Work group structures and computer support: a field experiment

TLDR: These findings support Kling and Scacchi's (1982) view that any interactive technology introduced into a work group will be more like a “web” than like a discrete entity.

Abstract: What happens when task groups attempt to couple the advantages of online text preparation or data analysis and decision support with computer-based communication capabilities? How, if at all, does networked information technology affect group structures and interaction processes? And do positive answers to these questions depend on having a technology rich environment with computer-sophisticated individuals to start with, or could almost anyone reap significant advantages if provided with basic computer and communications technology?For the last several years, RAND's Institute for Research on Interactive Systems has been pursuing research about the ways electronic information media may influence work groups—their structures, patterns of individual interaction, experiences of task and social involvement.1 Among the questions that have recurred are the following.When work groups get access to computer-based media for handling information and communication tasks, do their structures change? Do they move closer to or further from formally established organizational structures? Do group positions (e.g., leader roles, assistant roles) stay the same or change?Do computer-supported groups overcome physical barriers to interaction (e.g., space or time constraints)? Do they overcome pre-existing social barriers (e.g., status differences)? Do they form tight clusters (“electronic islands”) or are they overlapping and not sharply defined (“loose bundles”)?How if at all do networked information technologies affect the amount or density of interaction in a group? How do they affect extent of members' integration within a group? Or centralization? Or communication across groups?How do these new technologies affect social communication among group members? How do they affect experienced task involvement? Do these media tend to “diffuse,” to spread and include other users and other uses? Do these media supplant or supplement other means for exchanging information and coordinating group tasks?Our research to date has focused largely on the work group as the critical unit of analysis, and on the overall context in which such units are embedded. Our findings support Kling and Scacchi's (1982) view that any interactive technology introduced into a work group will be more like a “web” than like a discrete entity. When a web of interactive technology is introduced into a work group, the sociotechnical system is altered; work groups increasingly become “directly dependent on their material means and resources for their output” (Trist, 1981; cf. Taylor, 1987; Bikson and Eveland, 1986; Johnson and Rice, 1987; Pava, 1983). That is to say, individuals become interdependent not only on one another but also on the technology for accomplishing their tasks; access to and control over the “means of production” assume greater importance. While the avenues for group work and the means for managing it may have multiplied, new challenges are introduced along with the technology that pre-existing social structures may be ill-prepared to handle. New patterns are likely to emerge.Our previous studies of effects of electronic communication (Eveland and Bikson, 1987) allowed us to control type of communications hardware and software as well as its relationship to other computer-based tools; but it did not permit us to evaluate the extent to which network structures and interaction patterns that emerged over time were influenced by the new technology in comparison to ongoing social relationships, task differences, and other factors. It could not reveal how, if at all, computer-supported work group structures and processes differed from those that would be observed in groups employing standard interaction media.We decided, then, that getting at our basic research questions required a field experiment— a procedure that would allow us randomly to assign group members to computer-based vs. traditional support in the completion of identical work goals as well as to design and control the introduction of new information and communications technology. An effective design, it seemed to us, should also have the following characteristics:If individuals are expected to become familiar with new information technology, accomplish a meaningful goal, and in the process have an opportunity to form or reform work structures and social relations, it would require an intervention of about a year's time.Further, if individuals in both the “electronic” and “standard” conditions were to participate in a year-long effort, a strong mission focus was essential—the goal for group activity and the role of communication would have to be highly motivating.Also, for non-collocated individuals to agree to take part (and to continue their participation) in randomly assigned groups, they should be selected from a common “community”; that is; they should come from a common culture, share some concerns, and have some reason to think they might want to work with one another (cf. Markus, 1987).2