Task/Technology Fit and the Effectiveness of Group Support Systems: Evidence in the Context of Tasks Requiring Domain Specific Knowledge

Transcription

1 Task/Technology Fit and the Effectiveness of Group Support Systems: Evidence in the Context of Tasks Requiring Domain Specific Knowledge Uday S. Murthy David S. Kerr Department of Accounting Department of Accounting Texas A&M University Texas A&M University College Station TX College Station TX Abstract Research on the effectiveness of group support systems (GSS) technology has begun to explore the task/technology fit hypothesis, which suggests an interaction between task type and communication mode. Some limited research employing generic tasks and ad hoc groups has found that GSS-mediated groups perform about the same as their face-to-face counterparts on creative tasks but significantly worse on intellective tasks. This research extends prior work by investigating the task/technology fit hypothesis using groups with a shared history and business-oriented idea generation and problem-solving tasks. Consistent with the predictions of task technology fit theory, the results revealed a significant disordinal interaction subjects performed significantly better when communicating face-to-face for the problem-solving task and when communicating via the GSS for the idea generation task. Echoing the findings of much prior research, subjects tended to prefer face-toface communication over GSS-mediated communication. 1. Introduction Information technology is increasingly being used to support collaborative work in a variety of business contexts. A group support system (GSS) allows participants in a collaborative group to interact simultaneously and anonymously to generate ideas, make decisions, and solve problems [10]. Considerable prior research on GSS has focused on idea generation or brainstorming, with the general conclusion that groups brainstorming electronically generate more ideas than those brainstorming face-to-face [2] [5] [6] [16] [17]. The superior performance of GSS groups on such tasks has been largely attributed to the simultaneous input feature which allows participants to input ideas in parallel without having to wait for their turn (as is the case in face-to-face communication). It is also noteworthy that most prior GSS brainstorming research employed generic tasks (e.g., uses of an extra thumb), where subjects could contribute ideas without having to recall any specialized knowledge. In contrast to brainstorming tasks, problem-solving tasks require participants to recall specialized knowledge and discuss and debate alternative points of view with the objective of solving a specific problem. Furthermore, such problem-solving directed collaborative work calls for both divergent thinking aimed at generating alternative solution proposals and convergent thinking aimed at identifying the key alternative(s) that would solve the problem at hand. It is unclear whether GSS groups would outperform face-to-face groups in problem-solving tasks involving convergent thinking because of the increased need for richness in the communication medium for such tasks [3] [12]. Combining Daft and Lengel s information richness theory with McGrath s task circumplex results in a theory of a task/technology fit which suggests that GSS-mediated communication may be very effective for certain task types but less effective or actually detrimental for other task types [12] [19]. Prior research exploring the task/technology fit hypothesis has primarily used ad hoc groups and has employed tasks not requiring subjects to recall any domain-specific knowledge. The generalizability of this research to business decision-making settings is questionable, since group members in real-world business settings frequently have a shared history and must draw on their specialized knowledge relating to the problem at hand. This research investigated the task/technology fit hypothesis using idea generation and problem-solving tasks where subjects were required to recall specialized knowledge. Unlike the majority of prior research, subjects had a shared history with multiple episodes of working together in teams to solve problems. Idea generation and problem solving proficiency was compared between teams meeting face-to-face and teams meeting via a GSS. Consistent with the predictions of task technology fit theory, the results revealed a significant disordinal interaction subjects performed significantly better when communicating face-to-face for the problem-solving task, /00 $10.00 (c) 2000 IEEE 1

2 while there was no statistically significant difference in performance between face-to-face and GSS communication for the idea-generation task. Subjects who worked in face-to-face teams were more satisfied with their team s performance and with their communication mode than when they worked in the GSS-assisted environment. Regarding subjects preferences, as was the case with the satisfaction measures, face-to-face collaborative work was preferred to the GSS. The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. The next section reviews prior work on task/technology fit. Based on information richness theory and McGrath s task circumplex, hypotheses about the effects of GSS technology on both idea generation and problem solving proficiency in an information systems consulting context are developed. The research method is discussed next, with a description of the GSS software used in the experiment. This is followed by the presentation of the results of the experiment. The implications of the results are then discussed, after which the concluding section summarizes the paper and provides some possible directions for future research. 2. Background and Development of Hypotheses Many business decisions are made in team settings where participants can share their expertise and present alternative points of view. We are now firmly in an era of the knowledge worker where the majority of jobs in virtually all organizations involves working with information. Moreover, the knowledge needed to compete effectively in the marketplace is often dispersed throughout an organization. As the need for employees to collaborate regardless of time and space boundaries intensifies, organizations are increasingly deploying group support technologies such as Lotus Notes. The three distinguishing features of GSS parallel communication, group memory, and anonymity mitigate some of the process losses inherent in face-to-face communication such as production blocking and evaluation apprehension. It therefore follows that GSS-mediated groups should outperform face-to-face groups, at least for certain types of tasks. The importance of task type as a moderating variable in GSS research has been recognized for some time. Although GSS groups have often outperformed faceto-face groups on idea generation tasks, the results in the context of problem solving, negotiation, and conflict resolution tasks have been mixed. McGrath [11] [12] presents a task circumplex which identifies eight different types of basic group task processes. The eight types of group tasks vary in terms of their need for richness in the communication medium used. Information richness refers to the degree to which a message conveys additional information, such as emotions, attitudes, values, expectations, and other information, beyond the literal meaning of the message expressed. The eight group task processes in McGrath s task circumplex, ordered in terms of increasing information richness requirements, are: (1) planning tasks (generating plans), (2) creativity tasks (generating ideas), (3) intellective tasks (solving problems with correct answers), (4) decision-making tasks (deciding issues without right answers), (5) cognitive conflict tasks (resolving conflicts of viewpoints), (6) mixed-motive tasks (resolving conflicts of interest), (7) contests/ competitive tasks (resolving conflicts of power), and (8) performances/psychomotor tasks (executing performance tasks). In terms of McGrath s task circumplex, idea generation tasks require the exchange of messages containing only ideas. Messages that convey additional information, such as emotions or criticism, may be counterproductive. In contrast, tasks which involve resolving conflicts of interest or power may be facilitated by the exchange of information rich messages which convey emotions, attitudes, values, expectations, and other information [12]. Information richness theory [3] asserts that different forms of communication differ in the richness of the information they are able to convey. Face-to-face communication is perhaps the richest form of communication, while GSSmediated communication is much less rich compared to face-to-face communication [12]. Combining information richness theory with McGrath s task circumplex results in the notion of a task/technology fit which suggests that GSS-mediated communication may be very effective for certain task types but less effective or actually detrimental for other task types [19]. Specifically, GSS can be very effective when used by groups to perform tasks which do not require information-rich communications, such as planning tasks and creativity tasks involving generating ideas. However, for tasks requiring richer communication, such as negotiating conflicts of interest or performing psychomotor tasks, face-to-face communication should be more effective [12]. In terms of McGrath s task circumplex, idea generation (brainstorming) tasks involve divergent thinking where very little member interdependence is required. In contrast, intellective tasks involving problem-solving are best tackled through a twostage process an initial process of divergent thinking where possible solutions are proposed, followed by a process of convergent thinking where these proposals are analyzed to identify those best suited to solve the problem at hand. The convergent thinking phase requires a high degree of member interdependence, for which GSS is less well suited relative to face-to-face communication. Some recent research has empirically investigated the task/technology fit notion in the context of GSS. In a /00 $10.00 (c) 2000 IEEE 2

3 longitudinal study of computer-mediated and face-to-face groups, Hollingshead et al. [8] found that face-to-face groups performed significantly better on negotiation and intellective tasks than did their computer-mediated counterparts. However, contrary to expectations, GSS groups did not outperform face-to-face groups on the idea generation task (there was no significant difference between GSS and face-to-face groups). The findings lend partial support to the task/technology fit theory GSS was a poorer fit for negotiation and intellective tasks than for creative tasks. Straus and McGrath [15] investigated the hypothesis that as group tasks pose greater requirements for member interdependence, communication media that transmit more social context cues (i.e., face-to-face communication) will foster group performance and satisfaction. The tasks employed, ordered in terms of increasing member interdependence, were an idea generation task, an intellective task, and a judgment task. The results revealed few differences between computermediated and face-to-face groups in the quality of the work completed but large differences in productivity favoring face-to-face groups. Furthermore, face-to-face groups outperformed computer-mediated groups on tasks requiring greater member interdependence, i.e., on intellective and judgment tasks. This study also provided support for the task/technology fit theory. In a comprehensive meta-analysis of 28 experimental studies exploring the relationship between task type and GSS effectiveness, Hwang [9] concluded that task type had a significant impact favoring generation tasks when GSS effectiveness was measured by improved communication, member satisfaction, and decision speed. However, GSS effectiveness as measured by improved decision quality and member participation was not a function of task type. For generation tasks, although data regarding decision quality were in the hypothesized direction of GSS groups outperforming face-to-face groups, the difference was not significant. Hwang called for further research on the moderating effects of task type when GSS effectiveness is to be measured along the dimensions of decision quality and participation. It is noteworthy that virtually all prior GSS studies used tasks for which participants did not have to recall any specialized knowledge. For example, the GSS brainstorming studies used tasks such as suggestions for boosting tourism, how the air quality could be improved, what one can do with an extra thumb, or how the oncampus parking problem could be alleviated. By contrast, business-oriented tasks require participants to recall and discuss specialized knowledge related to the problem at hand. This need to recall specialized knowledge represents an additional cognitive load for participants in a work group. It is not clear whether the results from studies employing generic tasks not requiring specialized knowledge automatically translate to settings where participants must recall specialized knowledge related to the task at hand. The present study investigated the effectiveness of GSS for both idea generation and problem-solving tasks when the task demands required participants to recall specialized knowledge. 2.1 Hypotheses In the current study, we compared the performance of GSS-assisted groups and groups meeting face-to-face on both creative tasks (idea generation) and intellective tasks (problem solving). For creative tasks, GSS groups have the potential to outperform face-to-face groups because of a reduced need for member interdependence and coordination in such tasks resulting in a better fit between the task and technology. On the other hand, faceto-face groups should outperform GSS groups on intellective tasks, because of the increased need for member interdependence in such tasks resulting in a poorer fit between the task and technology. The creative task used in this study can be classified as a generation task in terms of McGrath s circumplex; members must simply transmit ideas without the need to convey any evaluative or emotional cues relative to the ideas. The problem solving task used in this study can be classified in terms of McGrath s task circumplex as intellective in that participants are required to solve real-world problems for which there are no single clearcut solutions. Intellective and decision making tasks require a greater degree of information richness than do idea generation tasks. Thus, the key question being investigated in the present study is whether face-to-face communication is more effective than GSS-mediated communication when the information richness requirement of the task increases. The preceding discussion suggests that GSS-assisted teams should out-perform face-to-face teams on idea generation tasks, while face-to-face teams should be superior to GSS-assisted teams on problem-solving tasks. This analysis leads to the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 1: As the need for information richness in tasks increases, the relative performance of face-to-face teams will improve vis-à-vis GSSassisted teams. H1a: GSS-assisted teams will outperform face-to-face teams in ideageneration tasks, which have relatively lower information richness requirements. H1b: Face-to-face teams will outperform GSS-assisted teams in problemsolving tasks, which have relatively /00 $10.00 (c) 2000 IEEE 3

4 higher information richness requirements. Hypothesis 1 is thus essentially a prediction of a disordinal interaction between task type and communication mode, which is the key prediction of task/technology fit theory. In addition to investigating the performance of GSSassisted teams relative to face-to-face teams when performing tasks of varying information richness requirements, it is also of interest to assess team members satisfaction with, and preferences for, GSS-assisted communication relative to face-to-face communication. The task technology fit hypothesis addresses the performance of teams in GSS-mediated and face-to-face communication modes. However, the hypothesis does not (directly) address the issue of team member satisfaction with the communication mode as a function of task type. Thus, it is unclear whether participants satisfaction levels will mirror the expectations regarding performance. With few exceptions, prior research has found that members of teams interacting face-to-face are more satisfied with their team s performance than members of GSS-assisted teams [4] [6] [18]. However, the focus of prior studies has been on ad-hoc groups formed solely for the purpose of the experiment. In contrast, the current study utilizes teams with a shared history of several episodes of working together prior to the experiment. Although the results of studies based on ad-hoc groups cannot be generalized to teams with a shared history, we expect a similar relationship to exist between satisfaction and communication mode. Teams with a shared history, as is common in business entities, are more likely to possess cohesive and efficient working relationships. Accordingly, teams with a shared history in which members know one another well and have worked together in the past are expected to be more satisfied when they meet face-to-face than when using the GSS. This leads to the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 2: 3. Method 3.1 Subjects and Design Participants in face-to-face teams will be more satisfied with the team experience than participants in GSS-assisted teams. The research hypotheses were tested through an experiment using 76 business students enrolled in a senior-level information systems course. The students were formed in teams of four at the beginning of the semester. Prior to the experiment, subjects had worked together in their teams to discuss and complete several course projects unrelated to the experiment. Thus, the teams in which subjects completed the experimental task had a shared history of working together, as opposed to ad hoc teams created merely for the purpose of the experiment. Subjects participated in the experiment in fulfillment of a course requirement. Subjects were motivated to take the experimental task seriously since they were told that a portion of their course grade would be based on their performance on the experimental task. Teams were assigned to experimental conditions randomly. Seventy-six subjects in 19 teams of four worked in GSS-assisted and face-to-face discussion environments. All teams completed two cases; an ideageneration case and a problem-solving case. Half of the teams completed the idea-generation case while meeting face-to-face and the problem-solving task using the GSS. The other teams used the GSS to complete the ideageneration case and met face-to-face to complete the problem-solving task. The order of the two cases was counter-balanced, as was the interaction mode. Since all teams interacted in both communication modes (face-toface and GSS), any differences in team history that may have led to varying degrees of team cohesion and knowledge prior to the experiment would be present in each interaction mode and should therefore not confound the results. For the idea-generation case, participants were given a one-page narrative description of a company in the process of developing an on-line sales order processing system. They were instructed to assume their team had been hired as consultants to assist the company in the development of the system. Each team s task was to discuss the system and (1) develop a list of specific general control procedures that should be implemented in the company s information systems department, and (2) develop a list of specific application (input) control procedures for the company s sales order processing system. Half of the teams completed this case in the GSSdiscussion mode and half completed the case face-to-face. In the problem-solving case, subjects were given a onepage narrative description of a company that had been experiencing problems with its on-line computer system for processing sales transactions. The problems consisted of ten specific errors and irregularities. Each team was to discuss the system and, for each problem, identify the most appropriate specific general or application control procedure that could be implemented by the company to prevent the error or irregularity from recurring. Teams that completed the idea generation case by interacting face-toface completed the problem-solving case using the GSS, and vice-versa. Since the purpose of this study is to examine the differential effects of GSS-mediated communication on problem solving and idea-generation in teams, the choice of tasks was crucial to the study s internal validity. The benefits and usefulness of group support systems are a function of the complexity of the task to be performed /00 $10.00 (c) 2000 IEEE 4

5 Although GSS can be applied to a wide variety of group judgment tasks, their use is most appropriate for relatively complex, unstructured tasks [6] [7]. In the tasks used in this study, the focus is primarily on internal control design issues a non-trivial, relatively unstructured area which has received little attention in prior research, and one in which management, consulting, and auditing teams are likely to interact in groups. As Connolly et al. [2] suggest, laboratory experimentation with student subjects is a useful step in exploring various effects of GSS on collaborative problem solving. To reduce the chance that the experimental task might be too complex for students to complete, and to ensure that subjects had some degree of specialized knowledge relevant to the experimental task, subjects were limited to senior-level business students enrolled in an upper-level information systems class. Internal control topics had been covered in class and subjects had been tested on these topics. The experimental task focused on evaluation of the operations and design of internal control over sales-order processing an area with which these subjects were familiar. Unlike tasks used in prior electronic brainstorming studies, the task used in the current study was more representative of real-world tasks since it required participants to recall specialized knowledge (i.e., relevant internal controls for the sales-order processing functions in order to suggest improvements in the design of the internal control system). Both cases were completed by all subjects in a single session. Teams in the face-to-face discussion mode were seated around a table, with each team in a separate conference room. One member in each team was selected to serve as the team s scribe to prepare the team s solution to the case. The scribe was instructed to write ideas that arose during discussion on a large notepad that all team members could easily see. Subjects were not permitted to use any reference material. All face-to-face teams were monitored by a facilitator from a control room via closedcircuit television. Teams in the GSS-mediated discussion mode used the WebBoard system developed by Duke Engineering and O Reilly and Associates, Inc. WebBoard supports same time/same place discussion, same time/different place discussion, and different time/different place discussion. All subjects had prior experience using the WebBoard system. Each subject in the GSS-mediated condition received a written summary of the mechanics of using the WebBoard software and assistance was available for any participant needing help. There were two features in WebBoard that subjects used during the experiment a chat tool that all team members used to communicate, and a topic posting tool that was used by a designated team member to collate relevant ideas as they were being expressed by team members. The rationale for requiring a team member to collate relevant ideas in both face-to-face teams and GSS teams was (1) to allow team members to easily view all relevant controls previously mentioned and (2) to increase the realism of the task, since in a real-world setting a coherent list of recommendations and solutions would be more useful than a transcript of all comments made during the session. All teams were allowed 30 minutes to complete each case. 3.2 Dependent Measures The primary dependent measure in the design was the number of relevant internal controls correctly identified by each team. Teams solutions to each case were given to an independent grader. The grader received a grading key for each case. The grading keys were prepared prior to administration of the experiment and described in detail the scoring scheme to be used to give credit for team solutions. All teams solutions were masked to hide from the grader whether the list was created by a GSS-assisted team or a face-to-face team. Only one grader was used because there was no judgment involved in the grading of teams solutions. The grading was done objectively by comparing teams answers to the grading key--teams received a point if their answer matched one of the acceptable answers listed on the grading key and received no points when there was no match. Each participant completed two debriefing questionnaires; one immediately after each case. The questionnaires, which were developed by the researchers, contained questions specific to the GSS system used (WebBoard) and the tasks employed in the research. Fourteen statements were presented in each questionnaire to measure various aspects of participants satisfaction levels. Participants were asked to indicate the degree to which they agreed with each statement. Response scales were based on a seven-point Likert scale anchored with strongly disagree and strongly agree. In addition, since each subject participated in both face-to-face discussions and GSS-assisted discussions, we were also able to assess subjects preferences concerning GSSassisted discussions vis-a-vis face-to-face discussions. At the conclusion of the experiment, subjects indicated their preferred communication mode, as well as their perceptions of the relative advantages and disadvantages of each communication mode in terms of their ability to express thoughts and ideas freely and the amount of attention other members of the team paid to their comments. These issues were investigated through the following questions: /00 $10.00 (c) 2000 IEEE 5

6 In which of the two group discussion environments ( face-to-face or on the computer ) do you feel you were able to express your thoughts and ideas more freely? (subjects chose one of the following: face-toface, on the computer, no difference) In which of the two group discussion environments ( face-to-face or on the computer ) do you feel that members of your group paid more attention to your comments? (subjects chose one of the following: face-to-face, on the computer, no difference) If you were asked to complete another assignment requiring discussion with your group, would you prefer to complete the assignment (subjects chose one of the following: using the computer; meeting face-to-face (without the computer), no preference either way) 4. Results and discussion Hypothesis 1 predicted a disordinal interaction between task type and communication mode, with GSS-assisted teams outperforming face-to-face teams on ideageneration tasks, and face-to-face teams outperforming GSS-assisted teams on problem-solving tasks. Results reveal a disordinal interaction, the pattern of which is consistent with the hypothesized effects of GSS use for idea generation and problem solving tasks (see Figure 1). The explore procedure in SPSS identified four outliers in the data. Analyses were performed with, and without, outliers. There were no meaningful differences in results. Accordingly, analyses reported herein were performed with outliers omitted. Performance Face-to-face Problem-solving Figure 1. Interaction between communication mode x task type In line with the predictions of task/technology fit theory, teams performed better when communicating faceto-face for the problem-solving task and when communicating via the GSS for the idea generation task. For the idea-generation task, GSS-assisted teams mean score was 11.0; face-to-face teams mean score was 9.1. On the problem-solving task, however, face-to-face teams mean score was 24.4 while GSS-assisted teams mean score was ANOVA indicates the interaction between task type and communication mode is statistically significant (F=20.23; p<.001) (see tables 1 and 2) GSS Idea generation Table 1 Descriptive Statistics for Team Performance Idea generation Problem solving Team Performance Score GSS teams Face-to-face teams GSS teams Face-to-face teams Mean Median Standard deviation N /00 $10.00 (c) 2000 IEEE 6

7 Table 2 Analysis of Variance: Idea Generation and Problem Solving Performance Source Sum of Squares df F Sig. Communication mode Problem type Mode x Type Error The significant interaction noted above is precisely what the task/technology fit hypothesis suggests regarding the appropriate fit between GSS technology and task type. Although GSS is well suited for creative tasks such as idea generation, it is not as well suited for intellective tasks involving problem solving which require a higher degree of coordination and member interdependence. In the creative task in the current study, team members expressed their ideas using the chat tool and a designated team member collated ideas to formulate the team solution. Although this required a certain degree of member interdependence, a much higher degree of interdependence was required for the problem-solving task since it involved discussion about which of several alternative control procedures would most effectively prevent each error/irregularity described in the case. It should also be noted that both the idea generation and the problem-solving tasks used in this study required subjects to recall specialized knowledge. For the idea generation task, to propose relevant internal control procedures subjects needed to recall this specialized knowledge thereby imposing a certain degree of cognitive load. By contrast, in the problem solving task, subjects needed to not only recall specialized knowledge of relevant internal control procedures, they also needed to discuss and reach consensus regarding the most appropriate internal control procedure for the particular error/irregularity. Given the significant interaction between communication mode and problem type, the simple effects of communication mode on problem type were examined next. Analysis of the simple effect of communication mode on idea generation reveals the difference between face-to-face and GSS-assisted teams performance, although in the direction hypothesized by task/technology fit theory, is not statistically significant (F=7.24; p=.407). This finding is consistent with prior research, particularly Hollingshead et al. [8] who also found no differences in performance between computer-mediated and face-to-face groups for idea generation tasks. Thus, hypothesis 1a is not supported. In contrast, the effect of communication mode on problem solving is significant, with face-to-face teams outperforming GSS-assisted teams (F=50.93; p<.001). This finding is consistent with hypothesis 1b and supports task/technology fit theory. Overall, the results provide support for task/technology fit theory for problem solving tasks, but judgment must be reserved regarding the implications of the theory for idea generation tasks. 4.1 Effect of Communication Mode on Satisfaction Participants responses to the 14-item satisfaction questionnaire administered after completion of each case were used to determine which of the two communication modes leads to greater satisfaction levels in team members. The questionnaire addresses several aspects of user satisfaction. To discern the underlying constructs in the 14-item questionnaire, a principal components factor analysis with varimax rotation was performed. Four item groupings were formed based on the factor loadings using a cut-off of.60. These four groupings were labeled as follows: (1) satisfaction with performance, (2) comfort with communication mode, (3) perceived engagement level, and (4) autonomy preference. Questions that dealt with how satisfied subjects were with their performance during the session were grouped together as the satisfaction with performance factor. The second factor was labeled comfort with communication mode since it included questions dealing with subjects degree of comfort or contentment with the mode of communication (GSS or face-to-face). The third factor, satisfaction with other members participation covered questions relating to the perceived degree of participation, perceived attentiveness of members, and whether the respondent felt the session was dominated by one or two members. The final factor focused on whether subjects felt they could have done better on their own or with more time and was /00 $10.00 (c) 2000 IEEE 7

8 labeled autonomy preference. All but one of the questions loaded on these four factors. Given the varied nature of the 14-item satisfaction questionnaire, a high degree of variance in responses was expected. Therefore, to determine the construct validity of the four factors, a reliability analysis was performed. The resulting Cronbach s alpha scores were as follows:.83 for satisfaction with performance,.79 for comfort with communication mode,.61 for satisfaction with other members participation and.36 for autonomy preference. Nunnally [13] suggests that alpha levels of about.80 and above are required to affirm construct validity. Consequently, it was decided to retain the first two factors but to drop the third and fourth factors from the analysis owing to their relatively low reliability. Hypothesis 2 predicted participants would have higher levels of satisfaction when interacting face-to-face than when interacting via the GSS. ANOVA was used to test this hypothesis for each of the two constructs discussed above: satisfaction with performance and comfort with communication mode. Descriptive statistics are presented in table 3. ANOVA results for participants satisfaction with performance measures and comfort with communication mode measures are presented in panels A and B, respectively, of table 4. Table 3 Descriptive Statistics for Satisfaction Measures Idea generation Problem solving Component GSS groups Face-to-face groups GSS groups Face-to-face groups Satisfaction with performance Mean Standard deviation N Comfort with communication mode Mean Standard deviation N Table 4 Analyses of Variance: Participants Satisfaction Measures Panel A: Dependent variable: Satisfaction with performance Source Sum of Squares df F Sig. Communication mode Problem type Mode x Type Error /00 $10.00 (c) 2000 IEEE 8

9 Panel B. Dependent variable: Comfort with communication mode Source Sum of Squares df F Sig. Communication mode Problem type Mode x Type Error ANOVA results for the satisfaction with performance construct reveal a statistically significant communication mode x task type interaction. Accordingly, the simple effect of communication mode at each level of task type was examined. For the ideageneration task, results reveal that participants who interact face-to-face are significantly more satisfied with their team s performance than are participants who interact using the GSS (face-to-face=5.24; GSS=4.24; F=15.47, p<.001). This finding is consistent with hypothesis 2. However, there was no significant difference in the problem-solving task (face-to-face=4.76; GSS=4.84; F=.06; p=.813). The reason for face-to-face teams not exhibiting greater satisfaction relative to GSS teams in the problem-solving task is not clear. Analysis of the comfort with communication mode construct indicates greater comfort levels with face-to-face interaction than with GSS-assisted interaction (F=10.45; p=.002). This result holds across both types of tasks. Overall, these results are consistent with hypothesis 2. Subjects were generally more satisfied when they met face-to-face than when they met via the GSS. This finding is consistent with the majority of prior research that has investigated participants satisfaction with GSSmediated communication relative to face-to-face communication. However, caution should be exercised before concluding that subjects using a GSS will always be less satisfied than those interacting face-to-face. In a longitudinal study of users reactions to GSS, Chidambaram [1] found improvements over time in the levels of satisfaction with repeated use of a GSS. 4.2 Team Members Preferences After having completed both cases, participants were asked to indicate (1) which communication mode (face-toface or GSS-assisted) they would prefer to use if they were required to complete another project requiring team discussion, (2) which of the two communication modes allowed them to express their thoughts and ideas more freely, and (3) in which of the two communication modes they felt that members of their team paid more attention to their comments. Results revealed that participants strongly preferred face-to-face interaction to GSS-assisted interaction. When asked which interaction mode they would prefer to use if asked to complete another project in the future, 74% of the participants indicated they would prefer to interact face-to-face. Only 4% indicated they would prefer the GSS-assisted mode. Twenty-two percent expressed no preference either way. Seventy-four percent (8%) felt they were able to express their thoughts and ideas more freely in the face-to-face condition (GSSassisted) condition, while 18% felt there was no difference in their ability to express their thoughts and ideas. Finally, 40% (9%) of the participants indicated their team members paid more attention to their comments in the face-to-face (GSS-assisted) setting, while 51% indicated there was no difference. 5. Summary and Conclusion The increasing use of information technology in support of collaborative work underscores the importance of research that explores the appropriate fit between this technology and the various types of tasks in which it could be used. While the advantages of GSS for brainstorming tasks is reasonably well established, its use for intellective problem-solving tasks is less clear. This study investigated the predictions of task/technology fit theory, which suggests that GSS is more appropriate for idea-generation tasks than for problem-solving tasks. In contrast with prior studies examining the predictions of this theory, the current study used teams with a shared history and required subjects to recall domain specific knowledge. Thus, the current study is more generalizable to business decision-making settings where team members frequently have a shared history and must draw on their specialized knowledge to complete the task confronting the team. Idea generation and problem solving performance was compared between teams meeting face-to-face and teams meeting via a GSS, specifically O Reilly s WebBoard system. Consistent with the predictions of task technology /00 $10.00 (c) 2000 IEEE 9

10 fit theory, the results revealed a significant disordinal interaction between task type and communication mode. Subjects performed significantly better when communicating face-to-face for the problem-solving task. There was no statistically significant difference in performance between face-to-face and GSS communication for the idea generation task. Consistent with prior research, subjects were generally more satisfied when they interacted face-to-face than when they interacted via the GSS. Specifically, subjects who worked in face-to-face teams were more satisfied with their team s performance and communication mode than when they worked in the GSS-assisted environment. Regarding subjects preferences, as was the case with the satisfaction measures, face-to-face collaborative work was preferred to the GSS. The usual limitations of laboratory experiments involving student subjects apply in this study. Future research could explore the predictions of task/technology fit theory using tasks at different levels in the task circumplex, such as negotiation and conflict resolution tasks. It would also be interesting to investigate the effects of experience and group size on the predictions of the theory. For example, counter to the theory, it could be argued that professionals with experience in the problem domain and GSS technology such as Lotus Notes could perform better on problem-solving tasks using GSS than when interacting face-to-face. As suggested by Zigurs and Buckland [19], future research could explore whether equipping the GSS with features that facilitate tasks at the higher ends of the circumplex would make a difference. For example, negotiation and conflict resolution tasks could benefit from the use of an anonymous voting tool in a GSS setting. It is also important to note that GSS permit different time/different place meetings, whereas the majority of existing research has been limited to comparing GSS and face-to-face communication in a decision room setting. 6. References [1] Chidambaram, L Relational development in computer-supported groups. MIS Quarterly 20(2): [2] Connolly, T., Jessup, L.M., and Valacich, J.S Effects of anonymity and evaluative tone on idea generation in computer-mediated groups. Management Science, 36(6): [3] Daft, R.L. and Lengel, R.H Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32(5): [4] Dennis, A.R. and Gallupe, R.B A history of group support systems empirical research: Lessons learned and future directions. In L.M. Jessup and J.S. Valacich (Eds.) Group Support Systems: New Perspectives: 59-77, New York: Macmillan. [5] Gallupe, R.B., Dennis, A.R., Cooper, W.H., Valacich, J.S., Bastianutti, L.M. and Nunamaker, J.F. Jr Electronic brainstorming and group size. Academy of Management Journal 35(2): [6] Gallupe, R.B., DeSanctis, G. and Dickson, G.W Computer-based support for group problem-finding: An experimental investigation. MIS Quarterly 12(2): [7] George, J.F., Easton, G.K., Nunamaker, J.F. Jr. and Northcraft, G.B A study of collaborative group work with and without computer-based support. Information Systems Research 1(4): [8] Hollingshead, A.B., McGrath, J.E., and O Connor, K.M Group task performance and communication technology: A longitudinal study of computer-mediated versus face-to-face groups. Small Group Research 24(3): [9] Hwang, M Did task type matter in the use of decision room GSS? A critical review and a meta-analysis. Omega: International Journal of Management Science 26(1): [10] Jessup, L.M, Connolly, T. and Tansik, D.A Toward a theory of automated group work: The deindividuating effects of anonymity. Small Group Research 21(3): [11] McGrath, J.E Groups: Interaction and Performance. Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ. [12] McGrath, J.E. and Hollingshead, A.B Putting the group back in group support systems: some theoretical issues about dynamic processes in groups with technological enhancements. In L.M. Jessup and J.S. Valacich (Eds.) Group Support Systems: New Perspectives: 78-96, New York: Macmillan. [13] Nunnally, J Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill. [14] Steeb, R., and Johnston, S.C A computer-based interactive system for group decisionmaking. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, SMC-11(8): [15] Straus, S.G. and McGrath, J.E Does the medium matter? The interaction of task type and technology on group performance and member reactions. Journal of Applied Psychology 79(1): [16] Valacich, J.S., Paranka, D., George, J.F. and Nunamaker, J.F. Jr Communication concurrency and the new media: A new dimension for media richness. Communication Research 20(2): [17] Valacich, J.S., Dennis, A.R. and Connolly, T Idea generation in computer-based groups: A new ending to an old story. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 57(3): [18] Watson, R.T., DeSanctis, G. and Poole, M.S Using a GDSS to facilitate group consensus: Some intended and unintended consequences. MIS Quarterly 12(3): [19] Zigurs, I. and Buckland, B.K A theory of task/technology fit and group support systems effectiveness. MIS Quarterly 22(3): /00 $10.00 (c) 2000 IEEE 10