A comprehensive model for analysing collaborative activity
Position paper for Workshop 5: 'Analyzing Collaborative Activity'
CSCW2002 Conference, Nov. 2002, New Orleans
J.H.Erik Andriessen
Delft University of Technology
Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management
Section Psychology of Work and Organisation
Jaffalaan 5
2628 BX Delft, The Netherlands
tel. +31 15 2781742 / 2783720
e-mail: erika@tbm.tudelft.nl
http://www.tbm.tudelft.nl/webstaf/erika/andriessen.htm
Introduction
Analysing collaborative activities – and the role of groupware in support of these
activities - can be approached from two sides. One is bottom up, i.e. through grounded
interpretation of cases study material, the other is top down, i.e. through using a model
based on previous research and on existing theory. We have developed such a model
called the Dynamic Group Interaction model (DGIn-model) and honed it through
application in several cases studies. The purpose of this model is NOT to limit the
analysis of collaborative activities to certain quantifiable data, but to structure the
analysis by providing ideas and insights that have proven their value and thereby
preventing the re-invention of the wheel.
In this model elements of four grand theories, Action Theory, Activity Theory,
Structuration Theory and Adaptive Structuration Theory and of several other, particularly
group dynamic notions are brought together. In this way three levels of behaviour
analysis are taken into account, i.e. individual goal directed behaviour and cognitive
processes (Action Theory, Activity Theory), interpersonal and group processes (Activity
Theory, Adaptive Structuration Theory, Group Dynamics) and macro-social processes
(Structuration Theory). Each of the four grand theories is quite rich but also quite
general. Other theories are needed to distinguish specific factors and processes, to
explain certain phenomena and to identify relevant individual, group and organisational
characteristics. Some of these other theories are also more suitable for deriving design
guidelines. Together they point at the potential relevance of a large number of factors.
The various notions are brought together in a heuristic model concerning group
processes. which is related to traditional input-process-output schema's. The field of
social and organisational psychology has produced several sophisticated versions
(McGrath, 1984; Hackman, 1987). In overviews of the findings in this field the basic
model has been “filled” with many variables (e.g. Kraemer and Pinsonneault, 1990;
McGrath and Hollingshead, 1994).
Many of these models are limited. They suggest a linear and one-directional
causal relation: the characteristics of the input determine the processes which then
determine the outcomes. It is clear, however, from experience and reflected in theories
such as (Adaptive) Structuration Theory or group stage models, that human action and
group interaction change the social structures, which means that they have feedback
effects on group characteristics, task definition and tool use. These feedback effects can
1
be explicitly planned, but unforeseen events will often result in the unplanned
emergence of new settings and processes. For this reason the term context-of-use is
adopted in this book, instead of the term input factors, which suggests to indicate the
starting moment only.
Behind some of the models lies the contingency-idea, that the context-of-use
factors must fit, i.e. must match to produce the best processes and output. The models
are in this sense quite static in nature. However, several theories point to the fact that
characteristics of tasks, tools and context are perceived and subjectively re-interpreted.
Moreover, learning and adaptation processes take place through which input elements
are constantly adapted to each other. Nevertheless one cannot count on an automatic
adaptation process when introducing a new tool or a new setting. The larger the gap
between existing and new settings the more energy has to be directed to the introduction
processes.
Many models focus on the level of group task interaction and pay less attention
to aspects of individual human computer interaction and task performance or to
organisational functioning. As has been argued earlier, co-operative group work contains
much individual task performance, and computer mediated group work implies individual
tool use and issues of human computer interaction. Cognitive theories point to the fact
that when designing and evaluating ICT-tools from a user perspective, one has to take
into account the question of whether they fit the action mechanisms, the human
motivation and the self-image of the potential users.
The model presented in the following section tries to take into account these criticisms.
The models are a combination of the input-process-output model, with elements of
Activity Theory, Adaptive Structuration Theory and several group dynamic theories
combined.
The Co-operative Work model
Collaborative activities can be analysed without any reference to technology. The CSCW
context however focuses attention on ICT supported collaboration. The purpose of
introducing collaboration technology is to support the interaction of several people
interacting in a certain way. Introduction of such systems however implies changes in
ways of working, in the use of tools and in group interaction. The DGIn model (see
Figure 1) is based on these principles and on the integration of group dynamic and other
theories.
2
Processes
Context
Interpretation Motivation
Outcomes
Performance
Individual
Group
Technology
Persons
Task
Group
Formal
structure
Culture
Physical
setting
Organisational environment
cooperation
Life
cycles
Reflection
Learning
Appropriation
coordination
communication
learning
social
interaction
Individual
rewards
Group vitality
Organisational
outcomes:
Emerging
structures
Changes in organisational setting
Figure 1. The Dynamic Group Interaction Model (DGIn -model) (Andriessen, 2002)
The model has the following basic tenets:
 The effectiveness of a group – in terms of three outcome categories - depends on the
quality of five group processes: communication, which is a bases for cooperation, coordination, learning and social interaction . These five processes have to fit to each
other.
 The effectiveness of these processes in their turn depend on the extent to which six
types of conditions (see figure) support them and on the interaction with the
environment. These six aspects have to fit to each other.
 The effectiveness of a (groupware) tool depends therefore on:
a. the characteristics of the tool
b. the fit to the other conditions
c. the extent to which it in practice supports (or at least does not hinder) the group
processes and the attainment of the outcomes
 Groups develop and tools become adopted and adapted to, through interaction
processes and feedback.
The DGIn model is constructed along three dimensions.
Dimension 1. Three levels of interaction: individual, group and organisation
Dimension 2. Context-of-use (input) – processes – output
Dimension 3. Feedback, appropriation and reflection
Both the interaction processes and the outcomes result in feedback processes, by which
the original context-of-use factors are changed. Groups build cohesion and trust, shared
knowledge and new task definitions through interaction. Tools will be appropriated and
adapted, new ways of interaction are developed. This feedback takes place directly as a
result of the interaction processes, or indirectly via the route of outcomes and their effect on
organisational processes. They can emerge unplanned, develop slowly in daily practice, or
they can be the result of explicit reflection of the group on its functioning and explicit
change.
3
A case study
This model allows a systematic analysis of cases of collaborative interaction. From the
model a checklist of 'attentionpoints' has been derived. This list contains items from each of
the elements and relations in the model. When applying this to a certain case, the general
list has to be adapted to the specific situation, and can than be used as a basis for drawing
up interviews, observations and other data collections methods. For certain aspects
calibrated questionnaires are available. This refers for instance to team functioning
dimensions such as trust, cohesion or commitment, or to tool usability dimensions such as
ease of use or learnability.
This approach is modular in the sense that one can choose to limit a study to certain
aspects. The model has been used in various studies, recently in studies of Communities
of Practice. It provides a rich picture of issues related to community functioning and tool
use.
References
Andriessen, J.H.Erik (2002). Working with Groupware. Understanding and Evaluating
Collaboration Technology. London: Springer Verlag.
McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: interaction and performance. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In J.W.Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of
organizational behaviour (pp. p315-342). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kraemer, K. L., & Pinsonneault, A. (1990). Technology and groups: Assessment of the
empirical research. In J. Galegher, R. E. Kraut & C. Egido (Eds.), Intellectual Teamwork:
Social and technological foundations of co-operative work. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Publ
McGrath, A. J. E., & Hollingshead, A. B. (1994). Groups Interacting with Technology.
Ideas, Evidence, Issues and an Agenda. London: Sage Publications.
4