Supporting Partially Distributed Groups in Electronic Meetings

Proceedings of the 29th Annual Hawaii International

Conference on System Sciences -

1996

Supporting Partially Distributed Groups in Electronic Meetings

Jeffrey J. Johnson Utah State University Logan, Utah USA

Kregg J. Aytes Idaho State University Pocatello, Idaho USA

distributed groups with GDSS in same-time, different-place mode. Further, most of the research conductedhas utilized groups that were either completely co-located or completely distributed, i.e., all participants were together in the same place, or no participant was in the same place with any other participant. These two meetingtypesdo not constitutethe full range of distributed meeting possibilities. Meetings may take place with only one, or a few, distributed participants, while the majority meet together. Meetings may also involve several distributed subgroups of co-located participants. Some of the obvious differences between same-place meetings and different-place meetings involve the presence or absenceof visual (non-verbal) and auditory communication. In pilot tests we explored the possibility of establishing video links between locations. While the cost of video facilities is coming down, quality video conferencing is still expensive enough to be outside the limits of practicality for most distributed meetings. Sound degradation can cause telephone oonferencing to move from frustrating to impossible as the number of participants increases. Additionally, electronic meeting facilities typically include a public screen that all participants can view. In a distributed mode, the public screen is most often not available for remote participants to see. For these reasons we identify communication among participants, and communication between facilitator and participants, as areas where significant changes may have to be made in electronic meeting enviromnents in order to support distributed meetings. Changesmay have to be made in the software, the way the software is used, or in other areas related to the communication media employed in distributed meetings. Partially distributed decision-making groups are now, and will continue to be a common reality in business. This researchwill help us understandhow GDSS technology can be applied to support partially distributed groups, The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: First, we review relevant literature, then we describe our study, which compares remote and proximate meeting participants. We present and discuss preliminary results,

Abstract Electronic Meeting Systems (EMS) have been employed to enhance meeting processes and outcomes. Electronic support for same-time, same-place meetings is now evolving to include other kinds of meetings, including geographically and temporah’y dtitributed meetings. To date, research involving geographica& dtitributed meetings has focussed on those wherein all participants are isolated porn one another. Partial& distributed meetings may include only one, or a few, remote partictpants while the majority meet together, Thti paper describes an exploratory study involving partial& distributed electronic meetings with groups of four participants meeting in two locations: three in one location; one in the other location. Preliminary results Despite successfully are presented and discussed. completing the experimental task, participants expressed dissatisfaction with the simple video, audio, and software communication link provided. In order to appropriately support partially distributed meetings, better communication links may be required. Possible enhancements to softiare and communication facilities are s ugges ted.

Introduction This paper describessome of the problems associated with distributed electronic meetings, and an exploratory research project aimed at identifying specific problem areaswhere changesin Group Decision Support Systems (GDSS) software and/or gdss use may accommodatethe distributed meeting environment. Our researchfocusses specifically on identifying problems associated with partially distributed groups. Research involving groups meeting in same-time, same-place mode with GDSS has been reported in conferences and journals over the last several years. However,relatively little has beenpublished on supporting

1060-3425196$5.00 0 1996 IEEE

Kelly Burke Idaho State University Pocatello, Idaho USA

112

Proceedings of the 1996 Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-29) 1060-3425/96 $10.00 © 1996 IEEE

Proceedings of the 29th Annual Hawaii International

including implications for future research,followed by a oonclusion.

Conference on System Sciences -

1996

apprehension,and less conformance pressure,due to the anonymity provided by the system. While it has been suggested that geographic dispersion may increase anonymity(assuminganonymity is a continuous variable, to be measuredby degrees)[6], in a mixed mode meeting, anonymity may not be easily afforded the remote participant. For example, when all the participants in the same room have stopped typing comments, yet new comments continue to appear on the public screen,there would be no question those comments originated with the remote participant. Anonymity may be more or less important, depending on the level of evaluation apprehension and/or the number of organizational hierarchy levels representedin the meeting. [6]. Group proximity and individual anonymity are only two of the variables that affect meeting outcomes. others includegroup size, task activities, and evaluative tone [6]. Because EMS can impose a considerable amount of structure on meetings, participants’ preference for procedural order may have a significant impact on their assessment of the meeting processand/or satisfactionwith the meeting’s outcome.

Literature review Thereis a growing body of literature on the application of computer and communications technology to improve group and collaborative work. This section contains a brief review of literature pertaining to technology-enhanced meetings. Although GDSS, or alternatively, Electronic Meeting Systems(EMS) do not represent the only technology currently being applied to business meetings (other technologies include, for example,video-conferencing,)the focus of this researchis on meetingsemploying GDSS. Group Support Systems

Since the mid- 1980’s,researchershave been working on the development,improvement, and understandingof computer-basedsystemsfor group decision making and othercooperativework (see [l] for an early review.) The developmentof softwareand experimentationwith groups using software to enhancethe group-meeting experience led to commercialinstallations[2], and to a proliferation of products [3]. More recent work has focussed on the effects of EMS technology on organizations and individuals. Now, the promise of distributed electronic meetings is being investigated.

The Case of One Remote Participant

EMS researchin the areaof remote participation is still relativelynew, and there are many questionsremaining to be answered. Several studies have been published regarding distributed electronic meetings wherein all participantswere geographicallyisolated from one another [4,5,8,9,10]. As far as we are aware, nothing has been publishedcomparingthe effects of technology on meeting outcomesin the caseof groups meeting together with only one remoteparticipant For many organizations,however, business constraints would seem to create a demand for support for this type of meeting. Effectson the power enjoyed and influence exertedby individual participantshave been alluded to in discussions about the effects of anonymity, but they have not been fully documented yet. Studies on the effects of group proximity have been concerned with whether the entire group was geographically distributed or proximate. The mixture of proximity and isolation in the case of one remote participant presents a unique and yet unexplored view of proximity effects. Other configurations (e.g. more than one remote participant, several distributed subgroups, etc.) are possible, but for the present we have chosento focus on the caseof only one remote participant. We plan to examine other configurations later.

Effects of Electronic Meeting Technology

Electronicmeeting technology provides for changesin the balance of process gains and losses associatedwith meetings. Researchershave identified several aspectsof electronicmeetings(e.g. group proximity, anonymity) that potentially affect meeting outcomes. In one experiment, researchersfound that groups using EMS generatedabout the same number of ideas, whether they were geographicallydispersedor proximate, but the proximate groups were more satisfied with the process [4]. In another experiment distributed groups generatedmore ideas than proximate groups with no difference in satisfaction [5]. Nunamaker et al. [6] suggest that distributed groups may remain more task-focussedthan proximategroups, who may be interrupted by laughter or disruptivemovements.Greatertask orientation on the part of a remoteparticipantcould give rise to a senseof conflict between the proximate group members and a remote participant in a mixed mode meeting.

Study design One of the benefits of EMS use is anonymity [6,7]. Meeting participants are able, using an EMS, to make commentswith no fear of personal reprisal, no evaluation

When meeting participants are separatedby physical distance, communication links can be provided by

113

Proceedings of the 1996 Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-29) 1060-3425/96 $10.00 © 1996 IEEE

Proceedings of the 29th Annual Hawaii International

Conference on System Sciences -

Preliminary

technology. Video, audio,and data links are available with current technology. Our study includes six mini-cases involving small, partially distributed groups working on a task over four one-hour meetings. The participantswere all upper-division undergraduate students in business, or MBA or other graduate-level studentsin business. Participants were given an incentive for participating,which consistedof a combination of class credit and a token financial incentive. Each group consisted of four members, one of whom (chosen by random assignment)was appointed to participate from a remote location, while the other three worked together in one “group” location. Participants used Ventana Corporation’s GroupSystems for Windows software. In each group, all four participants were trained on the software together, then the “remote” participant left the room to take his/her place in another room in the same building. After the brief training sessionon some of the GroupSystems tools, the participants were allowed to organizetheir time and meeting activities as they pleased. They were assignedthe task of generating an “orientation” type company policy document for new managers in a fictitious multinational consulting firm. Since facilitation can have a significant impact on participants’perceptions [ 1 l,] and we were not able to provide facilitation in two locations at once, we chose to allow participants to run their own meetings without the aid of a facilitator. However, we did provide technical assistancewith the softwarewheneverparticipantsin either location requested it. The remote participants communicated with their teammates by a “speaker phone” (for the proximate participants) and a regular telephone (for the remote participant,) and through the “whiteboard” tool in the meeting software, (The whiteboard tool is a shared drawing space that includes a text feature for written messages.) Although the participants were free to structure their meetings however they desired, they were given instructions and suggestions for the desired outcomesfor each of four meetings. In the first meeting, they were trained on the use of the software and encouraged to “play” with the software in order to get to know the system and their teammates. They also read some background information about the (fictitious) companyand about the software. Each subject was given a role to play, to ensure that different points of view were represented in the decision process and in the final document. In the second meeting, subjects were encouragedto generateand develop ideas pertaining to the policy document. In the third meeting, subjects refined ideas and organized their final document. The fourth meeting consisted of filling in details and finishing the document Post-sessionquestionnaireswere administered at the end of each session, and informal exit interviews were conductedat the end of the fourth session.

1996

results

There is not sufficient data to justify a statistical s&y.+ but preliminary observations do seem to reveal a few trends. In nearly all the interviews conducted, the remoteparticipantsexpressedfrustration with the meeting environment. They commented on the difficulty of communication and their frequent senseof not knowing what the others were doing. In one group, for example, the remoteparticipantanxiously attemptedto initiate some dialog and idea generationvia the software during the first meeting,but the otherparticipants were busy reading their instructionsand the related task information. They had not yet begun to use the software. After several unsuccessful attempts the remote participant telephoned the group and in a very impatienttone asked,‘What’s going on up there?” Many of the proximate participants also expressed frusfxationwith the meding environment and the difliculty it presentedfor communicatingeffectively with the remote participant. To a lesser extent, many participants expresseddissatisfactionthat seemsto be related to the fact that they were all novice users of the software, and had received only a little training. Despitetheir expressedfrustrations, the participants as a rule used the telephonesprovided in the meeting rooms relatively rarely. A common scenario involved the three proximate participants working out a decision among themselves,andthen telephoning the remote participant to let him/her know what they had decided to do. While waiting for the phone call, the remote participant had no input to the decision process. It seemedthat participants avoidedusing the telephone until it was absolutely vital to use it in order for the meeting to progress. Use of the Whiteboard tool was also very limited. In all the groups at least one participant has attempted to communicate via the whiteboard. However, when questioned about the whiteboard in post-session interviews, participants generally complained that the whiteboard has no mechanism for notifying the other participantsthat a messagehas been posted. Since another communicationmedium was required to draw attention to the whiteboard,the intendedmessagecould be sent via the othermedium, leaving the whiteboard relatively uselessin the context of this study. Some noticeable differences seem to be emerging between the remote and proximate participants on their responses to certain questions from the post-session questionnaires.For example,the question in box 1 evoked markedly different responsesfrom the remote participants than from the proximate participants. Predictably, remote participantsfeel they arenot as much a part of the group as the others. Responsesto the question in box 2 also seem to reveal that remote participants’ experience in the meetings is less desirable than their proximate peers’

114

Proceedings of the 1996 Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-29) 1060-3425/96 $10.00 © 1996 IEEE

Proceedings of the 29th Annual Hawaii International

Conference on System Sciences -

experience. 19. say

Did you find yourself things that you d i dn't

Very Frequently 1 2

wanting

Undecided 3

5

4

averageof remote responses

averageof proximate responses

The manner in which my group is communicating is productive

5.33

3.00

Communication in our group was hindered by our meeting environment

1.00

4.78

We were able to communicate effectively in this meeting environment

3.33

3.33

The meeting environment makes communicating with each other a frustrating process

1.67

4.34

The environment prevents us from communicating clearly

3.33

3.33

‘able 1 Environment/

3mmunication

to

say?

Very Infrequently 6

7

Box 1 Questionnaire item Responsesfrom remote participants most often fall on the left side of the scale (indicating they often fail to communicate their thoughts to the group,) while the

31. How satisfied outcome of this

Very Satisfied 1 2

were you meeting?

Undecided 3

4

with

the

Very Dissatisfied 5

6

7

Box 2 Questionnaire item proximatemembers’ responsesfall more often on the right side of the scale. These two questionsmay be indicators of some participants’frustration with the meeting process andthe constraintsimposed by the environment. Another example (shown in table 1) may indicate a result of that frustration. Remoteparticipants indicated less satisfaction with the meetingoutcomethan the proximate participants. One of the questionnairesincludes several questions about the meeting environment. The questions used Liken-type scalesupon which respondentscould statethe extent to which they agreed or disagreed with the statementpresented. Lower numbers indicate agreement; higher numbers (up to 7) indicate disagreement. These items and the average of responses f?om remote and proximate participants are shown in table 1. Underlined figures indicate items that appearto have a wide disparity of opinion. Interestingly, while the remote participants frequently agreed in their extreme responses, the proximate participants’ responses,which were equally extreme, were not unanimous (thus their averageis closer to the middle of the scale.) In several groups, two proximate members expressed

opinions

at extremes

opposite

1996

questions

Discussion Although the data collected to date is not sufficient for statistical analysis, simple observation has revealedsome common themes in the data collected so far. Participants’ commentscommonly included admiration for some of the software’s features, such as anonymity and parallel communication. Typically, comments were to the effect that althoughanonymitywas not particularly important for this task the featurewould be valuable in some situations. Severalparticipantsalso commented on their frustration at the difficulty they had in communicating. Since communication is essentialto group cohesion we believe this areawarrants further investigation. The differences in perceptions about communication might have arisen because of differences in how participantsdefinedtheir group. To some of the proximate participants,the “group”might have meant “the three of us (proximatemembersonly,)”while to others the group was perceived as “all four of us (including the remote participant.)”Perhapssome of the proximate participants felt some responsibility for including the remote participant,and were unhappy with their group for leaving the remotepersonout of the decision loop. Meanwhile the

those of the

remote participants. However one proximate member sided with the remote participant.

115

Proceedings of the 1996 Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-29) 1060-3425/96 $10.00 © 1996 IEEE

Proceedings of the 29th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 1996 d&appearas they gain experienceusing it. Meanwhile, we would not recommend participation in distributed eledvnic meetingsby users who are not familiar with the technology in use.

other proximateparticipantswere comfortable ignoring the remote person, content with majority, if not total, participation. Conversely,communication difficulty may have arisen because the communication links provided were simply not the right kind of “space” needed for this type of meeting/taskIn a pilot study we established a video/audio link, but participants rarely used the video portion. Video tapes of the meeting sessions revealed that participants concentratedmostly on their compuier screensand rarely, ifever, lookedup at the video monitor. They did make use of the audio portion, however. For this reason we left the video link out of our exploratory study. However, since we also removed the facilitator, the optimum communication space may not have been achieved. Our observationslead us to believe that the various channels of communication have their own advantages and disadvantages. We noted in particular several possible problems. Communication

Implications

for Future Research

The purpose of this study was to identify areaswhere researchin partially distributed electronic meeting support would be valuable. We have identified several areasthat appearto have interest& potential. In future research,we hope to identify situations in which groups are unable to overcome communication dficulties. In our mini-cases, subjects were apparently able to overcome their communication problems, i.e. they were able to complete the task despite their frustration. There may be certain tasks or meeting configurations that aggravate communication di.Biculty to an extent that makes task completion impossible. Perhaps some of the communication problems we observed could be overcome by simple means. For example,the perceived interruption imposed by telephone use might be surmounted by providing participants with headset telephone equipment, which would leave their hands and eyes free. We intend to examine group communication in partially distributed groups in an experimental setting. This may be done by varying bandwidth(eg providing video links, removing telephone links,) or by assigning one proximate participant a facilitator-like role with explicit instructions about including the remote participant. Another approachmay be to use an experimental task which requires more comnbication, such as one that involves more conflict, or one that requires a more unique contribution of expertise or authority from each participant (which seems a likely real-world situation.) In addition to studying the difTerences between proximate and remote members of a group, two of the authorshave also begun a research program investigating the effectsof communication media on the group process. Data collection has begun for an experiment in which face-to-face groups are compared to partially distributed groups that use either video or audio conferenoing to complete a group task over a series of four meetings. Although the task is similar to the one used in the study describedin this paper, there are siguificant digerences in the two studies. First, a relatively simple group editor, rather than a comprehensive EMS, is used by the groups. Second,the audio communication line is kept “live” for the group; they do not have to initiate a phone call to use it. The group editor provides less structure to the group process than an EMS does. Preliminary observations indicate that this results in greater verbal communication betweenthe group members as they try to determine how best to organize for the task. Therefore, the audio and

Links

Perhaps using the telephone was viewed by participants as an interruption. In order for the participants to communicate, they had to turn away from the task-orientedsoftware,dial, and wait for the other party to answer,before they could continue with whatever train of thoughtprompted the phone call. Even when using the speaker phone, the participants generally turned away horn their monitors to face the phone. Thus, talking on the phone might be perceived as a distraction. We note here that participantswere neither encouragednor discouraged from leaving the phone connection open for the duration of the meeting. As a rule they did not leave the line open, preferring,apparently,to open and close the connection as it was needed. One group left the line open continually, and reportedhigher levels of satisfaction with the meeting environment than the other groups reported. The “whiteboard” medium might also be perceived as an interruption. Using the whiteboard requires that the user switch from the “working” window to another window. Viewing both the working window and the “communication” window at the same time necessitates that both windows appearsmaller on the computer screen. Also, if one user is not looking at the whiteboard screen, there is no way to tell whether another user has displayed a messageon it. The frustration participants expressedwith respect to the softwarecould be dealt with by a competent facilitator in same-time, same-placeelectronic meetings. Since the meetings in this study included remote participants, there was no facilitator present. However, technical assistance has been available when participants have asked for it. Since the participants were all novice users, we believe much of their h&ration with the software would

116

Proceedings of the 1996 Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-29) 1060-3425/96 $10.00 © 1996 IEEE

Proceedings of the 29th Annual Hawaii International

Conference on System Sciences - 1996

video links seem to be relatively useful to the groups. Completion of this study should shed light on how well partially distributedgroups are able to use audio and video media to augment computer communications.

2. Nunamaker Jr., J.F. Vogel, D.R. Heminger, A. and Martz, B. (1989) Experiences at IBM with Group Support Systems: A Field Study. Decision Support Systems5 183-196.

Conclusion

3. Finley, M. (1991). Welcome to the Electronic Meeting. Training, July 29-32.

We have begun to see that the default modes of communication may not be sufticient or appropriate to support partially distributed electronic meetings for all types of tasks or for all possible meeting configurations. If the trends we see emerging continue to be verified by further research,we may be able to conclude that support for certaintypesof distributedelectronic meetings requires a new kind of communication “media space”[ 121. It may be that the communicationspacerequired is a combination of video, audioand meetingsoftwarelinks. We believe the most successfulform of communication support should necessarily be as transparent as possible, seamless,and .work simultaneouslywith the meeting software. We are not yet ableto say whether it should be part of (i.e., on the same computer screenwith) the meeting software or not. Perhapstwo monitorswill be required for each participant. In addition to allowing communication among participants, and between a facilitator and participants, support for distributed meetings probably should include a way for remote participants to view a public screen, equivalentto that enjoyed by proximate participants in an EMS facility. Knowing that the other participants have access to data denied to himself or herself can only contribute to the remote participant’s feeling of not being part of the group. Lack of a public screen can make remote participants feel disadvantaged relative to proximateparticipants.Perhapsthe public screencould be included as part of the communication space. It is important to remember that the participants were able to successfully complete the assignedtask. However, until better communication support can be provided for distributed and partially distributed electronic meetings, the next best thing is still not as good as actually being there.

References 1. Kraemer, K.L. and King, J.L. (1988) Computer-based Systems for Cooperative Work and GroupDecision-Making.ACM Computing Surveys 20(2) 115-146.

4. Jessup,L.M and Tan&, D.A. (1991). Decision making in an automated environment: The effects of anonymity and proximity on group process and outcome with a group decisionsupport system. Decision Sciences, 22(2), 266-279. 5. Valacich, J.S. (1989) Group Size and Proximity Effects on Computer Mediated Generation:A Laboratory Investigation. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Arizona. 6. Nunamaker Jr., J.F. Dennis AR Valacich, J.S. Vogel, D.R and George, J.F. (1991) Electronic Meeting Systemsto Support Group Work. Communicationsof the ACM, 34,7 40-61. Valacich,J.S. Dennis, A.R. and Nunamaker Jr., 7. J.F. (1991) Anonymity and Group Size Effects on Computer Mediated Idea Generation. Proceedings of Academy of ManagementMeeting. 8. Gallupe, RB. and McKeen, S. (1990). Beyond computer-mediated communication: An experimental study into the use of a group decision support systemfor face-to-face versus remote meetings. Information and Management, l&1-13. 9. Valacich, J.S. Paranka, D. George, J.F. & NunamakerJr., J. F. (1993). Communication concurrency and the new media: A new dimension for media richness. Communication Research,30(2), 249-276. Valacich, J.S. George,J. F. Nunamaker Jr., J.F. 10. and Vogel, D.R (1994). Physical proximity effects on computer-mediatedgroup idea generation. Small Group Research.25,l 83-104. Dickson, G.W., Partridge J.E.L., and Robinson, 11. L.H. (1993) Exploring Modes of facilitative support for GDSS technology. MIS Quarterly, June pp. 173-194. Bly, Sk, Harrison, S.R, and Irwin, S (1993) 12. Media Spaces:Bringing people together in a video, audio, and computingenvironment.Communioationsof the ACM 36,l 28-47.

117

Proceedings of the 1996 Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-29) 1060-3425/96 $10.00 © 1996 IEEE