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.