280 likes | 417 Vues
Article Easley, R. F., Devaraj, S., & Crant, J. M. (2003). Relating collaborative technology use to teamwork quality and performance: An empirical analysis. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19 (4), 247-268. Authors
E N D
Article • Easley, R. F., Devaraj, S., & Crant, J. M. (2003). Relating collaborative technology use to teamwork quality and performance: An empirical analysis.Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(4), 247-268. • Authors • Robert F. Easley is an assistant professor of management information systems at Notre Dame • Sarv Devaraj is an assistant professor of management at Notre Dame • J. Michael Crant is an associate professor of management at Notre Dame
Purpose • Establish an empirical link between the use of groupware and improved team performance • Research questions • Does use of groupware enhance team performance? • Creativity • Decisionmaking • Does teamwork quality impact use of groupware? • Does computer self efficacy impact use of groupware? • Do teamsize and GMAT scores impact performance?
Computer Self Efficacy Technology Usage • Computer self efficacy is a major control variable • Relationship indicated in multiple studies (Bandura) • Computer self efficacy is a “judgment of one’s own capability to use a computer” (Compeau & Higgins) • Basic notion is that sound computer skills are a prerequisite for groupware (e.g., online education) • Also related to “ease-of-use” (Compeau & Higgins) • Other studies question this relationship (Igbari & Iivari; Straub & Limayan)
Teamwork Quality Technology Usage • Teamwork quality is a major factor or construct • Relationship indicated in multiple studies (Kraut; Malhotra; McGrath; McKenney; & Zack ) • Notion of teamwork quality based on scholarly empirical research model (Hoegle & Gemuenden) • Effort • Cohesion • Coordination • Mutual Support • Communication • Balance of member contributions
Technology Usage Performance • Technology usage is a major factor or construct • Relationship indicated in multiple studies (Fjermestad & Hiltz; McGrath & Hollingshead; McLeod & Liker) • Technology usage is defined as • Online versus face-to-face meetings • Teams meeting with and without technology • Optional use of groupware for online collaboration • Group support systems (GSS) • Group decision support systems (GDSS) • Group communication support system (GCSS) • Computer-mediated Communication Systems (CMS)
Teamsize & GMAT scores Performance • Teamsize and GMAT scores are major control variables • Teamsize relationship indicated in multiple studies (Latane; Mullen; Gallupe et al) • Studies indicate impact may be positive or negative • May improve idea generation or conversely, “freeloading” • Teamsize defined as • Group size • Size of team • Number of team members • GMAT scores had no empirical basis (used anyway)
Creative performance Technology Usage • Creative performance is a major factor or construct • Relationship indicated in multiple studies (Dubrovsky; Galupe; Hollingshead; McGrath; Siy; Strauss; Valacich) • Creative performance defined as • Pooling of ideas • Production of more ideas • Greater equality of participation • Higher gain rate and lower suppression rates • Far less domination by dictatorial team members • Better solutions than from individuals working alone
Decisionmaking Technology Usage • Decisionmaking is a major factor or construct • Relationship indicated in multiple studies (Fjermestad & Hiltz; Gallupe et al; McGrath et al; Pinsonneault et al) • Decision making performance defined as • Better decision quality • Use of math formulas to infer choices • Using quantitative decision analysis methods • Helping decisionmakers to make simple choices • Applying group decision support systems (GDSS) • Making complex decisions using mathematical formulas
Establishes empirical link between • Teamwork, groupware, and performance • Online education, creativity, and decisionmaking • Computer self efficacy, teamsize, and performance • Other conclusions • Importance of team cohesiveness • High GMAT scores unrelated to performance • Additional decisionmaking tools may be necessary • Computer skills needed for effective use of groupware
Strengths • Well formed research theory • Well executed research methodology • Study may become seminal masterpiece • Weaknesses • May need to be tested in more universities • May need to be tested with doctoral candidates • May need to be tested in several for-profit institutions • May need to be tested with scholarly learning constructs
Influences use of technology by • Traditional universities • Hybrid and online universities • Non-traditional universities and for-profit institutions • Establishes scholarly basis for further study • Examines pros/cons of general purpose groupware • Implicates the need for specialized educational tools • Spearheads scholarly research into online education • Opens door for larger scale online educational studies
With respect to technology in education • Are team cohesiveness, use of groupware, and teamwork helped or hurt by hybrid, face-to-face instruction? • Does the type, kind, effectiveness, quality, sophistication, and reliability of groupware matter? • Is homegrown groupware superior to commercial software designed by educational and technological experts? • Do online learners need specialized training to be effective with groupware? And, to what extent? • What are the essential functions groupware must have in order to enhance teamwork and learning?
Chan, A. P. C., & Ho, D. C. K. (2001). Effect of interorganizational teamwork on project outcome. Journal of Management in Engineering, 17(1), 34-40. • Chen, G. (2005). Newcomer adaptation in teams: Multilevel antecedents and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 48(1), 101-116. • Coyle-Shapiro, J. (1995). The impact of a TQM intervention on teamwork: A longitudinal assessment. Employee Relations, 17(3), 63-74. • Daily, B. F., & Bishop, J. W. (2003). TQM workforce factors and employee involvement: The pivotal role of teamwork. Journal of Managerial Issues, 15(4), 393-411. • Easley, R. F., Devaraj, S., & Crant, J. M. (2003). Relating collaborative technology use to teamwork quality and performance: An empirical analysis. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(4), 247-268. • Guinan, P. J., Cooprider, J. G., & Faraj, S. (1998). Enabling software development team performance during requirements definition: A behavioral versus technical approach. Information Systems Research, 9(2), 101-125. • Reinig, B. A. (2003). Toward an understanding of satisfaction with the process and outcomes of teamwork. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(4), 65-83. • Sawyer, S. (2001). Effects of intra-group conflict on packaged software development team performance. Information Systems Journal, 11(2), 155-178. • Simsek, Z., Veiga, J. F., Lubatkin, M. H., & Dino, R. N. (2005). Modeling the multilevel determinants of top management team behavioral integration. Academy of Management Journal, 48(1), 69-84.