Virtual Team - Virtual Team Theories and Theoretical Frameworks

Dennis, A.R., Fuller, R.M., and Valacich, J.S. 2008. Media, Tasks, and Communication Processes: A Theory of Media Synchronicity, MIS Quarterly (32:3), pp 575-600.

Comments: 

1.The results of table 2 show that the mechanical characteristics of media influence information transmission, which reflects theory of social presence and media richness theory. 

2. This table also reminds me two very essential theories used in the context of media. These two theories are " theory of social presence" and "Media richness theory". These two theories can be used as additional theories to explain and understand the proposition proposed by this research. 

DeSanctis, G. and Poole, M.S. 1994 Capturing Complexity in Advanced Technology Use: Adaptive Structuration Theory, Organization Science, 5(2) 121-147.

Research Questions:

What changes do these systems actually bring to the workplace?

What technology impacts should we anticipate and how can we interpret the changes that we observe? 

Concepts

There is a duality of structure whereby there is an interplay between the types of structures that are inherent to advanced technologies and the structures that emerge in human action as people interact with these technologies

Theoretical Roots of AST

1. the decision-making school

2. Social Technology school

3. Institutional School 

AST provides a detailed account of both the structure of advanced technologies as well as the unfolding of social interaction as these technologies are used.

Propositions of Adaptive Structuration Theory (AIT: action, institution and technology)

• Technologies
• Institution
• human activity 

AIT influence social structures in two ways: (technology <-->institution)

• features (rule and resources)
• spirit ( value and goal underlying a given set of structural features)

Propositions: 

PI. AITs provide social structures that can be described in terms of their features and spirit. To the extent that AITs vary in their spirit and structural features sets, different forms of social interaction are encouraged by the technology.

P2. Use of AIT structures may vary depending on the 

task, the environment, and other contingencies that offer 

alternative sources of social structures.

P3. New sources of structure emerge as the technology, task, and environmental structures are applied during the course of social interaction.

P4. New social structures emerge in group interac

tion as the rules and resources of an AIT are appropri

ated in a given context and then reproduced in group 

interaction over time.

P5. Group decision processes will vary depending on 

the nature of AIT appropriations.

P6. The nature of ALT appropriations will vary de

pending on the group's internal system.

P7. Given AIT and other sources of social structure 

n, • • • ni., and ideal appropriation processes, and deci

sion processes that fit the task at hand, then desired 

outcomes of AIT use will result.

Value 

"A major strength of AST is that it expounds the nature of social structures within advanced information technologies and the key interaction processes that figure in their use."

"AST can also enhanee our understanding of groups in general, not just those using technology."

"One strength of AST and the method outlined here is that they facilitate analysis of between-group differences. "

"A second strength of AST is that it accounts for the structural potential of technology and at the same time focuses squarely on technology use as a key determinant of technology impacts.  "  

Questions : 

the authors emphasize on AIT, such as GDSS. However, is it really necessary to separate IT into AIT and IT? Also, what are other examples of AIT? Twitter, Facebook or app Store are AIT? no clear at all. Finally, GDSS may become not AIT  one day because the pace of IT development changes dramatically. In other words, GDSS may not be the case of AIT in the near future.  

McGrath, J. E. 1991. Time, Interaction and Performance, Small Group Research, 22(2), 147-174.

Special emphasis to temporal processes in group interaction and task performance

Zigurs, I. And Buckland, B. 1998. A theory of task technology fit and group support systems effectiveness, MIS Quarterly, 22(3), 313-334.

Task Classification 

1. Task as behavior description ( whatever the group members actually do)
2. Task as ability requirements (relatively enduring aspects of the performer to describe tasks). 
3. Task qua task (actual task materials that are presented to the group)
4. Task as behavior requirements (characteristics of tasks) 

Circumplex (McGrath) is based on task as behavior requirements (each task is categorized by its objective). However, behavior requirements for a task include not only what must be accomplished to meet stated goals, but how those goals should be accomplished. 

Group Task: 

the behavior requirements for accomplishing stated goals, via some process, using given information. 

Unique task environments

Definition

• Task complexity: is related directly to the task attributes that increase information load, diversity, or rate of change. 
• Four dimensions : 
• Outcome multiplicity: there is more than one desired outcome of a task
• Solution scheme multiplicity: there is more than one possible course of action to attain a goal. 
• Conflicting interdependence: adopting one scheme conflicts with adopting another possible solution scheme/ Outcomes are in conflict with one another/ information is conflict
• Solution scheme/outcome uncertainty: a given solution scheme will lead to a desired outcome. 
• Others: lack of structure, ambiguity, and difficulty 

Definition of GSS

a set of communication, structuring, and information processing tools that are designed to work together to support the accomplishment of group tasks. 

The duality of technology --> it is enacted by human actors as well as institutionalized in structure. 

Unique GSS technology environments

Communication support : any aspect of the technology that supports, enhances, or defines the capability of group members to communicate with each other. 

Process support: any aspect of the technology that supports, enhances, or defines the process by which groups interact, including capabilities for agenda setting, agenda enforcement, facilitation and creating a complete record fo group interaction. 

Information processing: the capability to gather, share, aggregate, structure or evaluate information, including specialized templates such as stakeholder analysis or multi-attributes utility analysis. 

Fit 

Fit as congruence, fit as interaction, and fit as internal consistency

Fit as moderation, as mediation, as matchin, as gestalts, as profile deviation ( fit as an ideal profile), and as covariation. 

Definition: 

fit is viewed as feasible sets of equally efective alternative designs. Each design should be internally consistent and matched to a configuration of contingencies that face the organization. 

Task/Technology fit:

Definition: ideal profiles composed of an internally consistent set of task contingencies and GSS elements that affect group performance. 

Comments

This paper is excellent in that it develops a very parsimonious theory like TAM. 

However, two major limitations exist in this study. One of the major concerns for this paper is the the low generalizability. This paper's narrow focus on the GSS could cause the generalizability to be questioned. In fact, I believe that this paper focuses on not GSS but IT in general. Then, this theory would become more influential and extendable. 

The second concern is that this study is the lack of a clear definition for group performance. What is the idea of the group performance mentioned in this paper? can I say consensus is one of the group performance? how about decision quality? Without a clear definition of outcome variable, it's hard to persuade to believe that there is a connection between task/technology fit and group performance.