1

2

3

• Article– Easley, R. F., Devaraj, S., & Crant, J. M. (2003).

Relating collaborative technology use to teamwork quality and performance: An empirical analysis. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(4), 247-268.

• Authors– Robert F. Easley is an assistant professor of

management information systems at Notre Dame– Sarv Devaraj is an assistant professor of management

at Notre Dame– J. Michael Crant is an associate professor of

management at Notre Dame

4

• Purpose– Establish an empirical link between the use of

groupware and improved team performance

• Research questions– Does use of groupware enhance team performance?

• Creativity

• Decisionmaking

– Does teamwork quality impact use of groupware?

– Does computer self efficacy impact use of groupware?

– Do teamsize and GMAT scores impact performance?

5

6

• Computer Self Efficacy Technology Usage

– Computer self efficacy is a major control variable

– Relationship indicated in multiple studies (Bandura)

– Computer self efficacy is a “judgment of one’s own capability to use a computer” (Compeau & Higgins)

• Basic notion is that sound computer skills are a prerequisite for groupware (e.g., online education)

• Also related to “ease-of-use” (Compeau & Higgins)

• Other studies question this relationship (Igbari & Iivari; Straub & Limayan)

7

• Teamwork Quality Technology Usage– Teamwork quality is a major factor or construct

– Relationship indicated in multiple studies (Kraut; Malhotra; McGrath; McKenney; & Zack )

– Notion of teamwork quality based on scholarly empirical research model (Hoegle & Gemuenden)

• Effort• Cohesion• Coordination• Mutual Support• Communication• Balance of member contributions

8

• Technology Usage Performance– Technology usage is a major factor or construct

– Relationship indicated in multiple studies (Fjermestad & Hiltz; McGrath & Hollingshead; McLeod & Liker)

– Technology usage is defined as• Online versus face-to-face meetings• Teams meeting with and without technology• Optional use of groupware for online collaboration

– Group support systems (GSS)– Group decision support systems (GDSS)– Group communication support system (GCSS)– Computer-mediated Communication Systems (CMS)

9

• Teamsize & GMAT scores Performance– Teamsize and GMAT scores are major control variables

– Teamsize relationship indicated in multiple studies (Latane; Mullen; Gallupe et al)

• Studies indicate impact may be positive or negative– May improve idea generation or conversely, “freeloading”

– Teamsize defined as• Group size• Size of team• Number of team members

– GMAT scores had no empirical basis (used anyway)

10

• Creative performance Technology Usage– Creative performance is a major factor or construct

– Relationship indicated in multiple studies (Dubrovsky; Galupe; Hollingshead; McGrath; Siy; Strauss; Valacich)

– Creative performance defined as• Pooling of ideas• Production of more ideas• Greater equality of participation• Higher gain rate and lower suppression rates• Far less domination by dictatorial team members• Better solutions than from individuals working alone

11

• Decisionmaking Technology Usage– Decisionmaking is a major factor or construct

– Relationship indicated in multiple studies (Fjermestad & Hiltz; Gallupe et al; McGrath et al; Pinsonneault et al)

– Decision making performance defined as• Better decision quality

• Use of math formulas to infer choices

• Using quantitative decision analysis methods

• Helping decisionmakers to make simple choices

• Applying group decision support systems (GDSS)

• Making complex decisions using mathematical formulas

12

13

• Establishes empirical link between– Teamwork, groupware, and performance

– Online education, creativity, and decisionmaking

– Computer self efficacy, teamsize, and performance• Other conclusions

– Importance of team cohesiveness

– High GMAT scores unrelated to performance

– Additional decisionmaking tools may be necessary

– Computer skills needed for effective use of groupware

14

• Strengths– Well formed research theory

– Well executed research methodology

– Study may become seminal masterpiece

• Weaknesses– May need to be tested in more universities

– May need to be tested with doctoral candidates

– May need to be tested in several for-profit institutions

– May need to be tested with scholarly learning constructs

15

• Influences use of technology by– Traditional universities

– Hybrid and online universities

– Non-traditional universities and for-profit institutions

• Establishes scholarly basis for further study

– Examines pros/cons of general purpose groupware

– Implicates the need for specialized educational tools

– Spearheads scholarly research into online education

– Opens door for larger scale online educational studies

16

• With respect to technology in education– Are team cohesiveness, use of groupware, and teamwork

helped or hurt by hybrid, face-to-face instruction?

– Does the type, kind, effectiveness, quality, sophistication, and reliability of groupware matter?

– Is homegrown groupware superior to commercial software designed by educational and technological experts?

– Do online learners need specialized training to be effective with groupware? And, to what extent?

– What are the essential functions groupware must have in order to enhance teamwork and learning?

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

• Chan, A. P. C., & Ho, D. C. K. (2001). Effect of interorganizational teamwork on project outcome. Journal of Management in Engineering, 17(1), 34-40.

• Chen, G. (2005). Newcomer adaptation in teams: Multilevel antecedents and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 48(1), 101-116.

• Coyle-Shapiro, J. (1995). The impact of a TQM intervention on teamwork: A longitudinal assessment. Employee Relations, 17(3), 63-74.

• Daily, B. F., & Bishop, J. W. (2003). TQM workforce factors and employee involvement: The pivotal role of teamwork. Journal of Managerial Issues, 15(4), 393-411.

• Easley, R. F., Devaraj, S., & Crant, J. M. (2003). Relating collaborative technology use to teamwork quality and performance: An empirical analysis. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(4), 247-268.

• Guinan, P. J., Cooprider, J. G., & Faraj, S. (1998). Enabling software development team performance during requirements definition: A behavioral versus technical approach. Information Systems Research, 9(2), 101-125.

• Reinig, B. A. (2003). Toward an understanding of satisfaction with the process and outcomes of teamwork. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(4), 65-83.

• Sawyer, S. (2001). Effects of intra-group conflict on packaged software development team performance. Information Systems Journal, 11(2), 155-178.

• Simsek, Z., Veiga, J. F., Lubatkin, M. H., & Dino, R. N. (2005). Modeling the multilevel determinants of top management team behavioral integration. Academy of Management Journal, 48(1), 69-84.