technology and collaboration
Technology provides great tools for team collaboration. From the more general tools, such as email, to very specific group decision support systems (GDSS), technology enablers provide new opportunities for teams to manage the exchange of information. However, these technologies are not a substitute for face-to-face interaction: they are a supplement. I am not certain why some people think that face-to-face is outmoded. In general, technology has provided additional opportunities to communicate without killing off previously used modes.
There are many tasks for which social presence may not be needed, and in fact may be inhibiting. For example, collaborative review of documents seems to work best when the reviewers are not gathered around a table reviewing a paper document. Beyond the efficiency of having electronic comments routed and then selectively incorporated into a document, the removal of social presence allows a more objective focus on the task and the content of the document itself.
However, there are some things that require a higher degree of social presence than is currently possible with technology tools. CMC and even phone or video conferencing do not provide enough social presence cues to allow proper processing of difficult conversations. We can certainly communicate the "what happened" and even perhaps some of the "feeling conversation". but to get to the third conversation, identity, we still need face to face. (Stone, Patton & Keen 1999)
Sometimes the asynchronous nature of email or discussion forums can be useful, and its archival nature very practical: project management, account management, and having "what happened" conversations are served well by email. Asynchronous communication also enables participation from a larger number of people. Spatial and temporal barriers can be minimized. The downside is that the spatial and temporal motivators for completion of projects is also minimized – and collaborative projects may take longer in an asynchronous environment.
Synchronous CMC, such as chat rooms and instant messaging can be valuable when anonymity and the related "democratizing" effect will facilitate gathering ideas and input from displaced or underrepresented participants. This allows individuals a greater equanimity in participation as they cross social and organizational barriers (or perceived barriers). New leaders can emerge as their reluctance to communicate is mediated by their social isolation (Kiesler & Sproull, 1990).
Although I would not avoid video conferencing, I find video conferencing for team meetings rather inadequate. In my experience, video conference meetings accomplish little that cannot be accomplished with audio conferencing. However, when video and online access to shared materials are combined, as in a WebEx presentation, the benefits become viable.
My positive attitudes about technology, along with some degree of expertise, may have a dual effect on my team members. First, if I can model and demonstrate some efficacy in the technology, those who are reluctant may be willing to move forward. I have seen too often that communication technologies that are promoted by people who have not set them up properly are rarely used. Similar to the sales person’s demonstration of new software – interrupted by an error message – the promotion of technology tools to a team can make them simply retreat to proven means.
There is some degree of truth in the common thinking that work teams are not the place to prove new technologies. Unfortunately companies rarely have, or take, the time and resources to properly test and configure new technologies before they are deployed. Instead they rely on “power users” who like to stumble through and learn technologies. These power users then become the team’s resident expert.
When collaboration technologies are configured to work with minimum disruption, and can be shown to be relevant to accomplishing the task, collaborative work teams will readily adopt them and make good use of them. When the technology stumbles, or is promoted primarily on the “cool” factor, only the techno-lovers will have enough patience to actually use it.
Work Cited
Kiesler, S., & Sproull, L. (1992). Group decision making and communication technology. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 52.
There are many tasks for which social presence may not be needed, and in fact may be inhibiting. For example, collaborative review of documents seems to work best when the reviewers are not gathered around a table reviewing a paper document. Beyond the efficiency of having electronic comments routed and then selectively incorporated into a document, the removal of social presence allows a more objective focus on the task and the content of the document itself.
However, there are some things that require a higher degree of social presence than is currently possible with technology tools. CMC and even phone or video conferencing do not provide enough social presence cues to allow proper processing of difficult conversations. We can certainly communicate the "what happened" and even perhaps some of the "feeling conversation". but to get to the third conversation, identity, we still need face to face. (Stone, Patton & Keen 1999)
Sometimes the asynchronous nature of email or discussion forums can be useful, and its archival nature very practical: project management, account management, and having "what happened" conversations are served well by email. Asynchronous communication also enables participation from a larger number of people. Spatial and temporal barriers can be minimized. The downside is that the spatial and temporal motivators for completion of projects is also minimized – and collaborative projects may take longer in an asynchronous environment.
Synchronous CMC, such as chat rooms and instant messaging can be valuable when anonymity and the related "democratizing" effect will facilitate gathering ideas and input from displaced or underrepresented participants. This allows individuals a greater equanimity in participation as they cross social and organizational barriers (or perceived barriers). New leaders can emerge as their reluctance to communicate is mediated by their social isolation (Kiesler & Sproull, 1990).
Although I would not avoid video conferencing, I find video conferencing for team meetings rather inadequate. In my experience, video conference meetings accomplish little that cannot be accomplished with audio conferencing. However, when video and online access to shared materials are combined, as in a WebEx presentation, the benefits become viable.
My positive attitudes about technology, along with some degree of expertise, may have a dual effect on my team members. First, if I can model and demonstrate some efficacy in the technology, those who are reluctant may be willing to move forward. I have seen too often that communication technologies that are promoted by people who have not set them up properly are rarely used. Similar to the sales person’s demonstration of new software – interrupted by an error message – the promotion of technology tools to a team can make them simply retreat to proven means.
There is some degree of truth in the common thinking that work teams are not the place to prove new technologies. Unfortunately companies rarely have, or take, the time and resources to properly test and configure new technologies before they are deployed. Instead they rely on “power users” who like to stumble through and learn technologies. These power users then become the team’s resident expert.
When collaboration technologies are configured to work with minimum disruption, and can be shown to be relevant to accomplishing the task, collaborative work teams will readily adopt them and make good use of them. When the technology stumbles, or is promoted primarily on the “cool” factor, only the techno-lovers will have enough patience to actually use it.
Work Cited
Kiesler, S., & Sproull, L. (1992). Group decision making and communication technology. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 52.
Comments