An empirical study of task type and communication medium in GDSS

Raman, K. S.; Tan, Bernard C. Y.; Wei, Kwok Kee

doi:10.1109/hicss.1993.284178

Cited by 16 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Communication satisfaction was measured by a questionnaire proven valid and reliable in extensive prior research (Hecht 1978aand 1978b, Hecht et al 1984, Rubin and Rubin 1989. Our approaches to measuring decision quality and consensus change have also been used in earlier studies and have found significance in studies with fewer teams (Kinney and Watson 1992, Raman et al 1993, Watson et al 1988, Watson et al 1994. In this study, the measures of time and consensus change found significant differences, just not those predicted by media richness theory.…”

Section: Alternative Explanationsmentioning

confidence: 50%

Testing Media Richness Theory in the New Media: The Effects of Cues, Feedback, and Task Equivocality

Dennis¹,

Kinney²

1998

Information Systems Research

714

440

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

M edia richness theory argues that performance improves when team members use "richer" media for equivocal tasks. This experiment studied the effects of media richness on decision making in two-person teams using "new media" (i.e., computer-mediated and video communication). Media richness was varied based on multiplicity of cues and immediacy of feedback. Subjects perceived differences in richness due to both cues and feedback, but matching richness to task equivocality did not improve decision quality, decision time, consensus change, or communication satisfaction. Use of media providing fewer cues (i.e., computer mediated communication) led to slower decisions and more so for the less equivocal task. In short, the results found no support for the central proposition of media richness theory; matching media richness to task equivocality did not improve performance.

show abstract

Section: Alternative Explanationsmentioning

confidence: 50%

Testing Media Richness Theory in the New Media: The Effects of Cues, Feedback, and Task Equivocality

Dennis¹,

Kinney²

1998

Information Systems Research

714

440

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…According to the past studies mentioned above, proximate GSS groups enhance overall satisfaction [10], decision satisfaction, decision scheme satisfaction [21], communication effectiveness and communication interface [2] when compared to distributed GSS groups. In addition, the combined group (using distributed GSS and FTF) was superior to the GSS group or FTF group in solution satisfaction [17], and the combined group was superior to the GSS group in process satisfaction and solution satisfaction [18].…”

Section: Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…For example, Jessup and Tansik [10] conducted this kind of experiment and the result showed that proximate GSS enhanced overall satisfaction in the meeting. Raman et al [21] reported in his experimental study that, in a preference task, proximate GSS have more positive impact on decision satisfaction and decision scheme satisfaction than distributed GSS. Burke and Chidambaram [2] compared proximate GSS with synchronous distributed GSS and asynchronous distributed GSS in their experiment.…”

Section: Ftf Interaction In Gss Sessionsmentioning

confidence: 97%

A study on the impacts of verbal interaction in proximate GSS sessions

Mukahi

Corbitt

2003

36th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2003. Proceedings of The

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although distributed Group Support Systems (GSS) are getting popular, there are still some limitations. One of the limitations is few substitutions for face-to-face (FTF) interaction (whether it is related to meeting content or not), so we may say that FTF interaction is one of the advantages of proximate types of GSS. However, there are few studies that focus only on the role of FTF interaction in proximate GSS sessions, so it is unclear what the real advantages may be. If we understand the role of FTF interaction better, we can understand how proximate GSS is important perhaps understand better the role of face to face interaction when compared to distributed GSS. When data regarding face to face interaction was studies, many experimental studies separated FTF interaction from computer based interaction in GSS sessions. But, if people are gathered at same place under actual meeting conditions, it is assumed that they automatically talk about something. Therefore FTF interaction, especially verbal interaction in proximate GSS sessions, is an important issue to consider in actual GSS conditions.The purpose of this study is to clarify impacts of verbal interaction in actual proximate GSS sessions. Eight proximate GSS sessions were observed and data were gathered using questionnaires from 59 participants. The relationship between meeting satisfaction, group cohesion and verbal interaction was analyzed.Results show that, "oral participation in a discussion" and "informal chat during a session" tends to enhance meeting satisfaction and group cohesion more than "contribution using GSS". Therefore, we may say formal or informal verbal interactions in proximate GSS sessions play an important role and this role is one of the advantages of proximate GSS.

show abstract

“…For example, a GDSS study found F2F groups had higher consensus with preference tasks than non-F2F groups (Raman, Tan, & Wei, 1993). In contrast, several GSS studies showed higher levels of consensus could be achieved in distributed GSS groups (compared to F2F groups) that conducted intellective tasks, as opposed to preference or decision-making tasks (Hollingshead, McGrath, & O'Conner, 1993;Sia, Tan, & Wei, 1996;Tan, 1993;Tan, Raman, & Wei, 1994).…”

Section: Research Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research on Proximity Choices for Distributed, Asynchronous Collaborative Writing Groups

Lowry

2002

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper investigates whether using variations in proximity choices can improve outcomes of distributed, asynchronous collaborative writing (CW) teams that work on the Internet. This paper reports preliminary results of a field experiment on asynchronous collaborative writing using 550 participants over a month and a half. It is found that groups that met face-to-face for convergence processes had no advantages over groups that did all their work asynchronously and distributed. This supports the notion that with correct processes and tools, distributed groups can be just as effective as face-to-face groups.

show abstract

An empirical study of task type and communication medium in GDSS

Cited by 16 publications

References 26 publications

Testing Media Richness Theory in the New Media: The Effects of Cues, Feedback, and Task Equivocality

Testing Media Richness Theory in the New Media: The Effects of Cues, Feedback, and Task Equivocality

A study on the impacts of verbal interaction in proximate GSS sessions

Research on Proximity Choices for Distributed, Asynchronous Collaborative Writing Groups

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About