Distributed Work

22

Overview

• Today• Review evidence about effects of distributed

work on task & social outcomes in teams• Try to understand what problems arise & why

they occur

• Subsequent classes will delve into several of these problems areas in depth

• Common ground & communication effectiveness• The visual element in communication• Why face-to-face communication is distinct• Familiarity• Identity and goal conflicts• Diversity

44

Overview

• Distance collaborations are increasing• Fewer collaborations start & complete as

distance between collaborators grow• Distributed software teams take longer to

complete comparable work• Distributed scientific teams are less

successful in science, education & group maintenance

• Distributed teams endure more conflict

55

Despite problems, distance work is frequent & increasing

• How many of you have been part of distributed teams?

• 67% of companies anticipate increased reliance on virtual teams• 80% for companies with 10,000+ employees

• 35% of respondents rated difficulty of management as top challenge for virtual teams

• 92% said trust is critical for virtual teams• Survey by Institute for Corporate Productivity

66

Rise in long distance collaboration

• International scientific collaboration

Figure 1. Percent of U.S. publications with international collaborators by field, 1981-2001 [Sources: National Science Board (1993-2004),

77

• Small distances make a large difference

Figure: Probability of Joint Research Publication in an R&D Lab

Distance decreases probability of collaboration among scientists

88

Problems

99

Distributed software development takes twice as long

• Distributed software is increasingly common• But software development takes longer when performed by

geographically distributed teams• Compare software development efficiency, when all developers are

at one location or distributed across sites• Two different software development organizations• Time to complete an “MR” (Modification Request)

Study Single site Multiple site RatioEspinosa 48.2 97.2 2.0Herbsleb 5.0 12.7 2.5

Days from start to completion of modification requests

Team type

Espinosa, et al. (2007). Familiarity, complexity, and team performance in geographically distributed software development. Organization Science, 18(4), 613-630.

Herbsleb et al . (2001). An empirical study of global software development: distance and speed. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on software engineering.

1010

Cummings & Kiesler (2005; 2007)Study of Large NSF Projects

• Two studies of the outcomes of large NSF funding initiatives• 71 Knowledge & Distributed Intelligence projects

1998/99• 491 Information Technology Research Projects,

2001-2003

• PIs complete questionnaires describing• Collaboration composition • Coordination techniques used• Scientific & educational success

1111

Six types of outcomes

1212

Research Model & Consistent Findings

• Multi-university projects were less successful than single-university projects

• More successful projects used a variety of specific coordination mechanisms

• Multi-university projects used fewer coordination mechanisms than single-university projects

• Reduced use of coordination mechanisms mediated the relationship between # of university and performance

Knowledge Outcomes**

Tools Outcomest

Training Outcomes**

Outreach Outcomes

Collaboration Outcomes

Leverage Outcomest

Number Universities

1515

Why?

• What intervening variables influence collaboration and are harmed by:

• Distance• Difference in location or setting• Technology-mediated communication

Distance

Outputs• Performance• Satisfaction• Group maintenanceInputs Processes

? ?

1616

Why?

• What intervening variables influence collaboration and are harmed by:

• Distance• Difference in location or setting• Technology-mediated communication

Distance

1717

With distance

Coordination/Task

• Fewer communication events

• Less effective communication per episode

Motivation/Socio-emotional

• Differences between distributed groups

• Lack of common identity

1818

Frequency of Communication

•Communication declines rapidly with distance

•Communication frequency halves with doubling of distance with asymptote at ~30 meters

•Shape of curve similar for face-to-face & phone communication.

•Less steep for email & IM communication

Allen, T. (1977). Managing the flow of technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

1919

Causes & consequences of reduced communication

•Why?

•Consequences

2020

Causes & consequences of reduced communication

Why?Much communication is spontaneous/unintentional

Communication conceived as a Brownian process, enabled by chance encounters when people come together in space & time

ConsequencesLess awareness

Coordination

Information exchange

Liking

2121

Information Sharing

Information sharing is less even & complete across sites than within

• Frequency of communication• Willingness to share• Knowledge of who knows what• Effects of technology

Priorities are better aligned and coordination is more successful within sites than between

2222

Social Identity

Groups split across location tend to be less cohesive than collocated groups

• Pre-existing differences across sites (culture, local loyalties, language) cleavages

• Reduced contact less individual liking• Social categorization effects: Us vs. them

Less cooperation between sites than within sites

2323

Herbsleb et al: Differences between collocated and distributed software development

Herbsleb, J. D., Mock<us, A., Finholt, T. A., & Grinter, R. E. (2001). An empirical study of global software development: distance and speed. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on software engineering.

Survey item Collocated Distributed

I lose time trying to figure out who to contact regarding my work Low High

People I need to communicate with are difficult to find Low High

There have been times when I was accidentally excluded from information which was shared byt my coworkers

Low High

I often get useful, worked related information through casual conversation

High Low

My coworkers provide timely information about changes in current plans High Low

I feel like I'm part of the same team as my coworkers High Low

I feel accepted by my coworkers as team members High Low

My coworkers and I share the same team spirit High Low

My coworkers and I have work styles that fit well together High Low

During meetings, my coworkers and I do our best to produce mutually beneficial solutions to problems

High Low

I assist my coworkers with heavy worklaods, beyond what I am required to do

Equal Equal

My coworkers assist me with heavy workloads, beyond what they are required to do

High Low

Mot

ivat

ion

Iden

tity

Info

rmat

ion

>

<<

>>>>>>

>

<

2424

Shared Context: Cramton, Mutual Knowledge Problem

Members confronted by different contexts & pressures• Members in different organizations different value systems• Members in different nations different calendars and deadlines• Members in different units different workloads

Remote members don’t recognize contextual constraints on behavior attribute problems to personal instead of situational causes

• E.g., Absence attributed to unresponsiveness or laziness, instead of competing demands or holiday.

Cramton, C. D. (2001). The mutual knowledge problem and its consequences for dispersed collaboration. Organization Science, 12(3), 346-371.

2828

Interpersonal conflict

2929

Quality of Communication Episodes

• Many telecom technologies lack important features of face-to-face communication• Email: Non-interactive, simultaneous, sequence not preserved• Phone: Looses visual information –both context of discussion &

details of discussants• Video: Delay, asymmetrical fields of view, problems of resolutions &

control

• Technology mediated communication is generally more effortful & less effective than face-to-face communication• More difficult to develop common ground• More difficult to express subtleties of emotion

• Technology mediated communication can offer useful features unavailable in face-to-face settings & improve conversation• Simultaneous input• Archive of the discussion

3030

Resources Available from Collocation

• Shared space

• Development of common ground

• Pick up information from the periphery

• Ease of reconfiguration

3131

Collocation Improves Communication

3232