- Email: [email protected]
Video conferencing human-machine interface: A field study
INF
MAIION
lkIA&EMENI ELSEVIER
Information
& Management
27 (1994) 341-356
Research
Video conferencing human-machine Jack Arthur
Gowan,
interface: A field study
Jr. a>* , James Michael
Downs b
a Department of Production and Decision Sciences, The University of North Carolina at Wilmington, Wilmington, NC 28403-3297, USA ’ Quality Assurance, General Electric Company, P.O. Box 780, Wilmington, NC 28402, USA
Abstract In a field study of an established video conferencing system WCS), ten months of usage data were collected and analyzed with the hope of determining the interaction between three user interface dimensions: user profile, task domain, and technology. A validated survey instrument was used to collect user demographics and measures of certain user perceptions of the system. The degree of usage and measured perceptions provide a measure of the effectiveness of the VCS interface. Specific attention was placed on the differences in system usage and perceptions between three task groups: operational, tactical, and strategic. This indicates that the effectiveness of a VCS interface may be task dependent. Several significant interactions were found and are reported, including the effect of number of remote groups, group size, optional equipment, and training. Keywords:
supported
Video conferencing systems; Teleconferencing; Groupware; Group decision support systems; Computer Cooperative work, Electronic meeting systems; Human-machine interface; Man-machine interface
1. Introduction Teleconferencing has been in use for over three decades, with promising new systems and technology made available recently. Video conferencing systems WCS) generally combine video, audio, and graphics to support two or more groups who are meeting in geographically dispersed locations at the same time. Other types of teleconferencing include audio teleconferencing and computer teleconferencing with limited communication through the keyboard. Turban [ 161 categorizes teleconferencing as one
* Corresponding author. [email protected]
Internet:
037%7206/94/$07.00 0 1994 Elsevier SSDI 0378-7206(94)00022-B
Science
of four types of group decision support systems (GDSS), but says that “the absence of either experiments or field studies in a research program reduces the strength within which conclusions can be drawn, and the applicability of those conclusions to actual organizations.” Vogel [18] suggests that there is need for additional field studies, because most of the earlier results were from laboratory experiments. Similarly Dennis et al. [3] found only one GDSS field study: by Nunamaker et al. [12]. Pinsonneault and Kraemer [14] suggest the need to move away from laboratory studies to field studies involving GDSS and group communication support systems. Two field studies were reported in a transportation journal in 1988, each with a focus on the impact of video conferencing on travel [2,10]. Johansen [8] conducted a survey of nonusers of teleconferencing
B.V. All rights reserved
342
J.A. Gowan, Jr., J.M. Downs/Information
and identified four major reasons for its limited use: there was insufficient evidence of success in the use of GDSS, etc. More recently a field study reported the implementation of a VCS by the U.S. Army [6]. The system was described and a procedure was proposed for the design, development and management of a GDSS, but included no empirical results. In his review of research on electronic meeting systems (EMS), Vogel 1181 identifies user interface issues as “key to EMS success”. This is also supported by Johansen’s [S] survey of nonusers of teleconferencing systems; he found that the major perceived obstacle was price, and the second was lack of user-friendliness. Nunamaker et al. [13] propose a model of the user interface with three primary “group support system dimensions”; user profile, task domain, and technology. They identify the “intersection of the three factors as representing different aspects of the human-machine interface”. This framework is used here to describe and analyze the user interface of a video conferencing system (VCS). Johansen and Bullen [9] recognized that a successful VCS must support a specific task and must add value to the service or product. Identification of tasks that appear to be best supported by video communications technology has been a significant issue recently and is a key issue in our study. Several studies have reported use of video conferencing in more service-oriented organizations; e.g., Dholakia et al. [5] found that “information technology plays a more important role in the service-oriented sectors than in manufacturing”. The telecommunication products and services were not limited to video conferencing and included basic phone systems and local area networks, while the target population was small to mid-sized U.S. organizations. In a survey of 135 randomly selected organizations Beauclair and Straub [l] reported on teleconferencing used by government and service bureaus, primarily for strategic planning, brainstorming and team building, with an emphasis on administrative, planning, and data analysis activities. The size of the organization was identified as having a significant impact. Spiller and House1 [15] identified more than ten large organizations, both service and
& Management 27 (1994) 341-356
manufacturing, using video conferencing technology primarily for training. Johansen and Bullen [91 identify several successful applications in large manufacturing organizations, especially in R and D and engineering activities. On November 6, 1991, in a hearing before the House of Representative’s Committee on Science, Space and Technology, two vice presidents from Boeing and General Electric, reported use of video conferencing and explained how the technology resulted in competitive advantage [17]. DeSanctis and Gallupe [4] suggest that “researchers must study the flow of members’ interaction to discover the impact the technology is having on the nature of the group’s cognitions, actions and feelings, and the relationship between these attributes of information exchange and decision outcomes.” Our paper attempts to answer this challenge.
2. Goal of the field study Our objective was to analyze and describe the user interface of an established VCS located at General Electric (GE) in Wilmington, North Carolina. Our model of the GDSS interface involves the user profile, task domain, and technology; the interaction of these depict the user interface. User activity can be examined individually or as a group involved in a meeting. Therefore, both group and individual measures are considered in the construction of the “user profile”. Individual user data includes their demographics and perception of the system, which is measured using a survey instrument. Group user data includes number of groups (two-way versus three-way meetings), group size, local size, remote size, and total size. The task domain is partially described by classifying the general activity of the meeting into one of six meeting purpose categories that were then compacted into three general categories: operational, tactical, and strategic. System usage, expressed in number of meetings, meeting duration, and travel avoidance, also served as task descriptors.
J.A. Gowan, Jr., J.M. Downs /Information
The only technology variability involved certain system equipment that was optional for each meeting. Therefore, the technology measures include the identification of the equipment or optional systems used.
3. Video conferencing description
system
and environment
In 1990 GE installed the VCS; it has been in use for approximately three years. The plant employs approximately 2400 people and manufactures fuel and control rods for nuclear power plants as well as internal turbine parts and casings for jet engines. The site actually operates as two separate plants with independent administration and management, but both plants have access to the VCS; it is used primarily by the nuclear components plant and is housed in their administrative offices. It was originally linked by a dedicated leased fiber optic channel to GE headquarters in San Jose, California, with twenty-four hour a day access. More recently the common carrier was able to offer access to fiber channel(s) by appointment, on short notice, substantially reducing the overall channel cost. Locations other than GE headquarters can also be linked. During the first ten months of 1991, during which usage data was collected, the system experienced 21 hours of downtime, 14 due to equipment failure and 7 from carrier failure. The system can support 2-way or 3-way meetings and is used by management, project teams, and engineers. The VCS was instituted by GE to reduce the time required to make decisions. A reduction in costs associated with travel resulted, but was not the primary impetus. Original savings in travel costs did not cover the operating cost of the VCS, but given a recent change in the fiber channel access through a common carrier, the system more than pays for itself in savings associated with travel. The video conferencing room has a table and accommodation for one person at the head: this is the conference leader. Three people may sit on
& Management 27 (1994) 341-356
343
each side of the table. Additional raised seating is available behind the table for approximately eight participants. The table faces three large screen monitors, each of which can be used to view other participating groups. When less than two other groups are connected, the extra screen can duplicate the remote site or be used to monitor the local image being viewed by a remote group. Two cameras are mounted above the monitors; these can be controlled from a panel in front of the conference leader. Cameras can be zoomed in to an individual or section of the room or out to provide a wide view of the room. A third camera (the presenter camera1 is mounted on a side wall for viewing a whiteboard. A fourth camera is mounted above the table, an ‘overhead graphics system,’ for viewing documents or objects on the table. Additional equipment includes a ‘high resolution graphics system’ using a graphics pad and pen, slide presentation equipment, a VCR, and a FAX. All meetings utilize the overhead graphics system, presenter camera, and the whiteboard. Use of the other equipment varies.
4. Data Data were collected in two stages. The first focused on the use of the system for different tasks, meeting duration, number of groups, group size(s), travel avoidance, and optional technologies used. The second focused on measuring individual users’ perceptions of the system and their demographic data. 4. I. Usage data Forms were designed for the collection of usage data internally by GE. Ten months of usage data were collected on 426 meetings with a total of 656.5 meeting hours. Two collection forms were used. A “Video Conference Feedback Form” provides data group, meeting parameters, and the equipment used (see Appendix A). A “Video Conference Attendance Log” provides more specific demographic data about the participants (see Appendix B).
344
J.A. Gowan, Jr., J.M. Downs /Information
The task dimension included “purpose of meeting” which was classified as follows: A. Operational Tasks 1. Production control, scheduling, purchasing, etc. 2. Training B. Tactical Tasks 3. New product development (R and D) 4. Process development (R and D> 5. Customer relations, contract negotiations, etc. C. Strategic Tasks 6. Upper management planning and decision making 4.2. User’s perception data Hiltz and Johnson [7] reported that measure of usage is not sufficient to determine the degree of success of a computer-mediated communication session. They used additional measures, including subjective satisfaction and perceived benefits. A survey instrument was used to measure the users’ perception of the VCS, including satisfaction and perceived benefits. The instrument was designed to study “the initial adoption and eventual diffusion of information technology innovations within organizations.” User perception data were collected in the first half of 1992: therefore, the measurement involved an “eventual diffusion” time frame rather than an estimate of “initial adoption”. Scales were designed to measure eight constructs defined by Moore and Benbasat 1111: 1. Voluntariness: Does the user have the option to choose whether or not to use the technology? 2. Relative Advantage: Is this technique better than the previous one? 3. Compatibility: Does the innovation fit and support the user’s job responsibilities and tasks? 4. Image: Does the use of the technology elevate one’s status? 5. Ease of Use: Is it easy to learn? Is it userfriendly? 6. Result Demonstrability: Are the benefits apparent? 7. Visibility: Are others aware of its use?
& Management 27 (1994) 341-356
8. Trialability: Is the user given the opportunity to experiment using the innovation? The 38-item instrument is stated to have a high level of content and construct validity, based upon a rigorous developmental process. Cronbach ALPHA reliability coefficients in a field test ranged from 0.74 to 0.95 for the eight constructs. A shorter, 25-item instrument was also suggested and this was the instrument chosen for our study. ALPHA coefficients ranged from 0.71 to 0.90 for the constructs of this shorter instrument. In addition, certain modifications were made. The construct Trialability, which had the lowest reported level of reliability, was altered to imply Training Sufficiency. Since the VCS was in the ‘eventual diffusion’ stage, perceived sufficiency of training was deemed a more appropriate construct. A training program for conference leaders and some other users had been implemented and this was an area in which GE needed feedback. The two Trialability survey items became: “Before using the VCS, I was given sufficient opportunity to try it out in one or more training sessions.” and “I was provided ample training to use the VCS.” Five additional items were added to address certain issues more specific or unique to a VCS; - “Meetings take place more frequently because of the existence of the system.” - “Use of the system is often better than a face-to-face meeting because of the ability to make brief comments on the side to local group members without audio transmission to the remote group.” - “The system allows me to get an impression of personal contact.” - “I find that the system limits my ability to express my views in a meeting.” _ “Meetings are facilitated more efficiently with the VCS due to a specified time limit set when reserving the system for use.” Therefore, our instrument was composed of 30 items, 25 measuring constructs of user perception and 5 items addressing issues specific to a video conferencing system: Appendix (C).
J.A. Gowan, Jr., J.M. Downs /Information
Surveys were distributed through GE’s internal mail system with a memo attached (See Appendix C). Surveys, with return envelopes, were mailed directly to the first author of this paper. The participant was guaranteed confidentiality. Of an initial 120 surveys sent out, 93 were returned: of these 89 were usable. 4.3. Demographic data General demographic data included position/ title/job description, department, age, education, and years of employment with GE and also with GE at Wilmington. Two additional measures included “average number of hours per day handson use of a computer” and “approximate number of hours provided in training to use the VCS”.
5. Analysis
and discussion
Correlation analysis was used to detect significant relationships between the user profile dimension, both individual and group measures,
& Management 27 (1994) 341-356
the task dimension, and the technology dimension. All correlation analyses involve the computation of Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients. No significant interaction was detected between the task and technology dimensions, but numerous relevant interactions were detected between the user profile dimension and both the task and technology dimensions and between the individual and group user profile measures (Figure 1). Due to difference in the dimension of the system usage data, corresponding to meetings/groups of individuals, and the survey data, measuring perceptions and demographics of individual users, survey data were converted to a meeting basis by summing and averaging the individual’s perception and demographic data. This allowed the analysis of 89 user’s perceptions and demographics in the context of individual users involved in 426 meetings. The sample size was therefore 426, since the analyses were across meetings. ANOVA was used to analyze the relationship between the three-group task classification and all user profile measures to test for
c-2 TASK
TECHNOLOGY
No significant Significant
interactions
interactions Fig. 1. Analysis
345
detected
detected of three user interface
dimensions.
J.A. Gowan, Jr., J.M. Downs/Information
346 Table 1 Total usage and meeting
& Management 27 (1994) 341-356
size by task type
Task type
Total hours usage
Total # meetings
Average
Operational Tactical Strategic Total
187 441 28.5 656.5
90 325 11 426
2.08 1.36 2.59 1.54
Means with a different
ANOVA using dinal
number
of * ‘s are statistically
sample size, ANOVA tests were quite sensitive
and
length
* ** ***
different.
post-
survey data scales. Where measures involved orscales, a Kruskal-Wallis cases, the nonparametric
ANOVA. Some of the differences cally significant, but not practically or substanticely significant. 5.1. Initial analysis of system usage data and task groups Table 1 contains information about total usage by task type. Table 2 shows total group size by task type. Total group size is the combined number of participants at all sites, local and remote, taking part. Overall usage averages 15 hours per week or 3 hours per working day. When collected, meeting times were rounded off to the nearest half hour. The minimum meeting time was 0.5 hours and the maximum was 8 hours; this latter meeting involved a semi-annual conference among top management. The tactical task group meetings included product and process development (primarily engineers in project teams), and customer relations Table 2 Total meeting
meeting
hours hours hours hours
(with engineers and sales managers). Ongoing R and D and customer relations is dynamic, often requiring ad hoc group interaction at short notice. Over two-thirds of the VCS usage is for tactical tasks, with the lowest average meeting duration. The tactical task group’s range and variance in total group size is the largest, also indicative of more nonroutine, ad hoc meetings. It follows that this task group may benefit the most from the VCS, given the specific environment and the apparent fit with task communication requirements. Change at the operational level in this process-oriented manufacturing environment is usually controlled by on site engineers, and the problem solving and decision making is routine. Operational task group meetings occur about twice a week, are more regularly scheduled, with less meeting size variance. The strategic task group activities are predictable, involving larger groups of managers, dealing with longer-range planning. Fewer meetings occur and they apparently have a more extensive agenda. 5.2. Analysis and discussion of interaction between the user profile and task dimensions Correlation analysis between travel avoided and the user profile measures resulted in no detection of any significant relationships.
size by task type
Task type
Mean total group size
Minimum
Operational Tactical Strategic Mean
8.36 * 12.18 * * 22.00 * - * 14.18
7 11 22 13.30
Means with a different
number
of * ‘s are statistically
different.
size
Maximum 9 17 22 16.00
size
Size variance 0.41 2.89 0.00 1.10
J.A. Gowan, Jr., J. M. Downs/Information Table 3 Demographic
measures
by task type Task type
Demographics
Age Education Years with GE Years with GE-Wilmington Computer Usage VCS Training Means with a different
number
Mean
Operational
Tactical
33.8 4.4 14.2 9.3 3.1 1.6
39.6 4.3 16.4 10.8 3.0 1.6
* * * * * *
of * ‘s are statistically
measures
Strategic
** * ** * * *
41.8 4.2 17.5 9.4 2.6 1.8
38.44 4.30 15.92 10.45 3.01 1.62
tactical task group for tenure in Wilmington. Individuals attending operational meetings were the youngest, had the highest level of education, and most hours of daily hands-on computer usage. They had the fewest years with GE and with GE in Wilmington. Individuals in strategic meetings were provided more training than others, yet used the system the least. It was anticipated that the strategic users would also be VCS conference leaders in some tactical and operational meetings, therefore they were initially targeted for training. More than 75% of meetings were tactical, yet those individuals reported fewer hours of training. (Table 3.) All survey perception items were coded on a 5-point Likert scale. Scales of some items were
by task type
Perception
Task type Operational
Tactical
Voluntariness Relative Advantage Compatibility Image Ease of Use Result Demonstrability Visibility Training Sufficiency Increased Meeting Frequency Side Comments Impression of Personal Contact Limits Expression Efficiency of Meeting Facilitation
3.23 3.81 3.54 2.86 3.52 3.92 3.71 2.50 3.65 2.81 4.12 2.30 3.45
3.49 3.58 3.51 2.86 3.50 3.78 3.29 2.35 3.36 2.68 3.78 2.11 3.46
Means with a different
*** ** ** * ** **
different.
Education was measured on a six-point scale where high school was coded as a “1” and Ph.D. as a “6” (See Appendix C>. The average education level of 4.3 corresponds to a bachelor’s degree with some hours of graduate work. Both Computer Usage and VCS Training were measured using a 5-point scale where “None” was coded as a “1” and “More than 5 hours” as a “5”. The Computer Usage mean corresponds to the class of 1-3 hours of daily hands-on computer usage while the VCS Training mean corresponds to less than 1 hour of training. Individual users in strategic meetings were found to be older, have less education, and fewer hours of daily hands-on computer usage. On average, individuals in the strategic task group spent more years with GE, but were second to the
Table 4 Survey perception
347
& Management 27 (1994) 341-356
number
* * * * * * * * *
* * * *
of * ‘s are statistically
different.
Mean
** ** * * * ** * * ** ** ** ** *
Strategic 3.37 3.98 3.65 2.83 3.78 4.11 3.67 3.08 3.74 2.63 4.00 1.84 1.07
*** ** * ** * ** *** * ** * ** *** *** **
3.43 3.63 3.52 2.86 3.5 1 3.81 3.39 2.40 3.44 2.70 3.86 2.14 3.20
348
J.A. Cowan, Jr., J.M. Downs/Information
reversed to allow for averaging of items. All reported construct measures can be interpreted in a positive direction, so that a mean above 2.5 indicates some level of positive perception regarding Voluntariness, Relative Advantage, Compatibility etc. The 5 VCS-specific items are individual item responses. Overall, the measured perception levels shown in Table 4 were in support of the general effectiveness of the VCS. An overall perceived Training Sufficiency mean of 2.40 on a 5 point scale indicated mixed feelings about training. It is not surprising that individuals in strategic meetings rated Training Sufficiency higher, given that they also reported significantly greater training time. Other differences in perceptions between task groups were detected. Perceived Relative Advantage, Compatibility, Ease of Use, and Result Demonstrability were rated higher by users of the strategic group. Although not statistically different than the other two groups, the strategic group had the highest perception of corporate Image of the VCS. They also were against any perception of Limitation of Expression and the operational group was near the middle of the scale, indicating mixed opinions. The tactical group gave a lower rating of the item measuring Impression of Personal Contact. These are issues central to the effectiveness of a VCS interface. In a manufacturing environment, operational and tactical tasks involve communication of a more technical nature with greater attention to detail, while strategic tasks may involve an exchange of broader, more conceptual notions. Differences in the effectiveness of the VCS in supporting certain types of communication may provide some basis for the differences in perceptions detected. Another important issue is that meeting facilitation may be more orderly and controlled, therefore more efficient. Use of the GE VCS requires a conference leader, locally and remote, to direct the meeting, with a written agenda and limited time frame. Meeting times are rigidly controlled and with the recent change in fiber channel access, there is no way for a session to extend beyond the scheduled time. The operational and tactical groups had a positive perception of increased Efficiency in Meeting Facilitation, while
& Management 27 (1994) 341-356
the strategic group had a strong negative perception. Again, differences in communication content, technical versus conceptual, may provide some basis of explanation for the differences. The tactical task group had the lowest perceived level of Visibility across the organization. It is possible that this group, which accounts for more than 75% of the system usage, takes for granted the technology. Yet, for those who utilize the system on a limited basis, the system may appear more visible. The tactical group had a positive mean response to perceived Increase in Meeting Frequency due to the VCS, but had the lowest mean. The strategic group, had the highest mean yet had the fewest meetings. Again, those who use the system more often may take the system for granted. One VCS-specific item on the survey dealt with the issue of Side Comments. During VCS meetings, individuals were observed making side comments to one another at a volume which would not invoke audio transmission to the remote group. It was anticipated that this additional ability to manipulate communication might be viewed as an advantage over face-to-face meetings. All three task groups’ mean responses failed to support this perception. Twenty-five percent of actual survey responses were positive, indicating limited support. One reason for the lack of a mean positive response may be that the relative value of the side comments was overstated in the wording of the survey item, that it often makes the VCS better than face-to-face meetings. 5.3. Analysis of interaction between the user profile and technology dimensions Correlation analysis was used to detect significant relationships between measures of the user profile dimension, both individual and group measures, and the technology dimension. The user profile measures are the same used in the previous analyses. The technology measures include: Audio conference bridge (ACB) High resolution graphics system (HRG) Overhead graphics (OHG)
J.A. Gowan,Jr., J.M. Downs/Information & Management27 (1994) 341-356 Table 5 Significant correlation profile measures User profile
coefficients
between
the ACB & user
Correlation
measure
Amount of VCS training Training sufficiency Result demonstrability Impression of personal contact More efficient facilitation
coefficient
-0.65 -0.96 -0.75 -0.81 0.59
Presenter camera and whiteboard (PCW) Slide presentation system (SLP) VCR FAX Several significant correlations (a = 0.0001) were detected between the audio conference bridge (ACB) and several user profile measures, shown in Table 5. The ACB is required when a remote contact must be made by phone, allowing audio communication with all video conference participants. Training is apparently an issue; those using the ACB have had less training and perceive that it was insufficient. In addition, the correlation coefficient between training and training sufficiency is 0.79, indicating that the more users are trained, the greater the perception that training was sufficient. A perception of reduced Result Demonstrability and Impression of Personal Contact are also correlated with the use of the ACB. Yet, with its use, there is some improved meeting facilitation. More than 70% of the meetings using the ACB are 3-way conferences. In order to determine whether these effects are related to the technology rather than a 3-way meeting effect, additional analysis was performed and appear in Table 9. Negative correlation coefficients of relatively large magnitude were found between both the Table 6 Significant
correlation
coefficients
between
user profile
measures
high resolution graphics (HRG) and slide presentation system (SLP) and Ease of Use, indicating perceived difficulty in the operation of these technologies. In addition, a positive correlation exists between both the HRG and SLP, and the Limits Expression survey construct. The HRG and SLP are used together, therefore they carry the same coefficients. The limitation of expression could be due to interruptions required when using the systems or devices. The correlation coefficient between the VCR and both Ease of Use and Training Sufficiency was negative, indicating perceived operational difficulties and lack of training. This may indicate a need to modify hardware or systems to simplify use and/or increase training. (Table 6.) 5.4. Analysis of interaction
between the individual user profile and group user profile dimensions
The model for the user interface involves analysis of the interaction between the user profile, task, and technology dimensions. Because the user profile data involved measures associated with group/meeting as well as individual users, an analysis of these relationships was performed. The correlation coefficients between the Group Size measures and Impression of Personal Contact provide some indication that the perception of personal contact generally decreases as the remote group(s) becomes larger. There is no apparent relationship between this perception and size of the local group. (Table 7.) The correlation coefficients between certain Group Size measures and Efficiency of Meeting Facilitation indicate that the perception of improved meeting facilitation increases as the remote group(s) increase in size, but decrease in
and technology
User profile measure
Technology
Correlation
Ease of use Ease of use Ease of use Training sufficiency Limits expression Limits expression
High Slide VCR VCR High Slide
-0.63 -0.63 -0.71 - 0.76 0.63 0.63
resolution graphics presentation system
resolution graphics presentation system
349
coefficient
J.A. Gowan, Jr., J.M. Downs /Information
350
Table 7 Correlation coefficients between perceived sonal contact and group size measures
impression
Correlation
coefficient
Group
size measure
Total meeting size Wilmington group size San Jose group size Ohio group size Massachusetts group size
of per-
efficiency as the local group increases in size. If this also holds true for remote groups, the size of the Wilmington group has an impact on the effectiveness of communication from their perspective. (Table 8.) bridge versus 3-way
Additional analyses were performed of the relationships between the ACB and user profile measures. To determine whether the underlying effect was related to the number of groups (a 2-way or 3-way conference) or the technology itself, ANOVA and post-Anova tests were performed to detect differences in User Profile measures between 2-way versus 3-way meetings. The data were restricted to the tactical group, as no other group had 3-way meetings. Table 9 shows means for those measures where significant differences were detected ((u = 0.0001). Although the SAS procedure, General Linear Models, accounts for differences in group size, because there were only 19 3-way meetings, (compared to 306 2-way meetings), conclusions drawn should be used with caution. The first 4 survey constructs in which statistically significant differences were detected were on the positive side of the scale (> 2.5) for both groups, but all were lower for 3-way than 2-way Table 8 Correlation coefficients between perceived ing facilitation and group size measures Group
size measure
Wilmington group size San Jose group size Ohio group size
Correlation - 0.73 0.85 0.59
efficiency coefficient
Table 9 Means of User Profile Significant Differences
Measures Between
User profile measures
- 0.62 0.01 - 0.49 -0.81 - 0.50
5.5. The audio conference meeting effect
& Management 27 (1994) 341-356
of meet-
Relative advantage Compatibility Ease of use Result demonstrability Training sufficiency Increased meeting frequency Impression of personal contact Efficient meeting facilitation Total group size
in Which ANOVA Detected 2-Way and 3-Way Meetings Means of measures 2-way
3-way
3.58 3.51 3.51 3.79 2.42 3.39 3.81 3.42 11.86
3.45 3.40 3.25 3.55 1.22 3.00 3.40 4.20 17.00
meetings. Note that Total Group Size is increased by approximately 5 individuals when adding the second remote group. The mean perceived Training Sufficiency measure for both groups were on the negative side and the mean of the 3-way meetings was almost half that of the 2-way meetings. The 2-way meeting group had a higher perceived Impression of Personal Contact and perception of increased Frequency of Meetings than the 3-way group, although both had positive mean responses. Communication effectiveness apparently diminishes with the addition of the second remote group. The 3-way meeting group had a higher perception that the VCS increases the Efficiency of Meeting Facilitation than the 2-way group. It is possible, that with 3-way meetings the time limitation is even more pressing and the effect of a required agenda is greater, therefore the higher perceived level of Efficiency of Meeting Facilitation.
6. Conclusions The primary purpose of this field study was to analyze the interaction between three user interface dimensions: user profile, task, and technology, and assess the effectiveness of the VCS. The following are the general findings: - The effectiveness of a VCS may be task dependent. - In a manufacturing environment with substantial R and D of products and processes where expertise is demographically distant or dis-
J.A. Gowan, Jr., J.M. Downs/Information
tributed, a VCS may best fit meeting groups with a tactical-task orientation. Measures of usage is not sufficient to determine the degree of success of implementation of a VCS. Additional measures include perceived satisfaction and benefits. This supports previous findings. A VCS may provide an alternate to travel and other communication mediums that is relatively easy‘to use and provides an impression of personal contact without substantial limitation of expression. A VCS may increase the frequency of meetings. Facilitation of a meeting using a VCS may be more efficient than a face-to-face meeting because of the scheduled time, conference leader and required agenda, but perception of level of efficiency may be task dependent due to differences in communication content. Perceptions of ease of use, impression of personal contact, limitation of expression may vary depending upon usage, such that heavy users may become more sensitive to system weaknesses that affect communication. Sufficient training is essential, especially of the heaviest users, and for the operation of optional equipment or systems, such as high resolution graphics, slide presentation systems and VCRs. Certain optional equipment/systems usage may increase a perceived limitation of expression. This could be due to distractions resulting from the use of the equipment. These effects may be overcome by redesigning equipment, hardware, system layout and/or increased training. The effectiveness of communication support may diminish as meeting groups are added to a video conference or remote group size(s) increase. There may be a maximum effective number of groups and/or remote group size.
Acknowledgements Work on this project was partially supported by the Cameron Fellows Program of the Cameron
& Management 27 (1994) 341-356
351
School of Business Administration. The authors greatly appreciate the support provided by GE, especially the employees who completed the survey and the editor, Edgar H. Sibley, for extensive editing and invaluable recommendations.
References [1] Beauclair, R.A. and Straub, D.W. (1990). Utilizing GDSS Technology: Final Report on a Recent Empirical Study, Information and Management, 18, 213-220. [2] Bennison, D.J. (1988). Transport/Telecommunication Interactions: Empirical Evidence From a Videoconferencing Field Trial in the United Kingdom, Transportation Research, 22A(4), 291-300. [3] Dennis, A.R.. George, J.F., Jessup, L.M., Nunamaker, J.F. Jr., and Vogel, D.R. (1988). Technology to Support Electronic Meetings, MIS Quarterly, 12(4), 591-618. [4] DeSanctis, G. and Gallupe, R.B. (1987). A foundation for the study of group decision support systems. Management Science, 33(5), 589-609. [5] Dholakia, R.R., Dholakia, N. and Bitta, A.J.D. (1991). Acquisition of Telecommunications Products and Services: An Examination of Inter-Sector Differences, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 38(4), 328-335. [6] Hatcher, M. (1992). A Video Conferencing System for the United States Army, Decision Support Systems, 8(2), 181-190. [7] Hiltz, S.R. and Johnson, K. (1989). Measuring Acceptance of Computer-Mediated Communication Systems, Journal of the American Society for Information Science, November, 386-397. [8] Johansen, R. (1988). Groupware: Computer Support for Business Teams. New York, NY: The Free Press. [9] Johansen, R. and Bullen, C. (1984). Thinking Ahead: What to Expect from Teleconferencing, Harvard Eusiness Ret’iew, March-April, 164-174. [lo] Mokhtarian, P.L. (1988). An Empirical Evaluation of the Travel Impacts of Teleconferencing, Transportation Research, 22A(4), 283-289. [ll] Moore, G.C. and Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of and Instrument to Measure the Perceptions of Adopting an Information Technology Innovation, Information Systems Research, 2(3), 192-222. [12] Nunamaker, J.F. Jr., Grohowski, R., Heminger, A., Marta, B. and Vogel, D.R. (1989a). GDSS Experience at a Corporate Site, Proceedings of the TwentySecond Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Kona-Kailua, HI, January. [13] Nunamaker, J., Vogel, D., and Konsynski, B. (1989b). Interaction of task and technology to support large groups, Decision Support Systems, (5), 139-152. [14] Pinsonneault, A. and Kraemer, K.L. (1989). The Impact of Technological Support on Groups: An Assessment of
J.A. Gowan, Jr., J.M. Downs /Information
352
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
the Empirical Research, Decision Support Systems, (5), 197-216. Spiller, R. and Housel, T.J. (1985). Video Teleconferencing - A New Training Tool, Sloan Management Rel;iew, 27(l), 57-62. Turban, Efraim (1990). Decision Support and Expert Systems: Management Support Systems, Second Edition, New York, NY: MacMillan Publishing Company. United States Government (1991). The Power of Video Teleconferencing: Changing the Way We Do Business: Hearing Before the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives, One Hundred Second Congress, First Session, November 6, 1991, No. 81, Washington, DC, U.S. Government Printing Office. Vogel, D.R. (1988) Research on Electronic Meeting Systems, in M.S. Loeb (Ed.) Research Issues in IS: An Agenda for the 1990’s, Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown Publishers.
Appendix A. “yideo Conference Feedback Form” Data User Dimension: Conference Leader -Name -Title -Phone number -Department Remote Conference -Company name -Location
Group(s)
Number of Participants -Locally -Remote site(s) Task Dimension: -Purpose of meeting (description) -Working versus Demonstration meeting -Length of meeting
& Management 27 (1994) 341-356
L”
wan consults
in various
Jack Arthur Gowan, Jr., associate professor of the Cameron School of Business Administration, University of North Carolina at Wilmington, received his PhD from Clemson University and MBA and undergraduate degree from Samford University. His research interests include computer supported cooperative work systems and the implementation of information systems in highly automated manufacturing environments. Dr. Gomanufacturing industries.
James Michael Downs is currently employed at GE Nuclear Energy in Wilmington, North Carolina as Quality Assurance Auditor and Customer Service Representative with additional responsibilities including: computer systems resource, video conferencing technical resource and instructor, and audio-visual specialist. He has held positions in manufacturing, quality assurance and customer service at GE since 1973. Mr. Downs earned a BS in management at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington and was selected as the Outstanding Business Management Student 1992-3.
J.A. Gowan, Jr., J.M. Downs /Information
& Management 27 (1994) 341-356
353
-Date -Time Technology Dimension: Systems Used: -Audio Conference Bridge to other -High Resolution Graphics -Overhead Graphics -Presenter Camera/Whiteboard -Slide Presentation -VCR -FAX Other
locations
Measures: -Benefits of Video Conferencing (comments) -Other comments/suggestions -Whether use of the system avoided a business trip -If so, number employees who avoided travel
Appendix B. “Video Conference Attendance Log” Data All data from this form apply to the User dimension: Participant’s: Name Title Company Phone number Location
Appendix C. Memorandum
and Survey MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 29, 1992 TO: FROM: Michael Downs, Customer SUBJECT: Video Conference
Service
System Evaluation
Attached is a questionnaire to collect information from users of the Video Conference System (VCS). Please complete and place it in the mail by Friday July 3rd using the enclosed return envelope. It should take only 10 minutes to complete and would be greatly appreciated.
J.A. Cowan, Jr., J. M. Downs /Information
354
& Management 27 (1994) 341-356
The data will be coded and analyzed by Art Gowan, Assistant Professor of Information Systems at UNCW. Your responses will be kept completely confidential. Only cumulative results will be reported. Everyone participating in the survey will receive a copy of the report. Thank
you for your cooperation.
VIDEO
CONFERENCE
SYSTEM
USER
INFORMATION
Date:
Name: Position/Title/Job
Description:
Department: Age: Education
completed:
(circle highest
College: Ph.D.
High School Masters
level)
(B.S., B.A . ...)
Number
of Years Employed
by GE:
Number
of years at GE in Wilmington:
Average
number
of hours per day hands-on
use of a computer
(PC, VAX, etc.): (circle one)
None Less than 1 hour 3-5 hours Approximate
l-3 hours More than 5 hours
number
of hours provided
in training
to use the Video Conferencing
System:
(circle one)
None Less than 1 hour 3-5 hours
l-3 hours More than 5 hours
Video Conference
System evaluation
Circle the number that best corresponds to your opinion. There are no right or wrong answers. We are interested in your sincere opinions about the video conferencing system. Your answers will be kept confidential.
J.A. Gowan, Jr., J.M. Downs/Information
Strongly agree 1. Use of the Video Conferencing System WCS) enables the group and I to accomplish tasksmore quickly...............................
355
& Management 27 (1994) 341-356
Agree
No Opinion
Disagree
Strongly disagree
1
3
5
1
3
5
me to use the VCS.. . . 1
3
5
7. Use of the VCS improves the quality of work completed in a given time.. . . . . . . . . . . __. . . . . . . . . . 3
3
5
3
5
2. I think that using the VCS fits well with the way I like to work.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Learning 4. Having
to use the VCS was easy for me.. . . . . . . a VCS is a status symbol for GE.. . . . . . . .
5. Meetings take place more frequently because of the existence of the system.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. My boss does not require
8. The results of using the VCS are apparent to me.............................................
I
9. Before using the VCS, I was given sufficient opportunity to try it out in one or more trainingsessions..................................
1
3
5
10. Using the VCS enhances my effectiveness onthejoh........................................
I
3
5
11. I would have no difficulty telling others about the results of using the VCS . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
3
5
the VCS is easy to use.. . . . . . . .
1
3
5
12. Overall,
I believe
2
13. Use of the system is often better than a face-to-face meeting because of the ability to make brief comments on the side to local group members without audio transmission to the remote group..............................
1
2
3
4
5
14. Use of the VCS is not very visible at GE . . . . . . . .
1
2
3
4
5
15. Using the VCS gives me greater control over my work.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2
3
4
5
16. People at GE who use the VCS have more prestige than those who do not.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2
3
4
5
17. Although it might be helpful, using the VCS is certainly not compulsory in my job.. . _. __. _. . . .
2
3
4
5
18. The system allows me to get an impression of personal contact.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2
3
4
5
356
J.A. Gowan, Jr., J.M. Downs/Information
& Management 27 (1994) 341-356
19. I believe that it is easy to have the VCS support facilitation of a meeting the way theway want it to do............................
1
2
3
4
5
20. I was provided ample training to use the VCS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
2
3
4
5
21. Using the VCS makes my job easier to do . . . . . .
1
2
3
4
5
22. Using the VCS is compatible with all aspects of my work which involves meeting with people outside the local area.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2
3
4
5
23. I would have difficulty explaining why using a VCS may or may not be beneficial.. ...........
1
2
3
4
5
24. I find that the system limits my ability to express my views in a meeting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
25. At GE, one is aware of the use of the VCS . . . . . 1 26. Using the VCS fits into my work style.. . . . . . . . . .
1
to use.. . .
1
28. People at GE who use the VCS have a high profile.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
2
3
4
5
29. I believe I could communicate to others the consequences of using a VCS.. . _. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
2
3
4
5
30. Meetings are facilitated more efficiently with the VCS due to a specified time limit set when reserving the system for use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
2
3
4
5
27. I believe
that the VCS is cumbersome
Any COMMENTS
would be appreciated:
MAIION
lkIA&EMENI ELSEVIER
Information
& Management
27 (1994) 341-356
Research
Video conferencing human-machine Jack Arthur
Gowan,
interface: A field study
Jr. a>* , James Michael
Downs b
a Department of Production and Decision Sciences, The University of North Carolina at Wilmington, Wilmington, NC 28403-3297, USA ’ Quality Assurance, General Electric Company, P.O. Box 780, Wilmington, NC 28402, USA
Abstract In a field study of an established video conferencing system WCS), ten months of usage data were collected and analyzed with the hope of determining the interaction between three user interface dimensions: user profile, task domain, and technology. A validated survey instrument was used to collect user demographics and measures of certain user perceptions of the system. The degree of usage and measured perceptions provide a measure of the effectiveness of the VCS interface. Specific attention was placed on the differences in system usage and perceptions between three task groups: operational, tactical, and strategic. This indicates that the effectiveness of a VCS interface may be task dependent. Several significant interactions were found and are reported, including the effect of number of remote groups, group size, optional equipment, and training. Keywords:
supported
Video conferencing systems; Teleconferencing; Groupware; Group decision support systems; Computer Cooperative work, Electronic meeting systems; Human-machine interface; Man-machine interface
1. Introduction Teleconferencing has been in use for over three decades, with promising new systems and technology made available recently. Video conferencing systems WCS) generally combine video, audio, and graphics to support two or more groups who are meeting in geographically dispersed locations at the same time. Other types of teleconferencing include audio teleconferencing and computer teleconferencing with limited communication through the keyboard. Turban [ 161 categorizes teleconferencing as one
* Corresponding author. [email protected]
Internet:
037%7206/94/$07.00 0 1994 Elsevier SSDI 0378-7206(94)00022-B
Science
of four types of group decision support systems (GDSS), but says that “the absence of either experiments or field studies in a research program reduces the strength within which conclusions can be drawn, and the applicability of those conclusions to actual organizations.” Vogel [18] suggests that there is need for additional field studies, because most of the earlier results were from laboratory experiments. Similarly Dennis et al. [3] found only one GDSS field study: by Nunamaker et al. [12]. Pinsonneault and Kraemer [14] suggest the need to move away from laboratory studies to field studies involving GDSS and group communication support systems. Two field studies were reported in a transportation journal in 1988, each with a focus on the impact of video conferencing on travel [2,10]. Johansen [8] conducted a survey of nonusers of teleconferencing
B.V. All rights reserved
342
J.A. Gowan, Jr., J.M. Downs/Information
and identified four major reasons for its limited use: there was insufficient evidence of success in the use of GDSS, etc. More recently a field study reported the implementation of a VCS by the U.S. Army [6]. The system was described and a procedure was proposed for the design, development and management of a GDSS, but included no empirical results. In his review of research on electronic meeting systems (EMS), Vogel 1181 identifies user interface issues as “key to EMS success”. This is also supported by Johansen’s [S] survey of nonusers of teleconferencing systems; he found that the major perceived obstacle was price, and the second was lack of user-friendliness. Nunamaker et al. [13] propose a model of the user interface with three primary “group support system dimensions”; user profile, task domain, and technology. They identify the “intersection of the three factors as representing different aspects of the human-machine interface”. This framework is used here to describe and analyze the user interface of a video conferencing system (VCS). Johansen and Bullen [9] recognized that a successful VCS must support a specific task and must add value to the service or product. Identification of tasks that appear to be best supported by video communications technology has been a significant issue recently and is a key issue in our study. Several studies have reported use of video conferencing in more service-oriented organizations; e.g., Dholakia et al. [5] found that “information technology plays a more important role in the service-oriented sectors than in manufacturing”. The telecommunication products and services were not limited to video conferencing and included basic phone systems and local area networks, while the target population was small to mid-sized U.S. organizations. In a survey of 135 randomly selected organizations Beauclair and Straub [l] reported on teleconferencing used by government and service bureaus, primarily for strategic planning, brainstorming and team building, with an emphasis on administrative, planning, and data analysis activities. The size of the organization was identified as having a significant impact. Spiller and House1 [15] identified more than ten large organizations, both service and
& Management 27 (1994) 341-356
manufacturing, using video conferencing technology primarily for training. Johansen and Bullen [91 identify several successful applications in large manufacturing organizations, especially in R and D and engineering activities. On November 6, 1991, in a hearing before the House of Representative’s Committee on Science, Space and Technology, two vice presidents from Boeing and General Electric, reported use of video conferencing and explained how the technology resulted in competitive advantage [17]. DeSanctis and Gallupe [4] suggest that “researchers must study the flow of members’ interaction to discover the impact the technology is having on the nature of the group’s cognitions, actions and feelings, and the relationship between these attributes of information exchange and decision outcomes.” Our paper attempts to answer this challenge.
2. Goal of the field study Our objective was to analyze and describe the user interface of an established VCS located at General Electric (GE) in Wilmington, North Carolina. Our model of the GDSS interface involves the user profile, task domain, and technology; the interaction of these depict the user interface. User activity can be examined individually or as a group involved in a meeting. Therefore, both group and individual measures are considered in the construction of the “user profile”. Individual user data includes their demographics and perception of the system, which is measured using a survey instrument. Group user data includes number of groups (two-way versus three-way meetings), group size, local size, remote size, and total size. The task domain is partially described by classifying the general activity of the meeting into one of six meeting purpose categories that were then compacted into three general categories: operational, tactical, and strategic. System usage, expressed in number of meetings, meeting duration, and travel avoidance, also served as task descriptors.
J.A. Gowan, Jr., J.M. Downs /Information
The only technology variability involved certain system equipment that was optional for each meeting. Therefore, the technology measures include the identification of the equipment or optional systems used.
3. Video conferencing description
system
and environment
In 1990 GE installed the VCS; it has been in use for approximately three years. The plant employs approximately 2400 people and manufactures fuel and control rods for nuclear power plants as well as internal turbine parts and casings for jet engines. The site actually operates as two separate plants with independent administration and management, but both plants have access to the VCS; it is used primarily by the nuclear components plant and is housed in their administrative offices. It was originally linked by a dedicated leased fiber optic channel to GE headquarters in San Jose, California, with twenty-four hour a day access. More recently the common carrier was able to offer access to fiber channel(s) by appointment, on short notice, substantially reducing the overall channel cost. Locations other than GE headquarters can also be linked. During the first ten months of 1991, during which usage data was collected, the system experienced 21 hours of downtime, 14 due to equipment failure and 7 from carrier failure. The system can support 2-way or 3-way meetings and is used by management, project teams, and engineers. The VCS was instituted by GE to reduce the time required to make decisions. A reduction in costs associated with travel resulted, but was not the primary impetus. Original savings in travel costs did not cover the operating cost of the VCS, but given a recent change in the fiber channel access through a common carrier, the system more than pays for itself in savings associated with travel. The video conferencing room has a table and accommodation for one person at the head: this is the conference leader. Three people may sit on
& Management 27 (1994) 341-356
343
each side of the table. Additional raised seating is available behind the table for approximately eight participants. The table faces three large screen monitors, each of which can be used to view other participating groups. When less than two other groups are connected, the extra screen can duplicate the remote site or be used to monitor the local image being viewed by a remote group. Two cameras are mounted above the monitors; these can be controlled from a panel in front of the conference leader. Cameras can be zoomed in to an individual or section of the room or out to provide a wide view of the room. A third camera (the presenter camera1 is mounted on a side wall for viewing a whiteboard. A fourth camera is mounted above the table, an ‘overhead graphics system,’ for viewing documents or objects on the table. Additional equipment includes a ‘high resolution graphics system’ using a graphics pad and pen, slide presentation equipment, a VCR, and a FAX. All meetings utilize the overhead graphics system, presenter camera, and the whiteboard. Use of the other equipment varies.
4. Data Data were collected in two stages. The first focused on the use of the system for different tasks, meeting duration, number of groups, group size(s), travel avoidance, and optional technologies used. The second focused on measuring individual users’ perceptions of the system and their demographic data. 4. I. Usage data Forms were designed for the collection of usage data internally by GE. Ten months of usage data were collected on 426 meetings with a total of 656.5 meeting hours. Two collection forms were used. A “Video Conference Feedback Form” provides data group, meeting parameters, and the equipment used (see Appendix A). A “Video Conference Attendance Log” provides more specific demographic data about the participants (see Appendix B).
344
J.A. Gowan, Jr., J.M. Downs /Information
The task dimension included “purpose of meeting” which was classified as follows: A. Operational Tasks 1. Production control, scheduling, purchasing, etc. 2. Training B. Tactical Tasks 3. New product development (R and D) 4. Process development (R and D> 5. Customer relations, contract negotiations, etc. C. Strategic Tasks 6. Upper management planning and decision making 4.2. User’s perception data Hiltz and Johnson [7] reported that measure of usage is not sufficient to determine the degree of success of a computer-mediated communication session. They used additional measures, including subjective satisfaction and perceived benefits. A survey instrument was used to measure the users’ perception of the VCS, including satisfaction and perceived benefits. The instrument was designed to study “the initial adoption and eventual diffusion of information technology innovations within organizations.” User perception data were collected in the first half of 1992: therefore, the measurement involved an “eventual diffusion” time frame rather than an estimate of “initial adoption”. Scales were designed to measure eight constructs defined by Moore and Benbasat 1111: 1. Voluntariness: Does the user have the option to choose whether or not to use the technology? 2. Relative Advantage: Is this technique better than the previous one? 3. Compatibility: Does the innovation fit and support the user’s job responsibilities and tasks? 4. Image: Does the use of the technology elevate one’s status? 5. Ease of Use: Is it easy to learn? Is it userfriendly? 6. Result Demonstrability: Are the benefits apparent? 7. Visibility: Are others aware of its use?
& Management 27 (1994) 341-356
8. Trialability: Is the user given the opportunity to experiment using the innovation? The 38-item instrument is stated to have a high level of content and construct validity, based upon a rigorous developmental process. Cronbach ALPHA reliability coefficients in a field test ranged from 0.74 to 0.95 for the eight constructs. A shorter, 25-item instrument was also suggested and this was the instrument chosen for our study. ALPHA coefficients ranged from 0.71 to 0.90 for the constructs of this shorter instrument. In addition, certain modifications were made. The construct Trialability, which had the lowest reported level of reliability, was altered to imply Training Sufficiency. Since the VCS was in the ‘eventual diffusion’ stage, perceived sufficiency of training was deemed a more appropriate construct. A training program for conference leaders and some other users had been implemented and this was an area in which GE needed feedback. The two Trialability survey items became: “Before using the VCS, I was given sufficient opportunity to try it out in one or more training sessions.” and “I was provided ample training to use the VCS.” Five additional items were added to address certain issues more specific or unique to a VCS; - “Meetings take place more frequently because of the existence of the system.” - “Use of the system is often better than a face-to-face meeting because of the ability to make brief comments on the side to local group members without audio transmission to the remote group.” - “The system allows me to get an impression of personal contact.” - “I find that the system limits my ability to express my views in a meeting.” _ “Meetings are facilitated more efficiently with the VCS due to a specified time limit set when reserving the system for use.” Therefore, our instrument was composed of 30 items, 25 measuring constructs of user perception and 5 items addressing issues specific to a video conferencing system: Appendix (C).
J.A. Gowan, Jr., J.M. Downs /Information
Surveys were distributed through GE’s internal mail system with a memo attached (See Appendix C). Surveys, with return envelopes, were mailed directly to the first author of this paper. The participant was guaranteed confidentiality. Of an initial 120 surveys sent out, 93 were returned: of these 89 were usable. 4.3. Demographic data General demographic data included position/ title/job description, department, age, education, and years of employment with GE and also with GE at Wilmington. Two additional measures included “average number of hours per day handson use of a computer” and “approximate number of hours provided in training to use the VCS”.
5. Analysis
and discussion
Correlation analysis was used to detect significant relationships between the user profile dimension, both individual and group measures,
& Management 27 (1994) 341-356
the task dimension, and the technology dimension. All correlation analyses involve the computation of Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients. No significant interaction was detected between the task and technology dimensions, but numerous relevant interactions were detected between the user profile dimension and both the task and technology dimensions and between the individual and group user profile measures (Figure 1). Due to difference in the dimension of the system usage data, corresponding to meetings/groups of individuals, and the survey data, measuring perceptions and demographics of individual users, survey data were converted to a meeting basis by summing and averaging the individual’s perception and demographic data. This allowed the analysis of 89 user’s perceptions and demographics in the context of individual users involved in 426 meetings. The sample size was therefore 426, since the analyses were across meetings. ANOVA was used to analyze the relationship between the three-group task classification and all user profile measures to test for
c-2 TASK
TECHNOLOGY
No significant Significant
interactions
interactions Fig. 1. Analysis
345
detected
detected of three user interface
dimensions.
J.A. Gowan, Jr., J.M. Downs/Information
346 Table 1 Total usage and meeting
& Management 27 (1994) 341-356
size by task type
Task type
Total hours usage
Total # meetings
Average
Operational Tactical Strategic Total
187 441 28.5 656.5
90 325 11 426
2.08 1.36 2.59 1.54
Means with a different
ANOVA using dinal
number
of * ‘s are statistically
sample size, ANOVA tests were quite sensitive
and
length
* ** ***
different.
post-
survey data scales. Where measures involved orscales, a Kruskal-Wallis cases, the nonparametric
ANOVA. Some of the differences cally significant, but not practically or substanticely significant. 5.1. Initial analysis of system usage data and task groups Table 1 contains information about total usage by task type. Table 2 shows total group size by task type. Total group size is the combined number of participants at all sites, local and remote, taking part. Overall usage averages 15 hours per week or 3 hours per working day. When collected, meeting times were rounded off to the nearest half hour. The minimum meeting time was 0.5 hours and the maximum was 8 hours; this latter meeting involved a semi-annual conference among top management. The tactical task group meetings included product and process development (primarily engineers in project teams), and customer relations Table 2 Total meeting
meeting
hours hours hours hours
(with engineers and sales managers). Ongoing R and D and customer relations is dynamic, often requiring ad hoc group interaction at short notice. Over two-thirds of the VCS usage is for tactical tasks, with the lowest average meeting duration. The tactical task group’s range and variance in total group size is the largest, also indicative of more nonroutine, ad hoc meetings. It follows that this task group may benefit the most from the VCS, given the specific environment and the apparent fit with task communication requirements. Change at the operational level in this process-oriented manufacturing environment is usually controlled by on site engineers, and the problem solving and decision making is routine. Operational task group meetings occur about twice a week, are more regularly scheduled, with less meeting size variance. The strategic task group activities are predictable, involving larger groups of managers, dealing with longer-range planning. Fewer meetings occur and they apparently have a more extensive agenda. 5.2. Analysis and discussion of interaction between the user profile and task dimensions Correlation analysis between travel avoided and the user profile measures resulted in no detection of any significant relationships.
size by task type
Task type
Mean total group size
Minimum
Operational Tactical Strategic Mean
8.36 * 12.18 * * 22.00 * - * 14.18
7 11 22 13.30
Means with a different
number
of * ‘s are statistically
different.
size
Maximum 9 17 22 16.00
size
Size variance 0.41 2.89 0.00 1.10
J.A. Gowan, Jr., J. M. Downs/Information Table 3 Demographic
measures
by task type Task type
Demographics
Age Education Years with GE Years with GE-Wilmington Computer Usage VCS Training Means with a different
number
Mean
Operational
Tactical
33.8 4.4 14.2 9.3 3.1 1.6
39.6 4.3 16.4 10.8 3.0 1.6
* * * * * *
of * ‘s are statistically
measures
Strategic
** * ** * * *
41.8 4.2 17.5 9.4 2.6 1.8
38.44 4.30 15.92 10.45 3.01 1.62
tactical task group for tenure in Wilmington. Individuals attending operational meetings were the youngest, had the highest level of education, and most hours of daily hands-on computer usage. They had the fewest years with GE and with GE in Wilmington. Individuals in strategic meetings were provided more training than others, yet used the system the least. It was anticipated that the strategic users would also be VCS conference leaders in some tactical and operational meetings, therefore they were initially targeted for training. More than 75% of meetings were tactical, yet those individuals reported fewer hours of training. (Table 3.) All survey perception items were coded on a 5-point Likert scale. Scales of some items were
by task type
Perception
Task type Operational
Tactical
Voluntariness Relative Advantage Compatibility Image Ease of Use Result Demonstrability Visibility Training Sufficiency Increased Meeting Frequency Side Comments Impression of Personal Contact Limits Expression Efficiency of Meeting Facilitation
3.23 3.81 3.54 2.86 3.52 3.92 3.71 2.50 3.65 2.81 4.12 2.30 3.45
3.49 3.58 3.51 2.86 3.50 3.78 3.29 2.35 3.36 2.68 3.78 2.11 3.46
Means with a different
*** ** ** * ** **
different.
Education was measured on a six-point scale where high school was coded as a “1” and Ph.D. as a “6” (See Appendix C>. The average education level of 4.3 corresponds to a bachelor’s degree with some hours of graduate work. Both Computer Usage and VCS Training were measured using a 5-point scale where “None” was coded as a “1” and “More than 5 hours” as a “5”. The Computer Usage mean corresponds to the class of 1-3 hours of daily hands-on computer usage while the VCS Training mean corresponds to less than 1 hour of training. Individual users in strategic meetings were found to be older, have less education, and fewer hours of daily hands-on computer usage. On average, individuals in the strategic task group spent more years with GE, but were second to the
Table 4 Survey perception
347
& Management 27 (1994) 341-356
number
* * * * * * * * *
* * * *
of * ‘s are statistically
different.
Mean
** ** * * * ** * * ** ** ** ** *
Strategic 3.37 3.98 3.65 2.83 3.78 4.11 3.67 3.08 3.74 2.63 4.00 1.84 1.07
*** ** * ** * ** *** * ** * ** *** *** **
3.43 3.63 3.52 2.86 3.5 1 3.81 3.39 2.40 3.44 2.70 3.86 2.14 3.20
348
J.A. Cowan, Jr., J.M. Downs/Information
reversed to allow for averaging of items. All reported construct measures can be interpreted in a positive direction, so that a mean above 2.5 indicates some level of positive perception regarding Voluntariness, Relative Advantage, Compatibility etc. The 5 VCS-specific items are individual item responses. Overall, the measured perception levels shown in Table 4 were in support of the general effectiveness of the VCS. An overall perceived Training Sufficiency mean of 2.40 on a 5 point scale indicated mixed feelings about training. It is not surprising that individuals in strategic meetings rated Training Sufficiency higher, given that they also reported significantly greater training time. Other differences in perceptions between task groups were detected. Perceived Relative Advantage, Compatibility, Ease of Use, and Result Demonstrability were rated higher by users of the strategic group. Although not statistically different than the other two groups, the strategic group had the highest perception of corporate Image of the VCS. They also were against any perception of Limitation of Expression and the operational group was near the middle of the scale, indicating mixed opinions. The tactical group gave a lower rating of the item measuring Impression of Personal Contact. These are issues central to the effectiveness of a VCS interface. In a manufacturing environment, operational and tactical tasks involve communication of a more technical nature with greater attention to detail, while strategic tasks may involve an exchange of broader, more conceptual notions. Differences in the effectiveness of the VCS in supporting certain types of communication may provide some basis for the differences in perceptions detected. Another important issue is that meeting facilitation may be more orderly and controlled, therefore more efficient. Use of the GE VCS requires a conference leader, locally and remote, to direct the meeting, with a written agenda and limited time frame. Meeting times are rigidly controlled and with the recent change in fiber channel access, there is no way for a session to extend beyond the scheduled time. The operational and tactical groups had a positive perception of increased Efficiency in Meeting Facilitation, while
& Management 27 (1994) 341-356
the strategic group had a strong negative perception. Again, differences in communication content, technical versus conceptual, may provide some basis of explanation for the differences. The tactical task group had the lowest perceived level of Visibility across the organization. It is possible that this group, which accounts for more than 75% of the system usage, takes for granted the technology. Yet, for those who utilize the system on a limited basis, the system may appear more visible. The tactical group had a positive mean response to perceived Increase in Meeting Frequency due to the VCS, but had the lowest mean. The strategic group, had the highest mean yet had the fewest meetings. Again, those who use the system more often may take the system for granted. One VCS-specific item on the survey dealt with the issue of Side Comments. During VCS meetings, individuals were observed making side comments to one another at a volume which would not invoke audio transmission to the remote group. It was anticipated that this additional ability to manipulate communication might be viewed as an advantage over face-to-face meetings. All three task groups’ mean responses failed to support this perception. Twenty-five percent of actual survey responses were positive, indicating limited support. One reason for the lack of a mean positive response may be that the relative value of the side comments was overstated in the wording of the survey item, that it often makes the VCS better than face-to-face meetings. 5.3. Analysis of interaction between the user profile and technology dimensions Correlation analysis was used to detect significant relationships between measures of the user profile dimension, both individual and group measures, and the technology dimension. The user profile measures are the same used in the previous analyses. The technology measures include: Audio conference bridge (ACB) High resolution graphics system (HRG) Overhead graphics (OHG)
J.A. Gowan,Jr., J.M. Downs/Information & Management27 (1994) 341-356 Table 5 Significant correlation profile measures User profile
coefficients
between
the ACB & user
Correlation
measure
Amount of VCS training Training sufficiency Result demonstrability Impression of personal contact More efficient facilitation
coefficient
-0.65 -0.96 -0.75 -0.81 0.59
Presenter camera and whiteboard (PCW) Slide presentation system (SLP) VCR FAX Several significant correlations (a = 0.0001) were detected between the audio conference bridge (ACB) and several user profile measures, shown in Table 5. The ACB is required when a remote contact must be made by phone, allowing audio communication with all video conference participants. Training is apparently an issue; those using the ACB have had less training and perceive that it was insufficient. In addition, the correlation coefficient between training and training sufficiency is 0.79, indicating that the more users are trained, the greater the perception that training was sufficient. A perception of reduced Result Demonstrability and Impression of Personal Contact are also correlated with the use of the ACB. Yet, with its use, there is some improved meeting facilitation. More than 70% of the meetings using the ACB are 3-way conferences. In order to determine whether these effects are related to the technology rather than a 3-way meeting effect, additional analysis was performed and appear in Table 9. Negative correlation coefficients of relatively large magnitude were found between both the Table 6 Significant
correlation
coefficients
between
user profile
measures
high resolution graphics (HRG) and slide presentation system (SLP) and Ease of Use, indicating perceived difficulty in the operation of these technologies. In addition, a positive correlation exists between both the HRG and SLP, and the Limits Expression survey construct. The HRG and SLP are used together, therefore they carry the same coefficients. The limitation of expression could be due to interruptions required when using the systems or devices. The correlation coefficient between the VCR and both Ease of Use and Training Sufficiency was negative, indicating perceived operational difficulties and lack of training. This may indicate a need to modify hardware or systems to simplify use and/or increase training. (Table 6.) 5.4. Analysis of interaction
between the individual user profile and group user profile dimensions
The model for the user interface involves analysis of the interaction between the user profile, task, and technology dimensions. Because the user profile data involved measures associated with group/meeting as well as individual users, an analysis of these relationships was performed. The correlation coefficients between the Group Size measures and Impression of Personal Contact provide some indication that the perception of personal contact generally decreases as the remote group(s) becomes larger. There is no apparent relationship between this perception and size of the local group. (Table 7.) The correlation coefficients between certain Group Size measures and Efficiency of Meeting Facilitation indicate that the perception of improved meeting facilitation increases as the remote group(s) increase in size, but decrease in
and technology
User profile measure
Technology
Correlation
Ease of use Ease of use Ease of use Training sufficiency Limits expression Limits expression
High Slide VCR VCR High Slide
-0.63 -0.63 -0.71 - 0.76 0.63 0.63
resolution graphics presentation system
resolution graphics presentation system
349
coefficient
J.A. Gowan, Jr., J.M. Downs /Information
350
Table 7 Correlation coefficients between perceived sonal contact and group size measures
impression
Correlation
coefficient
Group
size measure
Total meeting size Wilmington group size San Jose group size Ohio group size Massachusetts group size
of per-
efficiency as the local group increases in size. If this also holds true for remote groups, the size of the Wilmington group has an impact on the effectiveness of communication from their perspective. (Table 8.) bridge versus 3-way
Additional analyses were performed of the relationships between the ACB and user profile measures. To determine whether the underlying effect was related to the number of groups (a 2-way or 3-way conference) or the technology itself, ANOVA and post-Anova tests were performed to detect differences in User Profile measures between 2-way versus 3-way meetings. The data were restricted to the tactical group, as no other group had 3-way meetings. Table 9 shows means for those measures where significant differences were detected ((u = 0.0001). Although the SAS procedure, General Linear Models, accounts for differences in group size, because there were only 19 3-way meetings, (compared to 306 2-way meetings), conclusions drawn should be used with caution. The first 4 survey constructs in which statistically significant differences were detected were on the positive side of the scale (> 2.5) for both groups, but all were lower for 3-way than 2-way Table 8 Correlation coefficients between perceived ing facilitation and group size measures Group
size measure
Wilmington group size San Jose group size Ohio group size
Correlation - 0.73 0.85 0.59
efficiency coefficient
Table 9 Means of User Profile Significant Differences
Measures Between
User profile measures
- 0.62 0.01 - 0.49 -0.81 - 0.50
5.5. The audio conference meeting effect
& Management 27 (1994) 341-356
of meet-
Relative advantage Compatibility Ease of use Result demonstrability Training sufficiency Increased meeting frequency Impression of personal contact Efficient meeting facilitation Total group size
in Which ANOVA Detected 2-Way and 3-Way Meetings Means of measures 2-way
3-way
3.58 3.51 3.51 3.79 2.42 3.39 3.81 3.42 11.86
3.45 3.40 3.25 3.55 1.22 3.00 3.40 4.20 17.00
meetings. Note that Total Group Size is increased by approximately 5 individuals when adding the second remote group. The mean perceived Training Sufficiency measure for both groups were on the negative side and the mean of the 3-way meetings was almost half that of the 2-way meetings. The 2-way meeting group had a higher perceived Impression of Personal Contact and perception of increased Frequency of Meetings than the 3-way group, although both had positive mean responses. Communication effectiveness apparently diminishes with the addition of the second remote group. The 3-way meeting group had a higher perception that the VCS increases the Efficiency of Meeting Facilitation than the 2-way group. It is possible, that with 3-way meetings the time limitation is even more pressing and the effect of a required agenda is greater, therefore the higher perceived level of Efficiency of Meeting Facilitation.
6. Conclusions The primary purpose of this field study was to analyze the interaction between three user interface dimensions: user profile, task, and technology, and assess the effectiveness of the VCS. The following are the general findings: - The effectiveness of a VCS may be task dependent. - In a manufacturing environment with substantial R and D of products and processes where expertise is demographically distant or dis-
J.A. Gowan, Jr., J.M. Downs/Information
tributed, a VCS may best fit meeting groups with a tactical-task orientation. Measures of usage is not sufficient to determine the degree of success of implementation of a VCS. Additional measures include perceived satisfaction and benefits. This supports previous findings. A VCS may provide an alternate to travel and other communication mediums that is relatively easy‘to use and provides an impression of personal contact without substantial limitation of expression. A VCS may increase the frequency of meetings. Facilitation of a meeting using a VCS may be more efficient than a face-to-face meeting because of the scheduled time, conference leader and required agenda, but perception of level of efficiency may be task dependent due to differences in communication content. Perceptions of ease of use, impression of personal contact, limitation of expression may vary depending upon usage, such that heavy users may become more sensitive to system weaknesses that affect communication. Sufficient training is essential, especially of the heaviest users, and for the operation of optional equipment or systems, such as high resolution graphics, slide presentation systems and VCRs. Certain optional equipment/systems usage may increase a perceived limitation of expression. This could be due to distractions resulting from the use of the equipment. These effects may be overcome by redesigning equipment, hardware, system layout and/or increased training. The effectiveness of communication support may diminish as meeting groups are added to a video conference or remote group size(s) increase. There may be a maximum effective number of groups and/or remote group size.
Acknowledgements Work on this project was partially supported by the Cameron Fellows Program of the Cameron
& Management 27 (1994) 341-356
351
School of Business Administration. The authors greatly appreciate the support provided by GE, especially the employees who completed the survey and the editor, Edgar H. Sibley, for extensive editing and invaluable recommendations.
References [1] Beauclair, R.A. and Straub, D.W. (1990). Utilizing GDSS Technology: Final Report on a Recent Empirical Study, Information and Management, 18, 213-220. [2] Bennison, D.J. (1988). Transport/Telecommunication Interactions: Empirical Evidence From a Videoconferencing Field Trial in the United Kingdom, Transportation Research, 22A(4), 291-300. [3] Dennis, A.R.. George, J.F., Jessup, L.M., Nunamaker, J.F. Jr., and Vogel, D.R. (1988). Technology to Support Electronic Meetings, MIS Quarterly, 12(4), 591-618. [4] DeSanctis, G. and Gallupe, R.B. (1987). A foundation for the study of group decision support systems. Management Science, 33(5), 589-609. [5] Dholakia, R.R., Dholakia, N. and Bitta, A.J.D. (1991). Acquisition of Telecommunications Products and Services: An Examination of Inter-Sector Differences, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 38(4), 328-335. [6] Hatcher, M. (1992). A Video Conferencing System for the United States Army, Decision Support Systems, 8(2), 181-190. [7] Hiltz, S.R. and Johnson, K. (1989). Measuring Acceptance of Computer-Mediated Communication Systems, Journal of the American Society for Information Science, November, 386-397. [8] Johansen, R. (1988). Groupware: Computer Support for Business Teams. New York, NY: The Free Press. [9] Johansen, R. and Bullen, C. (1984). Thinking Ahead: What to Expect from Teleconferencing, Harvard Eusiness Ret’iew, March-April, 164-174. [lo] Mokhtarian, P.L. (1988). An Empirical Evaluation of the Travel Impacts of Teleconferencing, Transportation Research, 22A(4), 283-289. [ll] Moore, G.C. and Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of and Instrument to Measure the Perceptions of Adopting an Information Technology Innovation, Information Systems Research, 2(3), 192-222. [12] Nunamaker, J.F. Jr., Grohowski, R., Heminger, A., Marta, B. and Vogel, D.R. (1989a). GDSS Experience at a Corporate Site, Proceedings of the TwentySecond Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Kona-Kailua, HI, January. [13] Nunamaker, J., Vogel, D., and Konsynski, B. (1989b). Interaction of task and technology to support large groups, Decision Support Systems, (5), 139-152. [14] Pinsonneault, A. and Kraemer, K.L. (1989). The Impact of Technological Support on Groups: An Assessment of
J.A. Gowan, Jr., J.M. Downs /Information
352
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
the Empirical Research, Decision Support Systems, (5), 197-216. Spiller, R. and Housel, T.J. (1985). Video Teleconferencing - A New Training Tool, Sloan Management Rel;iew, 27(l), 57-62. Turban, Efraim (1990). Decision Support and Expert Systems: Management Support Systems, Second Edition, New York, NY: MacMillan Publishing Company. United States Government (1991). The Power of Video Teleconferencing: Changing the Way We Do Business: Hearing Before the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives, One Hundred Second Congress, First Session, November 6, 1991, No. 81, Washington, DC, U.S. Government Printing Office. Vogel, D.R. (1988) Research on Electronic Meeting Systems, in M.S. Loeb (Ed.) Research Issues in IS: An Agenda for the 1990’s, Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown Publishers.
Appendix A. “yideo Conference Feedback Form” Data User Dimension: Conference Leader -Name -Title -Phone number -Department Remote Conference -Company name -Location
Group(s)
Number of Participants -Locally -Remote site(s) Task Dimension: -Purpose of meeting (description) -Working versus Demonstration meeting -Length of meeting
& Management 27 (1994) 341-356
L”
wan consults
in various
Jack Arthur Gowan, Jr., associate professor of the Cameron School of Business Administration, University of North Carolina at Wilmington, received his PhD from Clemson University and MBA and undergraduate degree from Samford University. His research interests include computer supported cooperative work systems and the implementation of information systems in highly automated manufacturing environments. Dr. Gomanufacturing industries.
James Michael Downs is currently employed at GE Nuclear Energy in Wilmington, North Carolina as Quality Assurance Auditor and Customer Service Representative with additional responsibilities including: computer systems resource, video conferencing technical resource and instructor, and audio-visual specialist. He has held positions in manufacturing, quality assurance and customer service at GE since 1973. Mr. Downs earned a BS in management at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington and was selected as the Outstanding Business Management Student 1992-3.
J.A. Gowan, Jr., J.M. Downs /Information
& Management 27 (1994) 341-356
353
-Date -Time Technology Dimension: Systems Used: -Audio Conference Bridge to other -High Resolution Graphics -Overhead Graphics -Presenter Camera/Whiteboard -Slide Presentation -VCR -FAX Other
locations
Measures: -Benefits of Video Conferencing (comments) -Other comments/suggestions -Whether use of the system avoided a business trip -If so, number employees who avoided travel
Appendix B. “Video Conference Attendance Log” Data All data from this form apply to the User dimension: Participant’s: Name Title Company Phone number Location
Appendix C. Memorandum
and Survey MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 29, 1992 TO: FROM: Michael Downs, Customer SUBJECT: Video Conference
Service
System Evaluation
Attached is a questionnaire to collect information from users of the Video Conference System (VCS). Please complete and place it in the mail by Friday July 3rd using the enclosed return envelope. It should take only 10 minutes to complete and would be greatly appreciated.
J.A. Cowan, Jr., J. M. Downs /Information
354
& Management 27 (1994) 341-356
The data will be coded and analyzed by Art Gowan, Assistant Professor of Information Systems at UNCW. Your responses will be kept completely confidential. Only cumulative results will be reported. Everyone participating in the survey will receive a copy of the report. Thank
you for your cooperation.
VIDEO
CONFERENCE
SYSTEM
USER
INFORMATION
Date:
Name: Position/Title/Job
Description:
Department: Age: Education
completed:
(circle highest
College: Ph.D.
High School Masters
level)
(B.S., B.A . ...)
Number
of Years Employed
by GE:
Number
of years at GE in Wilmington:
Average
number
of hours per day hands-on
use of a computer
(PC, VAX, etc.): (circle one)
None Less than 1 hour 3-5 hours Approximate
l-3 hours More than 5 hours
number
of hours provided
in training
to use the Video Conferencing
System:
(circle one)
None Less than 1 hour 3-5 hours
l-3 hours More than 5 hours
Video Conference
System evaluation
Circle the number that best corresponds to your opinion. There are no right or wrong answers. We are interested in your sincere opinions about the video conferencing system. Your answers will be kept confidential.
J.A. Gowan, Jr., J.M. Downs/Information
Strongly agree 1. Use of the Video Conferencing System WCS) enables the group and I to accomplish tasksmore quickly...............................
355
& Management 27 (1994) 341-356
Agree
No Opinion
Disagree
Strongly disagree
1
3
5
1
3
5
me to use the VCS.. . . 1
3
5
7. Use of the VCS improves the quality of work completed in a given time.. . . . . . . . . . . __. . . . . . . . . . 3
3
5
3
5
2. I think that using the VCS fits well with the way I like to work.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Learning 4. Having
to use the VCS was easy for me.. . . . . . . a VCS is a status symbol for GE.. . . . . . . .
5. Meetings take place more frequently because of the existence of the system.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. My boss does not require
8. The results of using the VCS are apparent to me.............................................
I
9. Before using the VCS, I was given sufficient opportunity to try it out in one or more trainingsessions..................................
1
3
5
10. Using the VCS enhances my effectiveness onthejoh........................................
I
3
5
11. I would have no difficulty telling others about the results of using the VCS . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
3
5
the VCS is easy to use.. . . . . . . .
1
3
5
12. Overall,
I believe
2
13. Use of the system is often better than a face-to-face meeting because of the ability to make brief comments on the side to local group members without audio transmission to the remote group..............................
1
2
3
4
5
14. Use of the VCS is not very visible at GE . . . . . . . .
1
2
3
4
5
15. Using the VCS gives me greater control over my work.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2
3
4
5
16. People at GE who use the VCS have more prestige than those who do not.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2
3
4
5
17. Although it might be helpful, using the VCS is certainly not compulsory in my job.. . _. __. _. . . .
2
3
4
5
18. The system allows me to get an impression of personal contact.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2
3
4
5
356
J.A. Gowan, Jr., J.M. Downs/Information
& Management 27 (1994) 341-356
19. I believe that it is easy to have the VCS support facilitation of a meeting the way theway want it to do............................
1
2
3
4
5
20. I was provided ample training to use the VCS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
2
3
4
5
21. Using the VCS makes my job easier to do . . . . . .
1
2
3
4
5
22. Using the VCS is compatible with all aspects of my work which involves meeting with people outside the local area.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2
3
4
5
23. I would have difficulty explaining why using a VCS may or may not be beneficial.. ...........
1
2
3
4
5
24. I find that the system limits my ability to express my views in a meeting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
25. At GE, one is aware of the use of the VCS . . . . . 1 26. Using the VCS fits into my work style.. . . . . . . . . .
1
to use.. . .
1
28. People at GE who use the VCS have a high profile.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
2
3
4
5
29. I believe I could communicate to others the consequences of using a VCS.. . _. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
2
3
4
5
30. Meetings are facilitated more efficiently with the VCS due to a specified time limit set when reserving the system for use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
2
3
4
5
27. I believe
that the VCS is cumbersome
Any COMMENTS
would be appreciated: