Asynchronousgroupware support to process redesign groups: A field study of effects on group productivity and outcome quality
Nereu F. Kock Jr. Robert J. McQueen
Dept. of Management Systems University ofWaikato Private Bag 3105, Hamilton New Zealand Phone: +64 7 8562889, ext. 6056 or 4509 Fax: +64 7 8384270
[email protected],
[email protected]
1
Asynchronousgroupware support to process redesign groups: A field study of effects on group productivity and outcome quality
ABSTRACT In this paper we describe a study of asynchronous groupware effects on outcome quality and productivity of process redesign groups. Seven groups were studied in two organisations. All groups followed the same group methodology, MetaProi, which comprises a process redesign meta-process with three stages - process definition, analysis and redesign. The study indicates that asynchronous groupware support considerably increases group productivity by reducing group duration and the organisational cost of groups, and by allowing members to participate in several groups at the same time. The study also indicates a slight increase in group outcome quality. The causes for these results and their organisational implications are discussed.
2
INTRODUCTION Since the 1970s, several organisational development approaches have lured the attention of both the academic and practitioner communities. Two of these approaches stood out from the rest because of both their general application, and relative success in improving quality and productivity in organisations. The first, the total quality approach, had its peak of worldwide attention in the 1980s. The second approach, business process re-engineering, then followed in the 1990s, and apparently reached its apogee between 1994 and 1995. These two approaches are currently the target of massive refinement and optimisation efforts, and widely applied in organisational development projects.
Despite often being considered at opposite extremes of several different scales, such as innovativeness, degree of change, and degree of improvement realised, these two approaches do have some common points. One of these is that both approaches have a clear focus on processes, that is, on how people and tools generate outputs that are consumed or used by internal and external customers. Processes can be described, for example, as sets of inputs-controls-outputs-mechanisms (ICOM) boxes in IDEF0 diagrams [4, 5], activity boxes in flow charts [6], data processors in data flow diagrams [8, 7], or even textual descriptions of activities.
Another shared characteristic of the total quality and the business process re-engineering movements is the assumption that process redesign, whether it is incremental and continuous, or radical and in bursts, is carried out by groups. Typically, these groups are small - from 3 to 15 members [12, 9], follow a group process or methodology [10], and have defined roles [11]. This paper describes a study of quality and productivity effects of asynchronous (i.e. disconnected time) groupware support on such groups. An additional 3
characteristic of the groups studied was their short duration (no group lasted more than five weeks).
GROUPWARE AND PROCESS REDESIGN GROUPS The empirical research literature on groupware support to groups indicates the promising potential of group support technologies to improve quality and productivity in process redesign groups. Some representative examples of the effects of groupware on groups are:
•
Better support for group activities, such as making communication faster and cheaper [13], reducing paper flow [14], recording group discussion data in a more efficient way [15], and increasing cross-departmental communication [16].
•
Positive effects on individual behaviour, such as reducing participation stress [17], and making individuals communicate more openly [13].
•
Positive effects on group behaviour, such as fostering a more balanced distribution of individual contributions [18], separating ideas from individuals [19], reducing repetition of old ideas and increasing commitment toward group decisions [20].
The limited amount of empirical research on groupware-supported process redesign groups so far contrasts with that potential. There have been some representative examples, such as Pietro's [17] study of quality improvement groups, and studies by Dennis et al. of business process re-engineering groups [21, 28], and business process modelling groups [5]. All these studies, though, have targeted a specific class of synchronous groupware tools group decision support systems (GDSSs). This seeming bias towards the study of GDSS 4
impact on process redesign groups [9, p. 85] is surprising, considering the much lower business success of GDSS, when compared to some asynchronous groupware tools, such as e-mail and conferencing systems [22, 31]. This study tries to fill the research gap caused by this apparent bias.
RESEARCH SITES AND METHOD One process redesign group was studied over a period of one month at School (pseudonym), a school of studies in a New Zealand university. Three months later, six process redesign groups were studied over a period of four months at MAF Quality Management (MQM), a branch of the New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, with offices spread throughout the country. These six groups involved, altogether, fortyseven staff from eighteen different sites (known in MQM as offices and remote sites), spread over New Zealand. All seven groups, referred to as G0-G6, were facilitated by the researcher (first author of this paper) based on a group process methodology called MetaProi [1]. Two of those groups failed to generate a process redesign proposal.
Main features of the groups studied are shown in Table 1, including number of members (except the facilitator), duration in days, and number of organisational departments and sites involved in each group. Typically, departments comprised staff with shared expertise on specific areas (e.g. academic department, animal analysis laboratory, farm consulting department). Sites, on the other hand, comprised staff (often from different departments) in the same building or campus. The last column in the table shows the scope of change of each of the groups' redesign proposals. The scope of change was classified as departmental (dept.), if the redesign affected only one department; interdepartmental (interdept.), if it affected more than one department but not a whole business unit; and business, if it affected 5
a whole business unit. This study involved two business units at MQM, and one at School. The business units at MQM were characterised by their administrative autonomy, and by being at the first divisional level within MQM.
Group
Members 7 5 5 7 11 15 14
G0 G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6
Dur. (days) 33 26 25 14 29 28 10
Depts.
Sites
2 1 1 1 4 6 3
1 1 4 6 5 10 8
Change scope interdept. dept. interdept. business business dept. business
Table 1: Group features (Note: G4 and G6 failed to generate a process redesign proposal)
Data was collected between May 1995 and January 1996 through participant observation and unstructured interviews (twelve at School, and thirty-two at MQM), structured openended interviews (two at School, and nine at MQM), questionnaires with open-ended questions (seven at MQM), and automatic computer generation of transcripts of electronic group discussions. All structured interview and questionnaire respondents declared having participated in face-to-face groups before, and 63 per cent in process redesign groups. The outcomes of participant observation and unstructured interviews were compiled as field notes. Structured interviews, typically one hour each, were taped and transcribed. Questionnaires were administered via e-mail to some staff at MQM who were located in remote offices. Some questionnaire responses were followed up with telephone interviews for clarification.
6
The research was designed to improve real business processes in the participant organisations, as well as generate research data, and followed a specific action research approach [3]. This approach is based on the action research cycle proposed by Susman and Evered [2]. The data analysis followed primarily a qualitative approach [25], focusing on the identification of causal relationships between variables [27], as opposed to the quantification of those relationships. This did not prevent the quantification of some variables, such as member participation costs, to give a better idea of the hard gains and losses accruing fromgroupware support.
THE GROUPWARE TOOL USED Groups were supported by a simple asynchronous groupware tool, implemented using Novell Groupwise. The groupware tool embodied usual e-mail functions along with a message replication feature. Message replication was implemented through mailbox rules, a Groupwise programming feature. Mailbox rules were created to distribute individual member messages to all members of their process redesign groups. This distribution was based on message sender and subject characteristics, so all groups could use the same mailbox. Groupwise rules were also used to automate the compilation and storage of group discussion transcripts in separate folders (one for each group) for further analysis. Several types of files, such as spreadsheets and flow charts, could be easily attached to electronic messages in the system and read by recipients. Electronic messages could be sent to and received from any staff in the two organisations, but process redesign group messages were distributed only within their respective groups.
7
The choice of groupware tool is likely to affect group participation. The use of groupware tools for which there is already a critical mass of users in the organisation, and that are frequently used by staff (e.g. everyday), is likely to increase user participation and reduce member response time. In this sense, it is more appropriate to use an e-mail tool that is routinely used by staff for communication, than a conferencing system that requires users to check the system database from time to time for new member posts. In this case, even though the conferencing system may be more appropriate for group discussion (e.g. because it makes it easier for users to organise previous messages), member participation is likely to be higher if the discussion is carried out via e-mail, through distribution lists as in this study. This was observed early on in our study. The failure to adopt a separate conferencing application at School's previous strategic planning discussions was the main reason why we chose e-mail as the main communication medium in G0 and the other groups.
RESEARCH RESULTS Typical group roles and stages. Our previous experience facilitating groupware-supported and face-to-face process redesign groups in one service organisation [26] suggests that group members play three main roles: (1) Leader, who coordinates and coaches the group; (2) Facilitator, who models processes and gathers process-related information; and (3) Ordinary member, who contributes, refines, and selects problems, processes, and process changes. These group roles interact along three main stages:
1.
Definition, where the group: (a) lists a set of problems, or improvement opportunities the group thinks result from poor process design; (b) lists a set of
8
business processes the group thinks are at the source of those problems; and (c) selects one or a few of those business processes for redesign.
2.
Analysis, where the group: (a) models the process; (b) gathers and discusses performance information about the business processes; and (c) identifies possible changes in the process.
3.
Redesign, where the group: (a) selects the changes that will be incorporated in the new process; (b) evaluates the implementation feasibility of those changes; (c) plans how that implementation will take place.
The need for a new approach to meetings. Consistent with our previous findings [26], we noted in this study that, while in face-to-face process redesign groups most of the tasks in the three group stages are completed by the group as a whole (i.e conjunctively [29]), and with a high degree of interaction between group members, the same was not achieved in computer-mediated groups interacting asynchronously. Some of the groups in this study that tried to carry out tasks conjunctively had either lost their focus or died out due to lack of member participation. A new group approach was then devised. In it, the group leader and facilitator would, through face-to-face meetings, prepare a basic piece of information, and submit it to the group for discussion. In this new approach, the group work becomes a mix of conjunctive and disjunctive tasks. This occurs in the three stages alike. In the first stage, for example, the leader and the facilitator prepare a list of problems and related processes, submit that to the group, and ask group members to refine those lists and select one (or a few) process(es) for redesign. The same goes for the analysis stage, where leader and facilitator model the process selected in the previous stage, gather performance 9
information, and identify possible changes in the process. This information is then passed on to the group members, who then refine the model, process performance information, and possible changes. The group then performs likewise the redesign stage. This new approach is the basis for theMetaProi methodology [1].
Group meta-process productivity Process productivity has been classically defined as the ratio between process outputs and inputs [23]. This definition of productivity, though, was inappropriate to our study, since our interest was on group productivity effects from an organisational, rather than a group, perspective. Thus, a more appropriate definition was devised based on the work by Kock and Tomelin [24], where productivity is measured by the ratio between the process capacity and cost. The process under study was the group process redesign meta-process. The capacity of that meta-process relates directly to the number of groups that can be carried out at a given time. This, in turn, relates to group duration (i.e. the number of days, calculated based on group start and end dates), and the number of groups in which a member can effectively participate at a time. The costs of that meta-process are the costs that have to be met by the organisation so groups can happen.
Group duration Among structured interview and questionnaire respondents, 75 per cent were of the opinion that groupware support reduced the duration of process redesign groups. The main reason given by the respondents was the reduction in group set up time, particularly in groups involving staff from different sites. Group set up time was defined as the time spent inviting staff to become group members; choosing, booking and preparing a venue for meetings; negotiating a meeting schedule, typically with each group member; and coordinating 10
member attendance to meetings. In groups whose members were all based in the same site (G0 and G1), most members still thought that groupware support reduces group duration. The main reason given by these members was the reduction in member function disruption, that is, in routine activities associated to members' functions in the organisation. Unstructured interviews suggested that the effect of groupware support on member function disruption is relatively independent of site heterogeneity, and increases with the departmental heterogeneity in the group. Even in G0, which involved only two departments, groupware support seemed to have a much stronger impact in reducing member function disruption than in groups where only one department was involved (e.g. G1, G2, and G3).
On the other hand, 13 per cent of the respondents indicated that groupware support increased group duration. Respondents were unanimous in the reason given for that. The increase on group duration was caused, according to them, to an increase in member response time. Unstructured interviews and participant observation suggested that this was caused by the lower participation control and higher contribution effort, particularly for members with poor computer skills, fostered by groupware support. In face-to-face meetings social facilitation factors (e.g. the presence of others) stimulate individual participation. In addition, in face-to-face meetings members can be directly asked for an opinion. Several members in the groups studied declared to have given low priority to their participation in the group. Some other members experienced frustration when writing messages either because they were slow typers, or because they did not know how to use some system features (e.g. save a message for further editing before sending it to the group). One member, although possessing high computer skills, only replied with his comments when asked by his group leader. According to him, writing a message would 11
take time, so he postponed his contribution to, as he put it, "...a later time, when I wasn't so busy."
Organisational cost of groups Seventy-five per cent of structured interview and questionnaire respondents thought that groupware support decreased the organisational cost of process redesign groups. Most of these respondents thought that the reduction in costs was drastic. Only one respondent thought that groupware support increases that cost. That respondent, though, had been a leader of a process redesign group and was dissatisfied with both the group outcome (the group failed to generate a process redesign proposal), and the amount of time he had to commit to the group discussion - seven hours.
Three main reasons have been given by respondents for the reduction in group costs. One of the reasons was the reduction in member function disruption, and consequently in the costs of that type of disruption. Although these costs are difficult to quantify, respondents indicated that they would be caused by a reduction in the quality of their routine work. Another reason given by respondents for the reduction in group costs was the reduction in travelling expenses, which is obviously dependent on group site heterogeneity. Finally, several respondents indicated a drastic reduction of member participation costs for ordinary members, and a moderate reduction for group leaders, as a result of groupware support. These reductions were quantified by the researcher with the help of some group members who had previously participated in face-to-face process redesign groups. The average time spent by ordinary members on process redesign groups was estimated at 20 hours. That average time was reduced to 1.5 hours in groupware-supported groups - calculated based on interview and questionnaire responses and analysis of discussion transcripts. The average 12
time spent by group leaders, which should be no less than 20 hours, was reduced to 7 hours - calculated based on participant observation notes on facilitation sessions. This amounts to a 92 per cent reduction in ordinary members', and to a 65 per cent reduction in leader's (and facilitator's) participation time.
Concurrent participation in several groups During structured interviews, all respondents were asked whether they would be able to participate in more than one groupware-supported process redesign group at a time. All respondents answered positively to this question. However, some group leaders indicated that they could not lead more than three groups at a time. This was confirmed by the researcher's experience in facilitating the groups. At one stage the researcher facilitated three groups at the same time, each at a different stage. This posed difficulties for their effective facilitation, owing to the high number of messages to be processed and the need for a shift in perspective when moving from one group discussion to the other. Those difficulties eased considerably when less than two groups were concurrently facilitated.
Group outcome quality The outcome quality of the group meta-process can be objectively assessed through the evaluation of the organisational impact of the implementation of process redesign proposals generated by the groups. In this study, though, this assessment was only possible for one of the groups (G0), particularly because the degree of process change proposed by that group was relatively low, which made a full redesign implementation possible in a short period of time. That implementation led to a sensible increase in process quality, which was the main goal of the process redesign group. That increase in quality was gauged through two comparative surveys - one before and the other after the process redesign implementation 13
of process customers' perceptions. In the other six groups, group quality was assessed based on perceptions of group members and organisational staff about the quality of the redesign proposals generated by the groups, and on the success of the partial implementation of those proposals. This assessment suggested an increase in outcome quality, due to groupware support, in all groups but G4 and G6 (i.e. four out of six groups). Moreover, in these four groups all group proposals either had been or were being implemented. This is an indication of group commitment towards redesign proposals, and, indirectly, of redesign quality.
Thirty-two per cent of structured interview and questionnaire respondents were of the opinion that groupware support slightly increased the quality of redesign proposals. Thirtyone per cent of the respondents perceived no quality effect. Nineteen per cent of the respondents thought that groupware support decreased the quality of those proposals. It is important to note, though, that groupware support was presented to group members as an alternative medium of communication. No group was asked to carry out its discussion exclusively through this new medium. Even so, most groups did interact mostly through the groupware system. This is illustrated in Table 2, which shows the percentages of time spent by groups on computer-mediated (including preparation of messages) and oral communication in each group. These percentages were estimated based on responses to interviews and questionnaires, and analysis of discussion transcripts.
Group G0 G1 G2 G3
Computermediated (%) 71 83 89 18
Oral (%) 29 17 11 82
14
G4 G5 G6
80 77 67
20 23 33
Table 2: Percentages of time spent by groups on computer-mediated and oral communication in the groups
Of those who felt that there was an increase in the quality of the proposals, respondents' explanations included lower member stress, higher quality of contributions, higher group focus, higher group departmental and site heterogeneity (discussed previously in this paper), and higher member access to discussion-related information. The unanimous reason given for the decrease in process redesign quality was lower member participation. These factors are discussed next.
Member stress and contribution quality When asked why groupware support reduces member stress, most respondents attributed that effect to a reduction in member participation control. In face-to-face meetings individuals often have to compete for "air time" with other members, and talk as fast as possible to avoid being interrupted. They are also often pushed into contributing when they do not want to. These pressures are practically nonexistent in asynchronous groupwaresupported discussions.
The decrease in member stress combines, according to several respondents, with another factor in increasing group quality - the better quality of written over oral contributions. This is supported by the researcher's participant observation during the facilitation process. Leaders used to carefully elaborate their messages, often itemising their main points and
15
searching for unambiguous words, to avoid misinterpretation. Several leaders also described the process of writing electronic messages as a learning experience, especially during the analysis stage when process-related information is summarised to the group.
Group focus Fifty-seven per cent of structured interview and questionnaire respondents thought that groupware support increased group process (embodied in MetaProi) adoption, which in turn increases group focus. None of the respondents thought that group process adoption is decreased by groupware support. The analysis of group discussion transcripts strongly supports the respondents' perceptions. For example, in all groups but G4 and G6, all messages from ordinary members were replies to the leader's messages. In G4, conversely, several messages were replies to ordinary members' messages, which led the group to stray from its primary goal.
Interestingly, G4 and G6 were the only groups where the leaders decided not to follow MetaProi. In the first message for G4's members, the leader described a general problem in a very abstract way, and asked the group to define a list of more specific problems, rather than submitting a basic list to be refined by the group. This led the group into discussing several different issues, apparently without a clear focus. In G6, the leader assumed that the group had previously agreed on a process redesign proposal, and decided to lead the group into the specification of software requirements to implement that proposal. This resulted in lack of member participation and, in the leader's words, "... very superficial replies".
16
Member access to information Among structured interview and questionnaire respondents, 57 per cent thought that groupware support increases access to information that can be useful during the group discussion. For example, a member of an interdepartmental group reported that at one stage of the groupware supported discussion, a member of her group mentioned a quality standard of which she was unaware. If this had been a face-to-face meeting, she would not have been able to respond to the suggestion because the standard was not at the meeting. However, in the groupware supported discussion, she could locate the standard, and then respond to the suggestion in the electronic discussion.
Some respondents also noted that groupware support enables members to re-read previous messages for clarification, which is not possible in face-to-face meetings - printed minutes, according to one member, in the few cases in which they are generated after the fact, are often incomplete and difficult to understand. Participant observation indicates that this is particularly useful for group leaders, who need to constantly review previous messages from members to summarise opinions before the group can proceed to further stages. However, the rich reverse channel of face-to-face meetings, not available in simple electronic communication, allows those making comments to detect puzzled looks on the faces of the listeners, and provide unsolicited clarification when it appears needed.
Member contribution It was clear from the analysis of discussion transcripts that the quantity of member contribution and interaction is drastically reduced in groupware-supported process redesign groups, in comparison to face-to-face groups. This is illustrated in Table 3, where the contributions by members are shown for each group. The table shows, from left to right, 17
group name, number of members, number of active members, number of electronic messages, and average messages contributed per member. Active members were defined as those who contributed at least one electronic message to the group discussion.
Group G0 G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6
Members 7 5 5 7 11 15 14
Active 5 3 4 3 7 11 6
Msgs 21 7 9 4 18 23 6
Avg. cont. member 3.00 1.40 1.80 0.57 1.64 1.53 0.43
Table 3: Member contributions
Two positive effects of groupware support previously identified - low participation control, which contributes to reducing member stress; and higher member contribution effort, which is associated with higher member contribution quality - were seen by some respondents as factors that reduced member contribution.
Group interaction Interaction might be used to describe the turn sharing which occurs when one group member makes a comment directly following the contribution of another group member. The interaction in face-to-face meetings can be rapid, as the average duration of a contribution have been reported to be around 12 seconds [32]. Extremely low interaction may imply substantive contributions, but in a one way, lecture type of meeting, while high interaction with very short contributions, may signal lack of substantive content in each contribution. 18
To evaluate the impact of groupware support on group interaction, we estimated, based on our previous facilitation of three face-to-face process redesign groups [26], the group interaction in those groups. This was done by assuming that the duration of an equivalent face-to-face meeting would be 7 hours - the average participation time for leaders of groupware-supported process redesign groups. If we estimate that the contribution time of a substantive comment is on average 1 minute, and consider that there might be 5 effective hours of discussion, then a total of 300 contributions might be made over those 5 hours, or an average for a 7 member group of about 43 contributions per member. Compared to the average of 1 to 3 contributions per member reported in groupware supported groups, it is apparent that interaction in these groups is significantly lower.
DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS The study confirms the general assumption that the introduction of groupware technology must be accompanied by a change in the process or processes supported, represented in this study by the group process redesign meta-process. The study also indicates that process redesign approaches where group tasks are predominantly conjunctive, are unlikely to be successfully supported by asynchronous groupware technologies.
The effects of asynchronous groupware support observed on the groups in this study are, overall, positive and can be summarised as a considerable increase in group productivity, as well as a slight increase in group outcome quality. These results are similar to those from previous research on synchronous groupware support. For example, Pietro [17, p. 53] reported a reduction in member participation time, which ranged from 88 to 91 per cent, in comparison to face-to-face meetings. Dennis et al. [5] reported an 85 per cent reduction in 19
meeting time (measured in weeks) in process modelling groups, and an increase in model content quality.
Competing effects Even though the overall effect of groupware support on process redesign groups seems to be positive, our study indicates that there are a number of competing positive and negative primary effects associated with groupware support that make it difficult to precisely determine its impact on process redesign groups in specific contexts. The main primary positive and negative effects of groupware support on group productivity, and respective consequences, are summarised in Table 4.
Positive effects Lower member function disruption Lower member participation time Possible participation in several groups at a time Lower (or no) travelling expenses Lower group set up time Negative effects Lower member participation control Higher member contribution effort
Consequences Lower group set up time and group duration Lower member participation cost Higher number of groups per staff member Lower member participation cost Lower group duration Consequences Higher member response time and group duration Higher member response time and group duration
Table 4: Positive and negative effects influencing group productivity
Two competing effects that exemplify that unpredictability are lower member participation time and higher member contribution effort. The positive effect of lower member participation time can be perceived by some group members as being offset by the negative effect of higher contribution effort, for example, particularly if those members lack 20
computer skills. This perception, combined with the lower participation control, can increase member's response time even more and, in consequence, group duration. This leads to a decrease in group productivity.
Moreover, some effects can be positive relative to group productivity and negative towards group outcome quality. The effects of groupware support related to group outcome quality are summarised in Table 5. A comparison between Table 4 and Table 5 shows, for example, that lower member participation control leads to higher member response time and group duration and, in consequence, to lower group productivity. The same effect, though, leads to lower member stress and lower member participation, which are, respectively, positive and negative factors influencing group outcome quality.
Positive effects Lower member participation control Lower member function disruption Higher member contribution effort Higher group process adoption Lower member participation control, and more time to contribute Negative effects Lower member participation control Higher member contribution effort
Consequences Lower member stress Higher departmental heterogeneity Higher member contribution quality Higher group focus Higher access to discussion-related information Consequences Lower member participation Lower member participation
Table 5: Positive and negative effects influencing group outcome quality
The identification of competing effects is a step towards a more integrated view of the impact of groupware technologies on organisations. Previous studies on that impact often led to contradictory or equivocal findings, and studies showing negative or null effects are as commonplace as those showing benefits [30]. 21
From a normative perspective, the identification of competing effects can be useful in the planning of large-scale process redesign projects, and the design of software applications to support those projects. Both project planning and software application development efforts should be directed towards minimisation of negative effects and maximisation of positive effects of groupware support whenever possible.
Organisational implications The findings of this study suggest some guidelines for organisational process redesign projects. First, organisations should initially focus on reducing the negative effects of groupware support, rather than trying to maximise the positive effects. The reason is that there are fewer negative than positive effects. In doing so, organisations should focus on two main variables in their efforts to maximise productivity and quality in groupwaresupported process redesign groups. One of these variables, related to group productivity, is member response time. The other variable, related to group outcome quality, is member participation. These two variables are negatively affected by lower member participation control and higher member contribution effort.
An analysis of group member perceptions suggests that the reduction of member contribution effort can be achieved by training members on how to use features that are useful to the group discussion (e.g. save messages for further editing, cut and paste text) and, mostly, upgrading tools so members do not have to type their messages (e.g. with voice recognition capabilities). Moreover, some members who do not normally use the groupware tool directly, but by means of their assistants, must be persuaded to do so. During the facilitation of the groups at MQM it was noticed that this practice is common 22
among some groups of senior managers. The participation of senior managers is especially important in groups where the degree and scope of change are high (e.g. process reengineering groups).
An increase in member participation control seems to be unlikely to be achieved only through technological changes. Besides, that increase might be undesirable since member stress and the demand for leadership skills (reported by leaders as considerably reduced by groupware support) could be also increased in consequence. Participant observation suggests, though, some guidelines to be followed by group leaders to increase member participation. First, group leaders should, when summarising contributions, refer to member contributions individually, mentioning members’ names, rather than summarising them anonymously like in GDSS-support meetings. Unstructured interviews indicated that this seems to be viewed by group members as a social "reward" for their participation. Second, group leaders should also contact members over the phone, particularly those who seem to be reluctant to contribute, and either ask them to contribute electronically or summarise the phone conversation to the group.
Combination with face-to-face meetings Even though 75 per cent of the respondents were of the opinion that groupware support decreases group duration, participant observation and analysis of discussion transcripts suggests that the best results are likely to accrue from a combination of groupwaresupported and face-to-face meetings. The only group in which this combination actually occurred was G3, on the leader's initiative. That group was completed in only 14 days, and was the shortest among the successful groups. The group performed the analysis stage
23
through a face-to-face meeting. This apparently helped reduce group duration to almost half the time spent by groups with a similar change scope - G1 and G2.
A further analysis of the process redesign meta-process and the distribution of messages across stages indicated that it is in the analysis stage that most information and knowledge are exchanged. Therefore, it is in this stage that the combination of groupware-supported and face-to-face meetings is likely to benefit the group the most.
CONCLUSION Two world-class contemporary organisational development approaches, the total quality management and business process re-engineering movements, share two relevant characteristics. One of these shared characteristics is their focus - business processes. The other characteristic is the means through which business processes are improved - process redesign groups. Process redesign groups are typically small - from 3 to 15 members, follow a group process methodology, and have defined roles.
Most of the empirical research about groupware effects on process redesign groups has focused on synchronous groupware tools, particularly group decision support systems (GDSS), and identified improvements on productivity and quality. This seeming research bias is surprising, given the low commercial success of GDSSs in comparison to asynchronous groupware tools, such as e-mail and conferencing systems. Moreover, asynchronous groupware tools generally affect quality and productivity of process redesign groups similarly to GDSS.
24
Overall, asynchronous groupware support considerably increases the productivity of process redesign groups, apparently with a slight increase in group outcome quality. Group productivity gains are attained through a reduction in group duration and the organisational cost of groups, and by allowing members to participate in several groups at the same time. The slight increase in group outcome quality results from a balance between positive and negative factors. The main positive factors are lower member stress, higher member contribution quality, higher group focus, and higher ongoing member access to information relevant to the group discussion. The main negative factor is lower member participation.
In spite of the encouraging overall results of groupware support, it seems that those results are caused by a combination of competing negative and positive primary effects. This makes it difficult to predict the outcome in specific contexts. A sensible approach for organisations to take in order to optimise the use of groupware to support process redesign groups is to try to reduce or eliminate negative primary effects, from which only a few were identified. This can be achieved through appropriately selectiing groupware tools to be used, training staff on how to effectively use those tools in group discussions, convincing senior managers to personally participate in group discussions, increasing member participation by providing social rewards to participation and contacting reluctant members by phone, and combining groupware-supported with face-to-face meetings.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We would like to thank the staff at School and MQM who have participated in the process redesign groups described in this paper. We also would like to thank Robert Wellington for providing comments on the structure of this paper, and Peter Grace, who reviewed and
25
provided valuable comments on the manual that describes the methodology used by the groups - MetaProi.
REFERENCES 1.
Kock Jr., N.F., MetaProi: A Group Process for Business Process Improvement, Project Report GP-G-1995-R5, Dept. of Management Systems, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand, 1995 (also available via Internet from http://tui.mngt.waikato.ac.nz/systems\ned\metaproi.htm).
2.
Susman G.I. and R.D. Evered, An Assessment of the Scientific Merits of Action Research, Administrative Science Quarterly, V.23, December, 1978, pp. 582-603.
3.
Kock Jr., N.F., R.J. McQueen and C.T. Fernandes, Information Systems Research in Organisations: An Action Research Approach, Brazilian Journal of Contemporary Management, V.1, No.4, 1995, pp. 155-175.
4.
Maull, R., S. Childe, J. Bennett, A. Weaver, and A. Smart, Report on Different Types of Manufacturing Processes and IDEF0 Models Describing Standard Business Processes, Working Paper WP/GR/J95010-4, School of Computing, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, England, 1995.
5.
Dennis, A.R., G.S. Hayes and R.M. Daniels Jr., Re-engineering Business Process Modeling, Proceedings of the 27th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, 1994, pp. 244-253.
26
6.
Harrington, H.J., Business Process Improvement, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1991.
7.
Kock Jr., N.F., Business Process Reengineering, PROI: A Practical Methodology, Editora Vozes, São Paulo, 1995.
8.
Pressman, R., Software Engineering: A Practitioner's Approach, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1987.
9.
Soles, S., Work Reengineering and Workflows: Comparative Methods, The Workflow Paradigm, E. White and L. Fischer (Eds.), Future Strategies, Alameda, CA, 1994, pp. 70-104.
10.
King, N., Innovation at Work: The Research Literature, Innovation and Creativity at Work, M. A. West and J. L. Farr (Eds), John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1990, pp. 15-59.
11.
Hammer, M. and J. Champy, Reengineering the Corporation, Harper Business, New York, 1993.
12.
Caron, J.R., S.L. Jarvenpaa and D.B. Stoddard, Business Reengineering at CIGNA Corporation: Experiences and Lessons Learned From the First Five Years, MIS Quarterly, V.18, No.3, 1994, pp. 233-250.
27
13.
Sproull, L. and S. Kiesler, Computers, Networks and Work, Scientific American, September, 1991, pp. 84-91.
14.
Wilson, P., Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Intellect, Oxford, England, 1991.
15.
Brothers, L., J. Hollan, J. Nielsen, S. Stornetta, S. Abney, G. Furnas and M. Littman, Supporting Informal Communication Via Ephemeral Interest Groups, Proceedings of CSCW'92 Conference, J. Turner and R. Kraut (Eds), ACM Press, New York, 1992, pp. 84 to 90.
16.
Clement, A., Computing at Work: Empowering Action by Low-level Users, Communications of ACM, V.37, No.1, 1994, pp. 53-63.
17.
Pietro, C., Groupware Meetings that Work, Proceedings of Groupware’92 Conference, D. Coleman (Ed), Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA, 1992, pp. 5058.
18.
Nunamaker, J.F., A.R. Dennis, J.S. Valacich, D.R. Vogel, J.F. George, Electronic Meeting Systems to Support Group Work, Communications of ACM, V.34, No.7, 1991, pp. 40-61.
19.
Chidambaram, L. and J.A. Kautz, Defining Common Ground: Managing Diversity Through Electronic Meeting Systems, Proceedings of the 14th International
28
Conference on Information Systems, J.I. Degross, R.P. Bostrom and D. Robey (Eds), The Association for Computing Machinery, New York, 1993, pp. 1-11.
20.
Sheffield, J. and B. Gallupe, Using Electronic Meeting Technology to Support Economic Development in New Zealand: Short Term Results, Journal of Management Information Systems, V.10, No.3, 1993, pp. 97-116.
21.
Dennis, A.R., R.M. Daniels Jr, G. Hayes, J.F. Nunamaker Jr., Methodology-Driven Use of Automated Support in Business Process Re-engineering, Journal of Management Information Systems, V.10, No.3, 1993, pp. 117-138.
22.
Grudin, J., Eight Challenges for Developers, Communications of the ACM, V.37, No.1, 1994, pp. 93-105.
23.
Misterek, S.D., K.J. Dooley and J.C. Anderson, Productivity as a Performance Measure, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, V. 12, No. 1, 1992, pp. 29-45.
24.
Kock Jr., N.F. and C.A. Tomelin, PMQP: Total Quality Management in Practice, Business Development Centre-SENAC/PR, Curitiba, Brazil, 1993 (in Portuguese).
25.
Miles, M.B. and A.M. Huberman, Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook, Sage, London, 1994.
29
26.
Kock Jr., N.F. and R.J. McQueen, Integrating Groupware Technology into a Business Process Improvement Framework, Information Technology & People, V.8, No.4, 1995, pp. 19-34.
27.
Davis, J.A., The Logic of Causal Order, Sage, London, 1985.
28.
Dennis, A.R., R.M. Daniels Jr., G.S. Hayes, G. Kelly, D. Lange and L Massman, Re-engineering Business Process Modeling, Proceedings of the 28th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, 1995, pp. 378-387.
29.
Shaw, M., Group Dynamics: The Psychology of Small Group Behavior, McGrawHill, New York, 1981.
30.
DeSanctis, G., M.S. Poole, G.W. Dickson and B.M. Jackson, Interpretive Analysis of Team Use of Group Technologies, Journal of Organizational Computing, V.3, No.1, 1993, pp. 1-29.
31.
Wozny, M., Compaq Computer Corporation’s World-wide Use of Lotus Notes, Proceedings of Groupware’92 Conference, D. Coleman (Ed), Morgan Kaufmann, 1992, pp. 511-514.
32.
McQueen, R. J., The Effect of Voice Input on Information Exchange in Computer Supported Asynchronous Group Communication, PhD thesis, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand, 1991. 30
