if the mail is urgent or needs immediateattention.

A further problem with e.mail is that the sender may presume the

person they have sent the mail to has received and read it. If themail is being sent to a server and the person receiving the messagehas to log on and check their mail box and they fail to do so, thenthe mail will not arrive at its destination. If this is the only waythat message has been sent then the contents of the message will belost. Some systems have facilities built into them which allow you tosee if the recipient has received and read you message and this is anadvantage. If people receiving mail particularly important mailsimply reply to the sender by sending another messages saying thatthey have received the first then this could solve the problem.



The meaning of some messages may be distorted or misconstruedbecause it is difficult simply to understand what the person issaying. It may be hard to distinguish whether the sender is seriousor joking, expressing anger or sarcasm. The absence of non-verbalcues and tone of voice makes it more difficult to comprehend what themessage is saying. You are reliant on the written word to conveymeaning.

Generally e.mail is a productive tool for communicating betweenindividuals and it does have a place in group work.

Finholt , Kiesler and Sproull (1990) in their study of softwaredevelopment teams looked at the possibilities which e.mail systemsallowed. They were particularly interested in how e.mail couldenhance communication and coordination and thus effect performance inad hoc groups. They also saw that e.mail had an effect on the way thegroups worked.

Through the e.mail system, group members could tell each other abouttheir individual progress and find out about how others are doing;this should increase both coordination and cohesiveness.

Notice that we are referring not just to improved coordination

of partitioned work, but to a group working in a new way,offloading more work onto parts of the group and using computermail as an electronic link between individual activity and thegroup. The implication for this is not only that less time willbe spent in meetings, but also that some of the penalties forworking in groups will be reduced. By partitioning the work andkeeping others informed, people would have greater control overand responsibility for their own work.(Finholt, Kiesler andSproull 1990: 295)

They found positive relationships between the use of e.mail andcommunication within the groups and that there were links betweenthis and the coordination of group functions particularly "

scheduling meetings, task assignment, and status reports."

3.5 Computer Conferencing

Computer conferencing is a type of electronic mail. However unlikeregular e.mail it held in real time, similar to a face to facemeeting. A computer conference can be held between two or morepeople . The contributions of each participant is seen by all others.The participants interact by sending general messages to all membersor targeting their questions to a particular person. Even when theyare not directly involved in the discussion members can see theentries of the others.

A transcript of the conference can be saved and kept for laterreference.

3.6 Dispersed Work Groups

There have been several studies done into the effect of computermediated communication on dispersed work groups. Eveland and Bikson(1988, 1990 ) carried out a 1 year experiment using an electronicgroup and standard group. Both groups comprised working members and



retired members. The groups were to look at retirement. They foundthat :Electronically supported groups develop a richer communicationsstructure with less hierarchical differentiation, broaderparticipation, and more fluctuating and situational leadershipstructures. This appears in turn to be associated with greaterfeelings of involvement in the task and greater satisfaction andidentification with group products. (1990 :285)

3.7 Integrating CMC into Group Work

CMC is particularly important in groups where there needs to be ahigh frequency of communication between group members .

In "Patterns of Contact and Communication in Scientific ResearchCollaboration" Kraut , Egido and Galegher (1990) discuss the natureof communication structures in collaborative research. They foundthat there was more collaboration between members who were in closerproximity to one another. This developed because of the frequentinformal meetings and discussions which were held between theresearchers. Thus for CMC to be effective for this type ofcollaboration it needs to be 'cheap, frequent, and spontaneous enough

that collaborators can be in touch as easily as if their offices werenext door.' (1990 :165 ).

Thus there needs to be very little personal energy involved. Howeverfor these types of groups to work in some instances there may need tobe some effort put into the early stages of becoming acquainted withthe technology before any benefit is reaped.

Electronic technology to support group work is not self-enacting, but rather requires significant investments of timeand energy in learning ways to use the tools to best advantage,both on the part of individuals and work groups. (Eveland andBikson,1990:286)

This may mean that initially the group does not achieve an increasein productivity. However as they come to be more familiar with thetechnology and more comfortable with using it they will increasetheir productivity greatly.

In order for this to occur there has to be match between thetechnology and the task it is being used for.

Gutek (1990 ) looks at the fit between technology and tasks. He seesthat the technology must be designed to fit the need it has to meet.Thus if the work group and technology match or fit then there willbe greater use of technology, the members of the group will

communicate and collaborate more effectively and be more satisfiedwith their technology and jobs.

3.8 Other Tools for Collaborative Work

Until now the discussion has mainly concerned the use of computingtechnology and its function as a communication aid for group work.However there are other uses of computing technology in work groupswhich deserve mentioning. "Group decision support systems" are oneexample of how the computing technology has been integrated into a



system to support problem oriented groups. Groupware is an example ofhow software can support and even transform group practices. Boththese tools, "group decision support systems" and groupware are usedto support groups who are not typically dispersed but rather who meetin the same location, meeting face to face.

3.9 Group Decision Support Systems

Group decision support systems (GDSS) are used by problem orientedgroups to enable a more informed and democratic decision to be made .GDSS 'combine communication, computer, and decision technologies tosupport the decision-making and related activities of work groups.(Poole and DeSanctis, 1990 : 173) The advantage of the GDSS is thatthey improve the uncertainty typically associated with problemsolving.

They do this by providing information applicable to the decision.GDSS systems are effective in that they 'focus the efforts of thegroup members towards the task or problem to be solved by the group.'(Kraemer and Pinsonneault,1990 : 387)

GDSS enhance group work by increasing the depth of analysis,increasing the degree of participation by members and reducing the

domination by one or two members, and increasing the consensus amongmembers. This results in a greater quality decision being producedwhich in turn adds to increase ' the confidence and satisfaction ofthe group toward the decision'. (Kraemer and Pinsonneault,1990 : 388)

Group decision support systems can integrate the use of group methodssuch as nominal group techniques with modified hardware and softwareconfigurations and specially designed meeting rooms.

3.10 Groupware

Groupware assists groups in structuring, organising, coordinating and

carrying out their work. Groupware is a particular type of softwarewhich is designed to support group work. Groupware not only enhancesgroup work by improving the way things are done but also changes theyway people work. Galegher and Kraut (1990) in their distinctionbetween 'prescriptive' and 'permissive' technologies show howtechnology has a dual purpose to advance the current work practicesto solve problems in the existing structure and to allow new ways ofworking to develop which were not possible in the old structure.Groupware is particularly important in the latter of these two usesfor technology. Groupware enables innovative group work practices todevelop.

An example of groupware is the design of electronic diaries or

project management tools. An individual may develop a specifictimetable and schedule for themselves by using a particular softwarepackage. However it would be more beneficial to the group if therewas a common timetable or schedule which could used by all members tocoordinate their work. As one person changes their entry this effectsthe overall schedule. Thus if one person cannot meet a deadline tofinish work and changes her schedule to fit in with this, thetimetable of the entire group will be changed. This means that eachperson is directly responsible to the group and what they do hasconsequences for the project as a whole. This may induce people to



work more productively.

Another example might be the use of groupware to create live linksbetween documents so that the changes that are made in one part ofthe document are reflected in another. The changes are dynamic.Imagine you are working on a journal article . You have sent thefirst draft to a colleague to add any alterations that may benecessary. You come across some information which helps to clarifyyour argument and want to add it in. Groupware enables any changesyou make to be reflected in the copy you have given your colleague.Thus all you are required to do is to add in the appropriateinformation to your document and the colleagues document will bechanged dynamically.

A further example of groupware are hypertext software systems whichare 'designed to permit scholars and students to access and modify acommon file, creating a network of linked text and graphic entriesand annotations on a common topic.'(Galegher and Kraut,1990: 3)Hypertext facilitates new ways of carrying out collaborative work.(Landow, 1990)

All writing that makes use of reference conventions,however, leads the reader to exit the main text, consideradditional material, and return to it. In some cases,

material contained in the referenced section leads thereader outside the particular article or book entirely, andthe reader may investigate other printed texts beforereturning to the original one. Imagine if one could simplytouch the reference symbol and the indicated additionaltext appeared. Then imagine if one could touch the title ofa work or body of research data mentioned in the additionaltext and it appeared, too.That is hypertext. (Landow, 1990: 408)

'Networked hypertext systems characteristically produce a sense ofauthorship, authorial property an creativity that differs markedlyform those associated with book technology.' (Landow, 1990 : 410)

The risk with groupware is that if there is not a thoroughunderstanding of the functions and processes of how groups workincorporated into the design of the system then the groupware may notbe useful for the group and will not be used. Groupware creates newnorms of group work. The designers of the groupware need to keep thisin mind when developing their products. They need to create somethingwhich will not only aid the existing practices of group work butwhich develops new, more effective ways of carrying out group work.

Computers have an integral role to play in supporting work groups.Computers allow connectivity and communication, aid coordination andcontrol, and provide new ways of approaching work. Computer mediated

communication is becoming an important structure within the modernday organization. New group tools such as GDSS and groupware are onlynow beginning to find a place in the work group structure. Becausethey involve new ways of looking at work and restructuring the waypeople work there needs to be careful attention paid to the designand development of these systems.

To look more closely at the application of computers into group workit is useful to consider a specific example. Computer mediated groups



and face to face groups provide an interesting comparison which givesus insights into how computers affect group work.

4 : Face to Face and Computer Mediated Groups- Focus Groups and Computer Conferences: An example

To look more closely at the effects and influence of computermediated communication on group work I have taken the specificexample of computer conferencing. The relative merits and draw backsof computer conferencing can be seen more clearly when they arecompared to face to face groups, in this case focus groups. Fromresearch into these two groups I hoped to uncover the basicdifferences in the two methods, as well as the comparative advantagesand disadvantages of each.

4.1 Computer Conferencing

Computer conferencing makes use of computer terminals to enable agroup of people in different locations to communicate with each othersimultaneously. It is really a specific form of electronic mailsystem, but one in which transactions can be carried out at the sametime (in real time, or synchronous) and can involve more than twopeople. Electronic mail transactions are typically asynchronous andinvolve only two people.

McGrath (1990) distinguishes between two types of computer conferenceone 'using simultaneous chat mode', the other a more structuredsystem 'limited to one speaker at a time'. The simultaneous chat modemore closely resembles normal face to face conversation, isunstructured and spontaneous. The structured form would typicallyinvolve a moderator to regulate discussion and a formal agenda.McGrath's distinction mirrors the difference between a conversationand a formal meeting.

A computer conference can have a variety of purposes, but isobviously most useful when individuals are unable to convene in thesame place at the same time. It can be the basis of the planning

stage of a project, used as a brainstorming tool for generatingideas, as a research tool for gathering people's opinions on certainissues or gaining general information from a number of people atdispersed locations. Generally, computer conferencing might be usedin any problem solving context where a face to face meeting isimpractical or unfeasible.

4.2 Focus Groups

In many ways, focus groups are similar to computer conferences. Theyinvolve a small number of people, they happen in real-time, they areproblem-oriented and can be either structured or unstructured. Themain difference, though, is that they involve groups who meet face-

to-face.

Focus groups are led by a moderator who regulates the interaction.Generally focus groups are fairly unstructured. In some groups thediscussion is tightly regulated by the moderator and there is minimalcommunication between members. In others, the moderator starts thediscussion and only interrupts when necessary.

Focus groups, unlike computer conferences, have one primary purpose Ñcollecting data. However, they can be used for collecting a wide



range of data where individuals reactions are important, for example,in product testing and questionnaire refinement.

Focus groups and computer conferences then can be said to be fairlysimilar in some ways, the main difference being that focus groups areface to face while computer conferences are dispersed. As I wasinterested in looking at the implications of computer mediatedcommunication for group work it seemed appropriate to comparecomputer conferencing, as an example of computer mediatedcommunication, to focus groups.

4.3 The Research Project

The best way to compare these two types of group structures is toactually run some examples. Doing this would give a greaterappreciation of how the two group methods worked. Traditionally smallgroup researchers have used lab based experiments. My researchdiffered from this as it involved a trial and error method where Iran several groups each at progressive stages of the research.Theinitial computer conference was to held to gain an understanding ofthe basic processes involved in conferencing generally. This wasfollowed by two focus groups to provide a measure of comparison.Then a further computer conference was run to clarify some issues

which had been raised in earlier trials of the conferences.The aim of the research was to look at the basic structures of thegroups, to distinguish the main differences between them, uncover anyproblems in the computer conferencing set up in particular, and tolook at how these problems could be overcome.

The first computer conference was run between four staff members ofthe Sociology Department to discuss future directions in software forthe department. The purpose of this conference was to see howcomputer conferencing could be substituted for a face to facemeeting. It was immediately evident from this conference was thatcomputer conferencing is not as simple as sending a normal e.mail

message. All members of this group were experienced computer usersand all used electronic mail frequently. However the conference wasnot a success. The overall flow of the discussion was disjointed,entries were not linked and were unrelated to prior ones. There wasno method for regulating or coordinating the discussion. Thus theresult was an unstructured and confused conference.

From the results of this first attempt at computer conferencing Idecided to use a more structured approach in my next conference. Thisconference was compared to two focus groups held on the same topic.These three groups formed the body of my research.

The Topic

I ran the two focus groups and the computer conference on the topicof the purpose of university from an undergraduates perspective.These groups had the dual purpose of providing me with examples ofgroups as well as supplying data for a colleague's paper on"Evaluating Change in the Academic Environment".

The ParticipantsThe first focus group, (Group 1), combined a number of undergraduatestudents from the Sociology Department. These students were matureage, they were older than the average student and had not come to



university directly from school but had worked prior to enteringuniversity or had returned after a period of time away. This groupcontained five people - three males and two females.

The second group, (Group 2), was made up of younger undergraduatestudents of the Sociology Department who had typically come touniversity straight from school. This group included six people -three males and three females.

The computer conference, Group 3, combined three postgraduatestudents and three undergraduates, three of which were males andthree females, of varying ages.

I wanted a fairly homogeneous membership for each of the focus groupsso that they could be seen to be representative of the particulargroups or sectors of the student population. The combination of thegroups was relatively uniform. By choosing these group combinations Iwas attempting to counteract or control for any differences in thegroup which may arise for reasons other than the method used. Thisway any differences that did result could be related to the groupmethod.

The SettingThe focus groups were held in a tutorial room behind desks which were

set up in an L shape, with all participants facing the moderator.Because the object of a focus group is discussion , thegroup should be seated in a manner that provides maximumopportunity for eye contact both with the moderator andother group members...most participants in focus groupsfeel more comfortable when seated around a table. (Stewartand Shamdasani 1990 : 88)

Figure 2: Tutorial Room showing focus group setting.

The focus groups were videoed to obtain an accurate record of theproceedings and to enable further analysis. The groups were alsoobserved from behind a one way mirror and could be heard clearly inthe observation room through a speaker system.

In the computer conference each of the participants were located atcomputers in different parts of the building. The computers used wereMacintosh LCs, a Macintosh Plus and a Macintosh SE.

The application used in the conference was Quick Conference in CESoftware's QuickMail. Briefly, Quick Conference is set up so that

you choose the participants from a list of online users. Then anymessages you send go to each of the participants you have selected.You enter the message in a box at the left hand side of the screenand to send use the mouse to click on the 'send' button. A transcriptof the conference appears on the right of the screen including bothyour message and that of the other participants, indicating who themessage is from, the date and time. The box containing thetranscript is small and only the last three or four messages can beseen, depending on the size of the message. In order to see the restof the transcript you can scroll back up and view it.



Figure 3 : Snap shot of Quick Conference interface.

The NamesSo that the group members and the moderator knew the names of allparticipants, each member wrote their first name on a piece of cardand placed it on the desk in front of them. In the computerconference each participant was recognised by their login name, whichappeared in a list of users and along with any message which was sentfrom them. In this particular computer conference each member wasgiven an alias as a login name so that essentially their identitieswere unknown to the other members.

The ModeratorsA female post graduate student, trained in the running of focusgroups acted as the moderator for both focus groups. The moderatorwore a small device in her ear, attached to a transmitter throughwhich an observer communicated with her, aiding in prompting and

focusing her attention on different aspects of the discussion.In the computer conference the moderator ran the conference from aterminal with the assistance of another researcher who was located atthe same terminal.

4.4 The Results

Recording the DiscussionsOne of the advantages of a computer conference over a focus group isthat you are supplied with an immediate transcript of the proceedingswhich you can save, store and print out. The transcript includes suchdetails as the name of the person asking the question, who has

received the message, what time this occurred and the date.

Videoing is a good way of recording a focus group , but if yourequire proper transcript from which to carry out a content analysisthen it is necessary to have the video transcribed.

4.5 Starting Off

In the focus groups the moderator began by introducing herself andbriefly mentioning the topic for discussion. She also indicated thatthere were people observing the group and that she was wearing a plugin her ear connected to a transmitter in the room behind.

The initial aim of the moderator is to ensure that the group isrelaxed and comfortable with one another so that they do not feelintimidated to speak.

A focus group should began with a general question and lead to morespecific issues. This is known as a funneling approach.(Stewart andShamdasani, 1990 : 95) In these groups the moderator started byasking the group to write down the three most important things whichcame to mind when they thought about the experience of university.This started them thinking about the topic generally. She then asked



each in turn to relate the most important thing they had recorded.Thus initiating the discussion and helping to alleviate any fearsthey may have had about speaking in the group.

This was the first time these students had been involved in acomputer conference and only one of them had used e.mail before.Thus the session started by briefly explaining how Quick Conferenceworked. Quick Conference is a very easy application to use and onlya brief explanation was required. The group were also briefed on theprotocols for participation.

The computer conference started by first checking to see if everyonewas ready and that they could operate the system. The moderator thenbegan by asking the same question which had been asked to the focusgroup. They were told to write down their replies and to share thesewhen prompted by the moderator.

4.6 The Role of the Moderator

The moderator was important in initiating the discussion, promptingparticipants to elaborate, drawing all participants into thediscussion and focusing the discussion on certain issues.

In the focus groups the moderator addressed specific questions toindividuals as well as asking general questions of the whole group.This was similar in the computer conference . Questions which werespecifically addressed to individuals were prefaced with the name ofthe person." Kate: What do you mean by knowledge?"

In some cases the same question was asked of more than one person:"Tom and Sonia: What do you think is the most important?"

At other times multiple questions were asked. Different questionswere asked in the same entry."Bill: What sort of skills?

Kate: Do you still think you didn't learn any skills."

This was to assist in keeping the interest of the participants andto maintain the flow of the conversation.

The other type of question was a general question which was addressedto all participants and was prefaced by "general question".4.7 Regulating Discussion and Taking Turns

According to McGrathGroups engaged in face-to-face communication exhibit aremarkably orderly pattern of communication, as if therewere a rigourous set of norms or rules regulating

behaviour...There are few interruptions or times when morethan one person is speaking. There are relatively fewsilences and those tend to be short. (1990 : 45 )

This was true of both focus groups, particularly in the early stagesof the discussion. Initially the moderator controlled most of thediscussion prompting participants to elaborate on their answers anddirecting the general focus of the discussion. The members of thegroup tended to answer directly to her. However as the discussionadvanced members began to expand on their answers without being



prompted, and began to talk to the group rather than always referringback to the moderator.Also, the participants began to feed off the answers of the others,expanding on what they had said, agreeing, disagreeing and offeringfurther examples. The transition from one speaker to the next wassmooth and orderly.

As I have already mentioned the first computer conference, which wasrun, the software conference, revealed that there were basicstructural problems in computer conferencing. This was because therewas no procedure for regulating the discussion or changing thespeakers. Thus I decided to use a more structured approach in thisconference by setting some protocols.

In the briefing prior to the conference the students were told thatthey were only to respond if a question was asked to themspecifically or if a general question was asked. This indicated thatthey were not free to ask questions of the other participants orinterrupt the general discussion. This resembles McGrath's example ofa structured conference where discussion was limited to one speakerat a time.

By using this structured format the problem of turn taking andchanging speakers was reduced. However it created further problems.

The main problem was the participants felt that the conference hadbeen "boring"and that it was "too slow". There was a lot of delaybetween questions and a lot of waiting. This was partly due to thetime it took to type the entries. People take considerably longer totype than to speak even if they are skilled typists. Also because ofthe structured format of the conference, having always to refer backto the moderator, it was difficult to involve all the members in thediscussion.

After running the conference I held a face to face discussion withthe students who had participated. One aspect that came up in thismeeting was that the students felt unless they were being addressedspecifically or a general question was being asked to the group they

did not pay attention to what was going on in the conference .Because they were told at the beginning of the conference that theywere not to interact directly with the other members they paid lessattention to what the others were saying.

A similar experiment was conducted by Sproull and Kiesler. They alsofound that there was a lack if consistency in the conference anddesigned a system to counter this.

Because everyone was reading and writing at once,discussion seemed disorderly. To impose more order, wewrote a program that allowed only one member to "talk" at atime. It forced group members to press a special key when

they wanted to talk. People not only hated this ; theybehaved very badly, refusing to relinquish their turn whenasked or repeatedly banging the request key. They let usknow what they thought of our foray into automatedmanagement of group discussion. (Kiesler and Sproull, 1991:74 - 75)

It is difficult to determine what length of structure you should addinto a computer conference. Sproull and Kiesler decided that lessstructure was a preferable alternative. However there may be cases



when it is more applicable to use a structured format and others whena less ordered, more conversational structure is viable.

4.8 Prompts

In the focus groups the moderator provided constant reassurance. Shewas continually saying "right" and encouraging the speaker tocontinue. This was also true of other members of the group whoprovided the same types of motivation to continue speaking: nodding,saying "right", and "yeh".; not necessarily indicating that theyagreed with the speaker's point of view but that they understood whatthey were saying.

Prompts took a different form in the computer conference. A coupleof times the moderator had to remind the respondent to reply, but onthe whole prompts did not operate as an informal mechanism to keepthe discussion going as they had done in the focus groups.

4.9 Non Verbal Cues

In the focus groups non verbal cues were important in encouraging thespeakers to continue talking. There were a lot of non-verbal cues

such as nodding throughout both groups. Even when participants werenot speaking they were still involved in the discussion, oftennodding in agreement, laughing and listening. The facial expression of the participants allowed the other membersof the group and the moderator to gauge when they were unsure aboutsomething or when they disagreed with something the speaker wassaying. They also aided in signalling when a person had finishedspeaking, wished to say more or required more information.

Non -verbal cues are obviously missing from a computer conference.This is one of the reasons it is so difficult to coordinate andregulate changing of "speakers". The absence of non verbal cues and

facial expressions also has other draw backs. It is more difficult toexpress emotions such as anger, frustration, joy or sorrow. Thisproblem was encountered in a conference I ran between a group ofstudents in a software workshop.

" From : JaneHow do you express anger or assertiveness on this thing

From: Lyn####****@@@sh*t %$@FB etc

From Jane

TWICE!!!! "

The use of punctuation and symbols may help to convey meaning andexpress emotion. However they are not really an effective means ofdoing so and attention must be paid to the wording of entries so asnot to create confusion or misunderstanding.A smiling face, typed rotated as :-) , suggests a joke orhappiness. Bad news or unhappiness is conveyed by :-( .Although such cues weakly signal mood, they are flat andstereotyped. The boss's smiling face looks not different



from the secretary's . Mild amusement looks no differentfrom hilarity. (Sproull and Kiesler, 1991 : 51)

These types of cues were not used in the main computer conference.

4.10 Participation and Interaction Patterns

All of the participants in Group 1 had something to say although somespoke more than others. Two of the participants who were sitting nextto one another in the 1 and 2 spots (refer to Figure 1) tended tocontribute more than the others, sometimes discussing issues betweenthemselves, the other members of the group occasionally intervening.

The number 1 speaker tended to speak most of the time often drawingthe conversation back to himself and his own experiences. One memberof the group, in the number 3 spot, was quieter than the others ,although when questioned he was able to respond, indicating that hedid have something to say. Another member in the number 4 spot tendednot to speak until he was asked by the moderator. However once hebegan, he spoke at length.

In the second group, Group 2, there was a more even distribution ofspeakers. All speakers contributed to the discussion. A couple of

members spoke a little more than others but generally conversationwas shared. The main speaker was in the number 1 spot and hetended to get a little off track. However he usually pitched hisdiscussion at the group attempting to include them: "I don' knowabout you guys but..." This was different from the main speaker inGroup 1 who did not appear to relate what he was saying to thegroup.

In the focus groups personality played a role in determining whospoke, how often and for how long.

Participation in the computer conference was more evenly distributed.Because the members only "spoke" when asked the moderator had control

over this element of the participation. The length of the replies wasfairly consistent. All were quite short, usually one or twosentences.

4.11 Control

Group 1 was a fairly controlled and orderly group. Although they diddisagree on several aspects they carried on a calm and directeddebate. There was more tension in Group 2 over differing opinions-some members appeared to find some resentment in what other peoplewere saying and this was detected in the tone of their voice and intheir reluctance to join in the conversation rather than in the

content of what they said.

Control of the computer conference was maintained by the moderator.There were only one or two instances where the participants brokeaway from the general group discussion.

ContentIn Group 1 a large proportion of the discussion was anecdotal ,withpeople describing their own experiences. Some members tended to be



easily diverted, sharing experiences and relating stories and oftentaking a long time to actually express what they wanted to say. Myoverall impression of this group was that there was a lot of talkinggoing on and quite a bit of information being produced. However alot of what was said could have been said more concisely, taken lesstime, and provided more opportunity for other issues to be discussed

The answers of group 2 were not as anecdotal as group 1. Group 2 usedmore objective language when discussing issues although at times theyexpressed strong personal views. Their replies tended to beinconsistent and contradictory in some instances.

The replies in the computer conference were shorter and free ofanecdote. Although at the time the discussion appeared to disjointedand difficult to understand, the transcript was fairly easy to readand to follow. The information generated was useful and interestingbut the participants tended to feel that the conference had not beena success.

People seem to feel that the most satisfactory or effectiveinteractions are ones in which they have talked a lot.[However there is a] low correlation between how muchpeople talk and how effectively they communicate. (Kraussand Fussell, 1990 )

In face to face discussions because people are talking this makesthem feel that the are taking an active and important part in thegroup. However in computer conferences because they do not getimmediate feedback or non verbal cues and encouragement they tend tofeel less involved an lose interest quickly, feeling as though theyhave not contributed.

4.13 Communication efficiency - understanding

In the first group there appeared to be no difficulty either on thepart of the moderator or other members of the group in understanding

what members were saying. However some members in the second focusgroup had trouble articulating their ideas. There was some confusionat times about what participants were saying, and this was expressedby the moderator and from the other members of the group.

To obtain clearer understanding of the participants answer themoderator would say "I'm not sure what you mean can you explain thatsome more". In one instance the moderator asked another member of thegroup to express what she thought the other member was trying to say.The confusion which resulted from not being able to express clearlywhat they had to say appeared to create some anxiety in the speakers.

In the computer conference there were occasional ambiguous entries

but generally they were fairly explanatory. They lacked theassistance of non verbal cues which made comprehension a littledifficult at times.

One of the things which came up in the discussion after theconference was the difficulty people had in constructing theirmessages.

" You have to think before you reply. You have to think aboutwhat you're going to write, how your going to phrase it andabout the spelling!!"



One opinion was that the conference allowed for a more honestresponse. "You say things that you wouldn't normally say in a face toface group situation." This may apply to people who feel particularlyintimidated by face to face discussions.

4.14 Ambience

The first focus group appeared to enjoy talking, felt comfortable inthe group and were not afraid to offer suggestions or to disagreewith what the others had to say. The more talkative member of thegroup, 1, enjoyed reminiscing about past experiences.

General discussion may be necessary in some cases for group membersto feel comfortable in the group situation; comfortable enough to beable to share their opinions without feeling intimidated. This goalwas achieved fairly early on in the discussion. However this wouldhave been facilitated by the fact that all members were known to oneanother before the group commenced and under different circumstancesit may have taken longer for the group to feel at ease.

The second group also appeared to be relaxed and generallycomfortable with the situation.

There was humour evident in all groups. In the focus groups peoplecould joke between one another about their experiences and about whatthey were saying. In the computer conference people also showedhumour in their answers.

"General Question:So have you developed any work skills in an Arts degree?

From: JimI know where the uni bar is "

The humour in a computer conference is different to that of a normal

face to face discussion. In a computer conference the words that havebeen chosen, the spelling or miss spelling can add to the humour.

4.15 Computer conferencing : Some Suggestions

Having discussed the results of the computer conference and the focusgroups it is now necessary to look more closely at the contexts inwhich computer conferences are most appropriate.

Obviously if you have a dispersed group and you want to run a meetingor discuss a problem then it is useful to run a computer conference.

However computer conferences also have other advantages. They allow amore even participation of members. They are useful when you do notwant the discussion to be dominated by a particular person or whenyou want to focus the discussion on a specific problem and you wantpeople to concentrate on the problem without getting off the topic orlapsing into anecdote. In computer conferences people tend to be moredirect and focussed on the topic.

One thing that was uncovered in the research was that computerconferences will only work in some circumstances. With the initial



conference the problem was that the issue we were trying to discusswas too broad. The problem needed clarifying and the conferenceneeded a clear objective or set of objectives. In this instance itwould have been better to have had a face to face discussion to beginin with in the problem definition stage. This way we could havedecided what exactly it was that we were trying to do. Once this hadbeen decided we could have carried on further discussions at a laterpoint via electronic mail.

The computer conference could be run at the second stage of theproblem solving. Once the problem had been clarified and there was aspecific focus a computer conference it would be a useful way ofcontinuing the discussion and of reaching a consensus. In computermediated groups reaching a consensus tends to take longer than inface to face groups but the participants are usually happier withthe result. Because there has not been pressure to conform with thegroup, individuals are more likely to argue their case and thus thefinal result will be a better indication of the opinions of thegroup as a whole.

Because a computer conference tends to be slow it would be better insome cases to use a specific agenda. Thus you could structure yourquestions so that they only required brief answers and less typing.In cases were you were interested in making decisions about a set of

issues it may be appropriate to ask the participants to make a simpleyes/ no judgment.

One of the problems with computer conferences is that the discussiontends to become focused on one particular path and once it had beganto go this way it is difficult to back track to the original point ofdiscussion. Thus in some problem solving contexts different types ofgroup set ups may be more appropriate. In the next section anexample of an alternative type of group set up is used.

5 - Computerizing Problem Oriented Groups

There can be various sorts of problem solving techniques adopted bygroups. The techniques used by the group depend on what they aretrying to achieve. Focus Groups and Computer Conferences are twotypes of group techniques which can be used by problem orientedgroups. Focus Groups are particularly useful if the issue is to probedeeply into the nature of a problem or focus on a particular issue.Computer Conferences can be useful if the relevant group members aredispersed and needs to discuss a number of points, brainstorm, orgenerate ideas. In situations where the group is involved in definingthe problem or determining the focus then face to face groups areusually preferable.

The software group which I described in the previous section is an

example of a group which should have involved a face to face meetingto first decide the nature of the problem. In that instance we haddecided that we would look at what direction the department shouldtake with further software acquisitions. The problem was thateveryone wanted to talk about something different and there was nogeneral cohesion.

So the conference was disjointed and confusing, we all wanted to takethe discussion in different ways. In this case it would have beenmore appropriate for us to have held a short face to face discussion



to decide what it was about future direction in software we wanted todiscuss. Then we could have dispersed, carried out a couple of e.mailconversations and then held a conference to make the final decisionabout which way to go. Computer conferences are a useful way ofreaching consensus in a problem situation as they aid in keeping thefocus on the problem directed and dispel any distractions which maybe apparent in a face to face group.

This is fine if you have a group within an organization who couldconvene in a face to face meeting. However what if you have adispersed group who cannot meet, and what if you have an issue whichcannot be solved in a synchronous discussion, a problem whichrequires reflection, comtemplation, more careful attention to thedevelopment of ideas and discussion of alternatives? Ê

In these cases it is appropriate to adopt an alternative problemsolving method. Nominal Group Technique (NGT) is an alternate grouptechnique which used in conjunction with computer communication canallow this type of group problem solving to occur. The basis ofnominal group techniques is that each group member sees what theothers think and can then modify his or her thinking.

Computerized nominal group techniques are particularly useful if theopinions of experts in an area who are located at various points

around the world and quick results are required.

5.1 Nominal Group Techniques (NGT)

Nominal group techniques involve a group of people who want toidentify problems, explore possible solutions, plan a particularcourse of action, set goals and priorities, or assess or evaluate aparticular program. A group who needs to develop ideas and exploremore complex topics which cannot be resolved in a face to facediscussion will benefit from nominal group techniques. Nominal groupsare groups in name only in the sense that they do not interact withone another but use a moderator to collect and assemble the ideas and

opinions of each of the members.

The traditional nominal group technique involves groups who meet faceto face but do not interact. The stages of this process are 'silentgeneration of ideas', 'round -robin recording of ideas' where ideasare written on a set of boards for all members to see, 'serialdiscussion of the list of ideas' where members clarify the meaning ofthe ideas , and voting - where members usually rank the ideas inorder of preference.(Moore, 1987). Members of the group can developtheir own ideas separately, each is able to share their ideas andthey can then at a later stage expand on the ideas of the othermembers. Later nominal group techniques and the type which willmainly be referred to here involve groups who are physically

separated and who do not meet face to face, members often remaininganonymous.

Nominal group techniques provide the group with the advantages ofgroup work. By combining the ideas and opinions of a number of peoplethere is a greater number of ideas produced, alternative perspectives, broader and differing inputs into the group. Nominal grouptechniques also add to this the advantages of working alone .

The main advantage of these types of groups is that they do not



interact and in some cases do not meet, so they overcome any problemswhich may arise in face to face interaction. One of the problemsassociated with face to face groups is focusing or fixing on aparticular issue or train of thought rather than exploring thealternatives and thus stagnating ideas and inhibiting creativity.(Delbecq , Van de Ven and Gustafon, 1975 ) Other problems includeconformity, status, and domination by louder members. All of theproblems mentioned here can be overcome, or at least reduced, byusing nominal group technique. In nominal groups all members have achance to contribute and have their contributions considered by thegroup. They have time to consider and reflect on the what they wantto say and to explore their own ideas. Nominal groups have theadvantage that they incorporate the opinions of all members. There isno risk of the members being intimidated by other more dominantmembers, or of not having a turn to share their ideas.

Nominal groups are also useful where conflict may be present in thegroup. Conflicting ideas are more likely to be aired and tolerated ifthey expressed through a nominal group. If the group is dispersed andmembers remain anonymous then the group is less likely to be troubledby status or personality differences which may prejudiced somemembers of the groups against the contributions of others.

The emphasis in nominal groups is on the development of the

individual product which is then pooled, and combined with the workof other members, so that the final product is the collaboratedefforts of the whole group.

5.2 Delphi Groups

Delphi is a type of nominal group and thus the advantages are thesame as those in nominal groups. The purpose of a delphi group is toforecast future directions. Delphi groups are always dispersed andusually anonymous. They are particularly appropriate when diverseexpert judgments have to be combined to get a forecast. A delphigroup can be quite large, incorporating a number of members in

different locations. They are useful in cases when there are too manypeople to hold a face to face meeting, and can involve people who areunable to convene at the same place or same time. This may be thecase when you are trying to collect the opinions of expertsespecially if international membership of the group is desirable.Thetraditional form of a delphi involves sending out questionnaires.Delphi groups are particularly useful in predicting trends intechnology. They can also be used for project management, preparingagendas, collaborative research , technology assessment,communications for deaf and home-bound handicapped and 'forecastingand exploratory conferencing'. (Lindstone and Turoff, 1975).

5.3 NGT, Delphi and CMC.

Running a nominal or delphi group can be quite a long and drawn outprocess.The various stages involve contacting members, sending outquestions, collecting and summarising , redistributing the summaries, collecting the responses to these and so on. These processes maybe carried out several times depending on the nature of theresponses, the size of the group and the complexity of the issues.Contacting people, sending out the information and waiting forresponses all take up time.



If these groups use computer mediated communication then they can berun more quickly, the data is already in computerised format so itcan be processed more easily and the overall effectiveness of thegroup is improved because members do not lose initiative or focus.(Price, 1975) The members of the group can be contacted, sent thequestion/s , and send their replies via computer .

The advantages of using this type of method nominal group withcomputer mediated communication are shown in the research project Iconducted across the network using nominal group technique.5.4 NGT Project

The aim of this project was to investigate how to run a type ofnominal group via computer involving people interested in the area ofcomputers and communication, and to identify the potential for thistype of group work.

5.5 Method of ResearchThis research involved several stages. The first involved finding andcontacting members. The second stage involved sending outquestionnaires to participants to find out more information about the"types" of people I had involved. The third stage involved writing a

brief scenario and obtaining initial reactions from the group. Afterreceiving these replies the objective was to summarize them and thenredistribute and ask each of the members to write a brief comment onthis summary . The final product was to be a focused report onproblems arising in international conferencing.

5.6 The Topic

The following problem was sent to all participants and they wereasked to simply write down any reactions or initial thoughts they hadabout this.

The Problem

"Imagine trying to run an international computer conference acrossthe network. The focus of the conference would be on computer basedinformation. What are the issues that should be considered inrunning this type of conference?

Think about such things as the advantages of running the conferencethe major obstacles you may encounter, the sorts of outcomes youshould aim to achieve and what sorts of resources you would need tomount the conference. "

5.7 Finding Participants

Attracting participants was the first major step in the project. A

message was sent to a selected number of Comserve Hotlines requestingparticipants. 'Comserve is an electronic information service forpeople interested in human communication studies'. (ComserveElectronic Information Service). Comserve organizes its discussionlists into groups called" Hotlines". The request for participants wassent to the "MassComm", "Interper", and "CMC" hotlines. The requestbriefly outlined the nature of the project and asked peopleinterested in participating to respond as soon as possible.The request was sent out on the Tuesday evening and the next day I



had received thirty -two replies. The day after twelve more peopleresponded and this continued with a total of fifty-two peopleresponding to the initial request.

The two things that were surprising and impressive about the replieswere:¥the promptness of the replies and¥ the enthusiasm expressed by the respondents.

Imagine trying to attract this scope of attention to a project youwere running if you advertised it in some other way. The advantage ofthis method was that in 'posting' my request to these particulargroups it was addressing a group who were interested in the area ofcomputer communications. To contact these people without thisadvantage would have involved first finding a list of peopleinterested in the area. Then locating their addresses and phoning orwriting to see if they were wanted to take part in the project. Thiswould have been difficult as most of the participants were locatedoverseas. Such a process would no doubt involve numerous phone callsto catch the person I wanted and once found they would have to agreeto being involved. Alternatively, I could have advertised in ajournal but this would also have require more time and effort I mybehalf and also on the part of the respondents. The amount of effortrequired from the respondents in the electronic example was minimal.

All they had to do was to read the request, write a reply and send itoff. The whole process would have taken them about five minutes.

There was a great deal of enthusiasm expressed in the replies. Peoplewere interested in what I was doing and wanted to help.

"I' m interested in participating in your project ; my owninterest/research have been in this area as well, and I'd like tohelp in any helpful way.""You can count me in on your research I look forward to being ofassistance".

5.8 Advantages of Using Computerized NGT

Thus the main advantages with this approach were:¥Êthe speed with which I was able to get people involved¥Êthe number of and type of people I was able to attract wereinterested in the area I was researching. Many of them taught in thearea of cmc, some had written major works on the topic.¥ the ease with which respondents were able to answer my request

The advantage in using this type of group problem solving experimentwas that I could involve people who were interested in the field Iwas researching. Most of the students taught in the area, others werestudents with a general interest in CMC or who were writing papers

similar to my own.

I was not limited to people who were close by or within my owninstitution. Most of the respondents were in American Universities. Ihad a couple of replies from other Australians, as well as some fromEngland, India, Finland and Canada.

Running each stage of the research was quick. The members of thegroup replied promptly to all of my requests. Those who were unableto continue participation or who foresaw that they would be slow in



responding sent me messages to this effect.

Sending out the various stages of the research problem requiredlittle effort . A facility called 'nicknames' in the mail program Iwas using enabled me to set the participants up in a group so that Icould send the same message to all respondents at the same time.

This type of nominal group is an effective means of problem solving.This method has immense potential as a research tool for carrying outworld-wide surveys.

6. Collaborative Computing Work Groups - A Conclusion

Having considered the advantages of using work groups, alternativegroup methods and information technology in supporting, enhancing anddeveloping new opportunities for group work it is now appropriate tolook at when these can be used and how they can be used together atdifferent stages of the group process.

6.1 Face to face groups

The advantage of face to face groups is that they closely resembleinformal interactions. Thus all of the norms usually associated with

conversation are present allowing the discussion to be regulated andconversation to flow coherently. Non-verbal cues, facial expressionsand tone of voice all assist in making the discussion fulfilling andrewarding. Face to face meetings also have their draw backs. One ofthe problems is that face to face groups run the risk of beingdominated by louder or higher status members, thus reducing theopportunity for all members to contribute. In face to face groupsconformity is a also a problem. Members may feel inticed intoconforming with the general feelings of the group even if they do notagree with them. Individuals may conform simply to avoid conflict orto allow a quicker consensus to be reached so that the meeting willconclude. Face to face meetings tend to be channelled into focusingon only one aspect of the issue rather than exploring alternatives.

Face to face meetings are useful in the initial stage of a projectwhen the problem needs to be defined and strategies decided upon.

BrainstormingBrainstorming is a specific type of group method which involvesgenerating ideas. The aim is to generate a large number of ideasregardless of how absurd or outlandish they are. At a later stagethese then can be sorted through and a decision made about theirviability. The advantage of brainstorming is that you have a numberof people together and if all of their ideas are pooled then you willhave a greater number and variety .

The disadvantage of brainstorming is that creative thinking may beinhibited for rather than exploring all possible ideas members mayget caught focusing on a particular idea which has been raised by oneof the members. Rather than generating alternative ideas they will beconcentrating one line of thought. It is useful in brainstorminggroups to include a silent ideas writing stage where individuals canthink without being influenced by the group.

Focus Groups



Focus groups are used for collecting data. They are a specific typeof face to face group, led by a moderator. The idea of a focus groupis to concentrate or focus on a certain issue. A focus group allowsyou to collect the opinions of a particular group who isrepresentative of a sector of society. Some examples are mature agestudents, young mothers, teenage boys , members of a community groupor organization.

The advantage of focus groups that you can obtain more indepth datathan from a questionnaire and can collect the opinions of a grouprather than an individual. A important advantage of focus groups isthat they are a quick, cheap and easy way of obtaining data.

A disadvantage of focus groups is that they are dependent on groupdynamics to be successful. If there is a particularly dominant memberwho is continually talking or members get caught up in anecdote orthere are conflicting personalities then the group will becomeunsettled and the information generated will be minimal. It is therole of the moderator in focus groups to maintain control and focusthe attention of the members. This can be a difficult task.

6.2 Computer based Groups

Computer mediated communication is the means by which individuals cancommunicate with others across a network via their computerterminals. The advantage of CMC is that it allows members ofdispersed groups to be connected, to exchange information,communicate their progress and coordinate their work. CMC is usefulwhether the group is dispersed within an organization, or world-wide.The disadvantage of CMC is that it lacks any non-verbal cues whichusually regulate discussion.

Electronic MailE.mail is the more common form of computer mediated communication. Itallows individuals to send messages or memos from their computers.

E.mail allows quick communication between individuals and it has theadded advantage that communication can be asynchronous. It can cutacross barriers of distance and time. The disadvantage of e.mail isthat because non-verbal cues and tone of voice are absent the messagerelies on the written word to communicate and convey meaning. Thismay result in messages being interpreted incorrectly andmisunderstood. Thus the sender needs to be aware of who he is sendingthe message to and what he is trying to convey.

E.mail can be used as a messaging system, for sending memos to agroup of people or simply communicating on a more informal basis withother individuals. It may be particularly useful in a group contextfor coordinating meetings, checking progress and providing support

and encouragement.

Computer ConferencingComputer conferencing is a form of e.mail which involves synchronousor real time discussion. Its main purpose is in allowing a groupmeeting to take place between members who are at different locations.It is also a useful way of problem solving without the problemsassociated in face to face groups. Members of a problem based groupwill take longer to reach consensus in a computer conference but thedecision is more likely to be a better representation of the whole



group.

The disadvantage of computer conferences is that they tend to bedisjointed and confusing. Their are no mechanisms for regulatingdiscussion or of controlling turn taking and attempts to overcomethis by applying more structure tend to be boring, members areexcluded and the discussion lacks spontaneity. One way of attemptingto prevent this is by setting an agenda which only involves a minimalamount of typing from respondents and which keeps the discussionflowing.

Nominal GroupsNominal group techniques involve a group of people who usually do notmeet and are often anonymous. The various stages involve contactingparticipants, getting them to write on a particular issue or problem,collecting their responses, summarising them and redistributing themfor further comment. The advantage of nominal group techniques isthat problems normally associated with face to face groups can beovercome because the members do not interact. Also the benefits ofgroup work such as pooling ideas and collaborating can be achieved ina nominal group. When used with CMC these groups can be used moreeffectively allowing greater and varied membership and a quicker moreefficient means of disseminating and collecting the various stages ofthe project.

Computer mediated nominal groups are a useful way of tacklingproblems which cannot be solved in a synchronous discussion and whichrequire reflection and contemplation. They are useful for the problemdefinition stage of the problem solving process in particular andwhen you want to develop a model or report.

6.3 Combining Methods

The various group methods which have been discussed above each havetheir advantages and disadvantages. Thus it is useful to look at howthey could be used together at different stage of the group process.

We have already discussed how the software group would havebenefitted by combining a face to face meeting with electronic maildiscussions and a computer conference, and there may be moreapplications for linking these methods.

I saw an example of this recently when I was asked to partake indiscussion with two other people . The objective of the discussionwas to generate some ideas for a book review. I suggested we try acomputer conference and received the following reply:

My first reaction to your suggestion was that I prefer a face-to-face discussion, since we can EXCHANGE more ideas in ashorter amount of time that way. This appeals to me.

On reflection, however, I realise that an email-exchange (notreal-time computer "conferencing") would let other "interested"people benefit from and contribute to the discussion in an "off-line" mode. They would spend their time thinking about thesubject--and not be taking up my time in a meeting while theywere doing it. I could benefit later by reading theircontribution and making use of their ideas in my proposed bookreview.



I propose a compromise: Let's go ahead and have an initialdiscussion. Iwill write up a draft book review on the basis oftopics we cover in the discussion, then email it to you, Sue,and any other interested parties. We can then carry on a groupemail discussion of futher points or suggestedrefinements to mydraft. I am quite happy to have other people contributeby becoming co-authors of the book review. This type ofinterchange could even be mentioned as part of the book review,to show how electronicinterchange is affecting communication andcollaboration.(Steven Bittinger, e.mail message 15/11/91)This is an interesting example of how face to face and computermediated communication can be linked and shows how the two can beproductively incorporated into group work.

6.4 Future Directions

I have outlined several of the possibilities for using computers ingroup work. However there are even greater opportunities andpossibilities for this type of work group.

There is a need for further research to be done in this area. Inparticular in looking at the effect of information technology ongroups and in determining which types of group methods and computing

tools are suited for what groups and in which stage of the groupprocess they are appropriate. More careful attention needs to betaken by those people involved in designing the tools to supportgroup work to the way groups work together. They need to considerthose things which are required by the group to make it work moreproductively and effectively . They also need to consider in what waythe technology can change the way groups work and help to create moreproductive systems of group work.

This a relatively new and exciting area which requires furtherresearch and investigation.

References

Ancona, Deborah G. and Caldwell, David F. (1990) ' Information Technology andWork Groups: The Case of New Product Teams' Pp 173 - 190 inJolene Galegher, Robert E. Kraut and Carmen Egido (eds)Intellectual Teamwork: Social and Technological Foundations ofCooperative Work (Hillsdale New Jersey : Lawrence EarlbaumAssociates inc)Asch, Solomon E. (1955) 'Opinions and Social Pressure ' Pp. 318 - 324 in PaulA. Hare, Edgar F. Borgatta and Robert F.Bales (eds) SmallGroups: Studies in Social Interaction (New York :Alfred.A.Knopf)Bell, Daniel ( 1973)The Coming of Industrial Society: a venture in social

forecasting. (New York : Basic Books)Bikson,Tora K. and Eveland, J.D (1990) ' The Interplay of Work GroupStructures and Computer Support' Pp. 245 - 290 in JoleneGalegher, Robert E. Kraut and Carmen Egido (eds) IntellectualTeamwork: Social and Technological Foundations of CooperativeWork (Hillsdale New Jersey : Lawrence Earlbaum Associates inc)Delbecq, Andre L. , Van de Ven, Andrew H. and Gustafon, David H. (1975) GroupTechniques for Program Planning : a guide to nominal group anddelphi processes. (Glenview, Illinios : Scott, Foresman and



Company)Drucker, Peter (1988) 'The New Organization' in Harvard Business ReviewJanuary - February 88 (1) :45 - 53Eveland J.D. and Bikson T.K, (1988) Work Group Structures and ComputerSupport : A Field Experiment in ACM Transactions on OfficeInformation Systems, l 6 (4 ) : 354 -379Finholt, Tom Sproull, Lee and Kiesler, Sara (1990) ' Communication andPerformance in ad hoc Tasks Groups' Pp 291 - 325 in JoleneGalegher, Robert E. Kraut and Carmen Egido (eds) IntellectualTeamwork: Social and Technological Foundations of CooperativeWork (Hillsdale New Jersey : Lawrence Earlbaum Associates inc )Galegher, Jolene and Kraut, Robert E. (1990) 'Technology for IntellectualTeamwork: Perspectives on Research and Design' Pp. 1 - 20 inJolene Galegher, Robert E. Kraut and Carmen Egido (eds)Intellectual Teamwork: Social and Technological Foundations ofCooperative Work ( Hillsdale New Jersey : Lawrence EarlbaumAssociates inc )Gershuny, Jonathon (1978) After Industrial Society ?: The Emerging Self -Service Economy (London: Macmillan Press)Goodman P.S, Devadas, R and Griffith Hughson, T (1988) 'Groups andProductivity : Analyzing the Effectiveness of Self - ManagingTeams' Pp 295 - 327 Campbell J.P and Campbell R.J, Productivityin Organizations (London : Jossey- Bass )

Gutek, Barbara A (1990) ' Work Group Structures and Information Technology' :A Structural Contingency Approach' Pp 63 - 78 in JoleneGalegher, Robert E. Kraut and Carmen Egido (eds) IntellectualTeamwork: Social and Technological Foundations of CooperativeWork (Hillsdale New Jersey : Lawrence Earlbaum Associates inc)Hiltz, Starr Roxanne (1984) Online communities : a case study of the office ofthe future (Norwood, NJ : Ablex)Johnson, Bonnie McDaniel and Rice, Ronald (1987) Managing organizationalinnovation : the evolution ( New York: Colombia UniversityPress)Johnston R and Lawrence P, (1988) 'Beyond Vertical Integration - the rise ofvalue addding partnership' in Harvard Business Review July -August : 94 - 101

Kanter, R (1989) 'The New Managerial Work' in Harvard Business ReviewKiesler, Sara., Siegel, Jane and McGuire, Timothy (1984) 'SocialPsychological Aspects of Computer-Mediated Communication' inAmerican Psychologist : 1123 - 1134Kraut, Robert E., Edigo, Carmen and Galegher, Jolene (1990) 'Patterns ofContact and Communication in Scientific Research Collaborations'Pp 149 - 171 in Jolene Galegher, Robert E. Kraut and CarmenEgido (eds) Intellectual Teamwork: Social and TechnologicalFoundations of Cooperative Work (Hillsdale New Jersey :Lawrence Earlbaum Associates inc )Krauss, Robert M. and Fussell, Susan R. (1990)'Mutual Knowledge andCommunication Effectiveness' Pp. 111- 145 in Jolene Galegher,Robert E. Kraut and Carmen Egido (eds) Intellectual Teamwork:

Social and Technological Foundations of Cooperative Work(Hillsdale New Jersey : Lawrence Earlbaum Associates inc )Landow, G.P 'Hypertext and Collaborative Work: The Example of Intermedia' Pp407 - 428 in Jolene Galegher, Robert E. Kraut and Carmen Egido(eds) Intellectual Teamwork: Social and TechnologicalFoundations of Cooperative Work (Hillsdale New Jersey :Lawrence Earlbaum Associates inc )Lindstone, H.A and Turoff, M (1975) 'Computers and the Future of Delphi :Introduction' Pp 489 - 496 in in Harold Lindstone and MurrayTuroff (eds) The Delphi Method : Techniques and Applications



(Massachusetts : Addison-Wesley Company )McGrath, Joseph E. (1990) 'Time Matters in Groups' Pp. 23 - 61 in JoleneGalegher, Robert E. Kraut and Carmen Egido (eds) IntellectualTeamwork: Social and Technological Foundations of CooperativeWork (Hillsdale New Jersey : Lawrence Earlbaum Associates inc )Moore, Carl M. (1987) Group Techniques for Idea Building (Newbury Park,California : Sage Publications)Phillips, Amy (1982)'Computer Conferencing :Success or Failure' in Systems,Objectives, Solutions : 203 - 217Price, C.R (1975) 'Conferencing via Computer: Cost Effective Communication forthe Era of Forced Choice'. Pp 497 - 516 in Harold Lindstone andMurray Turoff (eds) The Delphi Method : Techniques andApplicationsPoole, Marshall .S and DeSanctis, Geraldine 'Understanding the Use of GroupDecision Support Systems : The Theory of AdaptiveStructuration'(1990) Pp 173 - 193 in James Fulk and CharlesSteinfield (Eds) Organizations and Communication Technology. (Newbury Park : Sage Publications)Rice, Ronald E. (1984) The New media : communication, research, and technology(Beverly Hills : Sage Publications )Rice, Ronald E and Chase, Donald (1983) ' Electronic Message Systems in theUniversity : A Description of Use and Utility' in Journal ofCommunication, 33 : 131 - 152Sproull, Lee and Kiesler, Sara (1991) Connections: New Ways of Working in the

Networked Organization (Cambridge,Massachusetts : MIT Press)Stewart, David W. and Shamdasani, Prem N. (1990) Focus Group: Theory andPractice Newbury Park , (California : Sage Publications)Tjisvold, D and Tsao, Y (1989) 'Productive organizational collaboration :The role of values and cooperation ' in Journal ofOrganizational Behaviour Vol 19: 189 - 195

collaborative computing work groups (166166499)

Documents