Chart 3: Summary of the Experiments: Findings
AUTHORS
|
DEPENDENT MEASURES - OUTCOMES
|
GROUP PROCESS
ADAPTATION
|
CONCLUSIONS
|
Dufner,
et. al.,
1994
|
Perception Measures:
Discussion quality
Tools > No-tools; Sequence No Diff.
Media dimensions
Tools > No-tools; Sequence No Diff.
Satisfaction
Tools > No-tools; Sequence No Diff. |
No-tools groups
experience more
confusion attributed
to "log-in" lag than
tools groups.
The tools (list
and vote) provided
structure enabling
the groups to
monitor their
progress.
By providing tools in
distributed CMC
improves perceived
group outcomes over no-
tools.
The presence or
absence of sequential
procedures has no
effects.
| |
Fjermest
adet.
al.,
1994
|
Group Performance
Number of days: Decision App: DI > CC;
Experience No Diff.
Number of comments: Decision App: DI >
CC;
Experience: No Diff.
Effectiveness: Decision App/Experience:
No Diff.
Depth of evaluation: Decision App/Exper:
No Diff.
Group Perception
Acceptance: Decision App/Experience: No
Diff.
Depth of Evaluation: Decision Approach
CC > DI;
Experience: No Diff.
Willingness: Decision App: CC > DI;
Experience No Diff.
|
The DI groups
expend a greater
effort than CC
groups as indicated
by the asynchronous
meeting time and
number of comments,
but gain very little
in terms of
effectiveness and
group perceptions.
There were no
learning effects and
no interaction
effects reported.
There were no
significant difference
in decision
effectiveness between
DI and CC groups.
CC groups report
greater decision
acceptance, depth of
evaluation and
willingness to work
together again than do
DI groups.
| |
Ocker,
et. al.,
1995
|
Quality:
Communication Mode: No Diff.;
Process: No Diff.
Creativity:
Communication Mode: CMC > FtF
Process: No Diff.
|
There were no
interaction effects
or effects for
process.
The task it self
may not necessarily
be an ill-structured
task; it may be a
well structured
task; thus the
groups were able to
proceed to a
solution.
The creative task of
deciding upon the
initial specifications
for the design of a
software system can
benefit from
asynchronous CMC.
The CMC groups were
judged to be
considerably more
creative in their
designs. Quality was
judged to be higher,
but not significant.
| |
Rana,
1995
|
Quality of Review: Poll> no Poll; with low
pre agreement, Q> no Q; Low Pre-Agreement >
High Pre-Agreement
Confidence in outcome: High respect and
consensus >
Low respect and consensus
Outcome satisfaction: High comfort and
consensus >
Low comfort and consensus
Decision scheme satisfaction: High respect,
comfort, and consensus > Low comfort and consensus
Structure in process: High comfort and
consensus >
Low comfort and consensus
Change in understanding: High comfort &
consensus >
High or low comfort/consensus; or Low
levels of
both comfort and consensus
Depth of evaluation: Poll and high
consensus >
No-Poll and low consensus
|
Group members'
subjective
perception about
various aspects of
group process and
outcome were
affected more by the
modes of
appropriation than
the support tools.
In other words,
groups that
exhibited effective
appropriation
perceived their
group process and
outcome to be more
effective than the
ones that exhibited
ineffective modes of
appropriation.
The DGSS supported
controlled sharing
of individual
responses combined
with anonymous
contribution of
opinions and support
for consensus
management can be
used to enhance the
state of the referee
system.
| |
Kim,
1996
|
Quality (Obj.): L> NL; Coordination No diff
Quality (Sub.): Coordination mode: Par >
Seq;
Leader: No Diff.
Consensus: Coordination/Leader mode: No
Diff.
Participation: Coordination/Leader mode: No
Diff.
Satisfaction: Coordination mode: Par < Seq;
Leader: With < Without
Process Satisfaction: Coordination mode:
Par > Seq;
Leader: No Diff.
Group Understanding: Coordination mode: Par
< Seq;
Leader: No Diff. |
Too much freedom
in group interaction
decreases group
cohesiveness, which
increases the
decision cost.
A coordination
structure should be
somewhat restrictive
to maintain a higher
level of group
cohesiveness.
The degree of
restrictiveness of a
coordination
structure needs to
be defined more
precisely to
generalize the
findings of this
study.
Very little is
known about what
determines the
degree of
restrictiveness of a
coordination
structure in DGSS.
| |