Remote Collaboration
Abstract
Within a cooperative work environment, there exists a set of norms for communication and accountability. Whether members are working in a large team or in a pair, there are roles and tasks which different members will fulfill. More specifically, the communication and cooperation of a pair of peers directly influences the success of their production (Ellis & Taggar, 2007). While much is understood about the influence of collaboration and accountability in relation to the performance of individuals, the field of collaboration through technological communication devices and digital media is a rapidly growing field, and is yet not fully understood. Through examining traditional norms of peer accountability, one can examine the influence that newer methods of digital communication and simulated intelligence have on performance.
Introduction
The degree of performance and contribution of individuals in a group is influenced by the traits of the individuals, their position in the group, and the meeting environment (Kozar & Zigurs, 1994). When analyzing the effect of peer accountability on performance, it is essential to understand the general dynamics of group work. Personal traits such as humor, reliability, and motivation play a large part in the cohesiveness of a group of individuals. In order to build the sense of accountability, each of the members must understand the personality of the others. With such and understanding, the expectations of a coworker's standards guides behavior, control, and performance of a team (Ellis & Taggar, 2007). In order to have an effective team, these expectations need to exist as soon as possible within the collaboration. As such, expectations are generally established during the primary communication on a topic (Ellis & Taggar, 2007). Once the accountability and expectations are established, improved performance and cohesiveness are more likely. Many team oriented tasks, such as problem solving and delegation, necessitate a high degree of unity (Ellis & Taggar, 2007).
In order to maintain productivity and progress, some form of leadership must delegate and monitor the group. If there no systematic election of leadership, someone will naturally assume the “leader” position over their peer (Ellis & Taggar, 2007). This emerging leadership assumes the role of formulating goals, predicting performance, and adjusting tasks in order to complete objectives (Ellis & Taggar, 2007). Generally, the leadership position would be filled with a peer possessing qualities lending themselves to management. This could consist of seniority, additional knowledge on the topic, or any other form of superiority. Another aspect of the cooperation of individuals it the environment in which they meet. External influences can dictate the progress of the work. When meeting in a location, a schedule or timeline structure the cooperation.
Within a cooperative environment, accountability between peers is dependent on their ability to rely on the skills of one another to, designate tasks and benchmarks, and effectively focus on the task. Without dependability, the peers cannot count on one another to carry out necessary tasks. Without management and organization, individuals cannot be held accountable for failure to accept and complete tasks. Without a suitable meeting location and schedule, the status of the project cannot be monitored. It is a combination of these aspects which builds trust and enables productivity between individuals. With the current advances in technology, digital frameworks can supplement or even preform several of the tasks of collaboration. Questions may arise regarding the impact that the technology will have on the cooperation and accountability between the parties.
Method
While much is known about the function of group collaboration, less analysis of the field of group support systems (Kozar & Zigurs, 1994). Support systems consist of computers and various methods of input. They lend themselves to the the organization, communication, and productivity between the persons using them. When discussing the influence of these systems on the interactions of two individuals, it is worth while to note the differences between various styles of support systems. For sake of clarity, we will divide this discussion into the influences of local, synchronous support systems, as well as asynchronous and remote services.
Local support systems primarily consist of organizational and presenting enhancements. These technologies do not replace face-to-face cooperation, but rather supplement their aspects of such an interaction. While they still allow live personal communication, their influence my affect the accountability of the peers. To examine this, there are several questions which need be asked. The first questions pertain to the roles that the individuals must fulfill . Common tasks must be accomplished, such as the recording of information, presenting of ideas, and synthesizing solutions. Technology greatly improves the task of recording data, allowing it to be stored, categorized, and recalled. Because the information is stored for later use, it can be understood that peers may feel that the other member should have the most accurate information available to them readily available. Because of this increased trust, time can be used for progress and enhanced performance. The monitoring and criticism of peers results from lowered trust, and leads to time lost discussing the problems and their solutions (Salas, Sims, & Burke, 2005). Once the information is properly stored, the individuals can always refer back to previous discussions and decisions. This reliability does not necessarily lead to trust, but rather a sense of dependability within the terms of the project. Due to increased reliability in the technology and between the peers, time can be used more effectively, and greater levels of performance can be achieved.
In addition to analyzing the advantages of the use of technology in the communication between peers, it is important to examine why there is increase performance. With a typical, face-to-face project, there exist a set of roles which need to be filled by the two (Kozar & Zigurs, 1994). These roles include handling information, managing performance measurements, and pursuing solutions. The local support systems perform the bulk of the data handling and distribution, minus the efforts necessary to input data into the system. As for the measurement of performance, the systems can hold and check on benchmarks within the progress of a project. Once various tasks are suitably achieved, these are deemed complete. This allows co-workers the ability to monitor what problems remain and not reassess completed tasks. Given that the information and management aspects of the two's interaction is reliable, the final role that the two must fill is that of problem solving. Due to the current state of support systems, they serve a limited role in the actual problem solving of the process. Since the basic tasks are already fulfilled, the team may devote themselves to the task of developing a solution. This allows the group to fill a more diverse spectrum of roles within the heart of the production process (Kozar & Zigurs, 1994). While much of the benefits of the technology stem from the support systems filling roles within the group, one must also ask whether the technology allows people to assume the correct roles. The truth of the matter is that within a group of people, one will assume the role of leader (Salas, Sims, & Burke, 2005). In a group aided by support system, this individual will only serve as more of a tour guide than a task master, serving to make sure that all necessary discussions take place.
In contrast to the local support system, many contemporary communication services draw their focus towards allowing for enhanced distance collaboration. This remote technology allows users to communicate through the use of informational storage, audio streams, video streams, management systems, and file sharing. Just as in localized group support systems, one of the most basic uses of the technology is to collect, manage, and distribute information. In general, the information within remote systems will be available and dependable for users to access. While this extended accessibility contributes to increased efficiency by the users, the accountability that existed in the local resource is slightly diminished. Within a local setting, the peers generally discuss information, note pertinent facts, and store this information. Because of this, the information is congruent to the decisions and opinions of both members of the party. When utilizing remote informational storage, the information serves not as a record of discussions, but rather open discussion itself. As such, the information no longer serves as dependable information, and therefore does not offer accountability between the individuals. This does not allow the information to be utilized without being critical of the information.
While the information storage of the remote system functions sub-optimally to the local systems, there are other elements of the distance system which may actually improve performance in other areas. Audio and video communication systems offer the possibilities of “face-to-face” communication, even at extended distances. Through the use of these tools, it is possible to maintain scheduled, personal meetings. It has been seen that to build trust and accountability between the users of remote technology, it is necessary to have scheduled, regular meetings over the communication (Anderson, McEwan, Bal & Carletta, 2007). While the development of trust has been witnessed through remote communication, other aspects are very different from traditional meetings. As the amount of meeting time is lower, and the meetings that do occur offer a limited amount of interaction, there is an impact on the sense of purpose within the group (Anderson, McEwan, Bal & Carletta, 2007). Within the group, it is harder to focus on the important themes if they are not clearly designated. There is less opportunity to stress the importance of topics, due to the extended amount of time occupied by the necessary more thorough explanations. As the exchanges are significantly more turn based, the contributions generally consist of a larger chunk of information spaced less frequently (Anderson, McEwan, Bal & Carletta, 2007). Also, it is worthy to note that the turn based system of communication increases the influence of rank or position (Anderson, McEwan, Bal & Carletta, 2007).
The newest contribution from support systems would be the ability to function as an additional party. Not only are current systems becoming capable of serving as additional member, but they are also gaining a greater ability to function with other web and technology services as a digital based team. It is interesting to note the similarities that these systems possess which are similar to traditional human systems. The machines are structured so that they must have similar constraints, goals, and methods. (Padgham & Liu, 2006) The offer their functions to others in order to participate in larger groups. While these systems can function with humans and other systems, they have a shortcoming in the area of factualness. The machines store input information, but there is no method by which they can check everything. They may have incorrect information within, but they are not “lying” and still have the best interest of the group as their main objective. The problem that may arise with this is that humans my trust the machines due to their inability to lie, regardless of the correctness of the information.
Discussion
As can be seen in the information provided regarding the influence of the technology on the interactions of people, there are both benefits and disadvantages to utilizing such tools. The remote communication tools allow users to maintain a workflow from afar, and offer benefits such as the ability to manage and share assets. The problems of such a system arise within the frequency and fluidity of the communications. These services do not offer the benefit of a continual stream of communication, and often plays as a turn based method of communication. This not only breaks the relationship into multiple, segregated portions of information, but it also affects the reliability and trust within the relationship. When the data is shared from afar, the reliability is affected in that there is uncertainty as to whether the information is the most current, congruent understanding of the progress of the group. Because of this lowered trust in the information, there is also an effect on the accountability between the two individuals. There is additional time and resources utilized to check and critique the information, and thus the performance of the peers is greatly impacted.
Conclusion
Even with the advances in communication technology, it still remains to be seen what long term impact this will have on dialog between peers over a distance. There seems to be an issue with the reliability of information. While all of the data can be check and verified, doing so does consume time which would normally be used for increased productivity. But even with this uncertainty and the wasted time, it still remains that the systems do offer many benefits over traditional methods of distance collaboration. The accessibility of data and the opportunity to have “face-to-face” meeting will continue to allow peers to cooperate and monitor each other when working on a project from a distance.
References
Anderson, A.H., McEwan, R., Bal, J., & Carletta, J. (2007).Virtual team meetings: an analysis of communication and context. Computers in human behavior, Vol 23. 2007, Elsevier.
Ellis, R. & Taggar,S. (2007). The role of leaders in shaping formal team norms. The leadership quarterly Vol. 18, 2007. Elsiver.
Padgham,L. & Liu, W. (2007). Internet collaboration and service composition as a loose form of teamwork. Journal of network and computer applications Vol 20,2007. Elsiver.
Salas, E., Sims,D.E., & Burke,C.S. (2005). Is there a “big five” in teamwork? Small groups research, Vol 36 No. 5, October 2005. University of Central Florida, Sage.
Zigurs,I., & Kozar,A.K. (1994). An exploratory study of roles in computer-supported groups. MIS quarterly, Vol 18, p277, 1994.
