The effects of information technology project complexity on group interaction

Journal of Management Information Systems

Volumn 21, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 223-247

  Roberts, Tom L ^a   Cheney, Paul H ^b   Sweeney, Paul D ^c   Hightower, Ross T ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON   (United States)

^d GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Group interaction; Group process; Project complexity; Project management; Technical projects

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS; PROJECT MANAGEMENT; SOFTWARE ENGINEERING; SYSTEMS ENGINEERING;

GROUP INTERACTION; GROUP PROCESS; PROJECT COMPLEXITY; TECHNICAL PROJECTS;

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY;

EID: 13944255430     PISSN: 07421222     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/07421222.2004.11045814     Document Type: Review

References (104)

1. Aladwani, A., and Rai, A. Formal participation and performance of the system development group: The role of group heterogeneity and group-based rewards. [i#Database for Advances in Information Systems, 31,#1i] 4 (Fall 2000), 25-40.
2. Amason, A.C. Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on strategic decision-making: Resolving a paradox for top management teams. [i#Academy of Management Journal, 39,#1i] 1 (February 1996), 123-148.
3. Amason, A.C., and Schweiger, D.M. Resolving the paradox of conflict, strategic decision making, and organizational performance. [i#International Journal of Conflict Management, 5,#1i] 4 (1994), 239-253.
4. Amason, A.C., and Spienza, H. The effects of top management team size and interation norms on cognitive and affective conflict. [i#Journal of Management, 23,#1i] 4 (1997), 496-516.
5. Ancona, D.G., and Caldwell, D.F. Demography and design: Predictors of new product team performance. [i#Organization Science, 3,#1i] 3 (1992), 321-341.
6. Bales, R.F., and Strodbeck, F.L. Phases in group problem solving. [i#Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46,#1i] 4 (1951), 485-495.
7. Batt, R., and Appelbaum, E. Worker participation in diverse settings: Does the form affect the outcome, and if so, who benefits? [i#British Journal of Industrial Relations, 33,#1i] 3 (1995), 353-378.
8. Bayless, O.L. An alternative pattern for problem-solving discussion. [i#Journal of Communication, 17,#1i] 2 (1967), 188-197.
9. Benbasat, I., and Lim, L. The effects of group, task, context, and technology variables on the usefulness of group support systems: A meta-analysis of experimental studies. [i#Small Group Research, 24,#1i] 4 (1993), 430-462.
10. Benne, K., and Sheats, S. Functional roles of group members. [i#Journal of Social Issues, 4,#1i] 2 (1948), 41-49.
11. Blanchard, K.; Carew, D.; and Parisi-Carew, E. How to get your group to perform like a team. [i#Training and Development, 50,#1i] 9 (1996), 34-37.
12. Boland, R.J., Jr., and Tenkasi, R.V. Perspective making and perspective taking in communities of knowing. [i#Organization Science, 6,#1i] 4 (July-August 1995), 350-372.
13. Buller, P. The team building-task performance relation: Some conceptual and methodological refinements. [i#Group & Organization Studies, 11,#1i] 3 (1986), 147-168.
14. Campbell, D. Task complexity: A review and analysis. [i#Academy of Management Review, 13,#1i] 1 (1988), 40-52.
15. Campbell, D., and Gingrich, K. The interactive effects of task complexity and participation on task performance: A field experiment. [i#Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 38,#1i] 2 (1986 , 162-180.
16. Chidambaram, L. Relational development in computer-supported groups. [i#MIS Quarterly, 20,#1i] 2 (June 1996), 143-165.
17. Cohen, S., and Bailey, D. What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. [i#Journal of Management, 23,#1i] 3 (1997), 239-290.
18. Cohen, S., and Ledford, G. The effectiveness of self-managed teams: A quasi-experiment. [i#Human Relations, 47,#1i] 1 (January 1994), 13-43.
19. Cohen, S.; Ledford, G.; and Spreitzer, G. A predictive model of self-managing work team effectiveness. [i#Human Relations, 49,#1i] 5 (May 1996), 643-676.
20. Colarelli, S.M., and Boos, A.L. Sociometric and ability-based assignment to work groups: Some implications for personnel selection. [i#Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13#1i] (March 1992), 187-196.
21. Crowstan, K., and Kammerer, E.E. Coordination and collective mind in software requirements development. [i#IBM Systems Journal, 37,#1i] 2 (1998), 227-245.
22. Davis, D.B. U.S. businesses target as major videotext market. [i#Mini-Micro Systems, 15#1i] (September 1982), 145-151.
23. Deadrick, D.; Bennett, N.; and Russell, C. Using hierarchial linear modeling to examine dynamic performance criteria over time. [i#Journal of Management, 23,#1i] 6 (1997), 745-757.
24. Dennis, A.R.; Haley, B.J.; and Vandenberg, R.J. A meta-analysis of effectiveness, efficiency, and participant satisfaction in group support systems research. In J. DeGross, S. Jarvenpaa, and A. Srinivasan (eds.), [i#Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems#1i] Atlanta: Association of Information Systems, 1996, pp. 278-289.
25. Dennis, A.R.; Wixom, B.; and Vandenberg, R.J. Understanding fit and appropriation effects in group support systems via meta-analysis. [i#MIS Quarterly, 25,#1i] 2 (June 2001), 167-193.
26. Diehl, M., and Stroebe, W. Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward solution of a riddle. [i#Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53,#1i] 3 (1987), 497-509.
27. Earley, C. The influence of information, choice, and task complexity upon goal acceptance, performance, and personal goals. [i#Journal of Applied Psychology, 70,#1i] 3 (1985), 481-491.
28. Edberg, D.T., and Bowman, B.J. User-developed applications: An empirical study of application quality and developer productivity. [i#Journal of Management Information Systems, 13,#1i] 1 (Summer 1996), 167-185.
29. Eisenhardt, K., and Schoonhoven, C. Organizational growth: Linking founding team strategy, environment, and growth among U.S. semiconductor ventures, 1978-1988. [i#Administrative Science Quarterly, 35,#1i] 3 (September 1990), 504-529.
30. Festinger, L.; Pepitone, A.; and Newcomb, T. Some consequences of deindividuation in a group. [i#Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 47,#1i] 3 (1952), 382-389.
31. Fjermestad, J., and Hiltz, S.R. An assessment of group support systems experimental research: Methodology and results. [i#Journal of Management Information Systems, 15,#1i] 3 (Winter 1998-99), 7-150.
32. Galbraith, J.R. [i#Competing with Flexible Organizations#1i], 2d ed. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1994.
33. Gersick, C.J.G. Time and transition in work teams: Toward a new model of group development. [i#Academy of Management Journal, 31,#1i] 1 (March 1988), 9-41.
34. Gibson, C.B. Do they do what they believe they can? Group efficacy and group effectiveness across task cultures. [i#Academy of Management Journal, 42,#1i] 2 (1999), 138-152.
35. Gordan, M.E.; Slade, L.A.; and Schmitt, N. The "science of the sophomore" revisited: From conjecture to empiricism. [i#Academy of Management Review, 11,#1i] 1 (1986), 191-207.
36. Griffen, M. Interaction between individuals and situations: Using HLM procedures to estimate reciprocal relationships. [i#Journal of Management, 23,#1i] 6 (1997), 759-773.
37. Guzzo, R.A. At the intersection of team effectiveness and decision making. In R.A. Guzzo, E. Salas, and Associates (eds.), [i#Team Effectiveness and Decision Making in Organizations#1i]. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1995, pp. 1-8.
38. Hackman, J.R. Effects of task characteristics on group products. [i#Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 4,#1i] 2 (1968), 162-187.
39. Hackman, J.R. The design of work teams. In J. Lorsch (ed.) [i#Handbook of Organizational Behavior#1i], Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1987, pp. 315-342.
40. Harrison, F.L. [i#Advanced Project Management#1i]. New York: Wiley, 1985.
41. Hill, C.W. Group versus individual performance: Are N+1 heads better than one? [i#Psychology Bulletin, 91,#1i] 3 (1982), 517-539.
42. Hirschheim, R., and Newman, M. Symbolism and information systems development: Myth, metaphor and magic. [i#Information Systems Research, 2,#1i] 1 (1991), 29-62.
43. Hoffman, L.R., and O'Day, R. The process of solving reasoning and value problems. In L.R. Hoffman (ed.), [i#The Group Problem Solving Process: Studies of a Valence Model#1i]. New York: Praeger, 1979, pp. 66-67.
44. Hofmann, D., and Gavin, M. Centering decisions in hierarchical linear models: Implications for research in organizations. [i#Journal of Management, 24,#1i] 5 (1998), 623-641.
45. Hoyle, R.; Georgesen, J.; and Webster, J. Analyzing data from individuals in groups: The past, the present and the future. [i#Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 5,#1i] 1 (2001), 41-47.
46. Huang, W.W., and Wei, K.K. An empirical investigation of the effects of group support systems (GSS) and task type on group interactions from an influence perspective. [i#Journal of Management Information Systems, 17,#1i] 2 (Fall 2000), 181-206.
47. Ives, B., and Olson, M. Use involvement and MIS success: A review of research. [i#Management Science, 30,#1i] 5 (1984), 586-603.
48. Jehn, K.A. Enhancing effectiveness: An investigation of advantages and disadvantages of value based intragroup conflict. [i#International Journal of Conflict Management, 4,#1i] 3 (1994), 223-238.
49. Jehn, K.A. A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments on intragroup conflict. [i#Administrative Science Quarterly, 40,#1i] 2 (June 1995), 256-279.
50. Jehn, K.A. A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational groups. [i#Administrative Science Quarterly, 42,#1i] 3 (September 1997), 530-557.
51. Jehn, K.A., and Chatman, J. The influence of proportional and perceptual conflict composition on team performance. [i#International Journal of Conflict Management, 11,#1i] 1 (2000), 56-73.
52. Jehn, K.A., and Mannix, E. The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance. [i#Academy of Management Journal, 44,#1i] 2 (April 2001), 238-251.
53. Jehn, K.A., and Shah, P. Interpersonal relationships and task performance: An examination of mediating processes in friendship and acquaintance groups. [i#Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72,#1i] 4 (1997), 775-790.
54. Johnson, D.W., and Johnson, F.P. [i#Joining Together: Group Theory and Group Skills#1i]. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1994.
55. Jung, D.I., and Avolio, B.J. Effects of leadership style and followers' cultural orientation on performance in group and individual task conditions. [i#Academy of Management Journal, 42,#1i] 2 (April 1999), 208-218.
56. Keil, M., and Robey, D. Turning around troubled software projects: An exploratory study of the deescalation of commitment to failing courses of action. [i#Journal of Management Information Systems, 15,#1i] 4 (Spring 1999), 63-87.
57. Kelly, J.R., and McGrath, J.E. [i#On Time and Method#1i]. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1988.
58. Keppel, G. [i#Design and Analysis: A Researcher's Handbook#1i]. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1973.
59. Kim, P.H. When what you know can hurt you: A study of experiential effects on group discussion and performance. [i#Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69,#1i] 2 (1997), 165-177.
60. King, W. IS and the learning organization. [i#Information Systems Management, 13,#1i] 3 (1996), 78-80.
61. Kraemer, K.L., and Pinsonneault, A. Technology and groups: Assessment of the empirical research. In J. Galegher, R.E. Krant, and C. Egido (eds.), [i#Intellectual Teamwork: Social and Technological Foundations of Cooperative Work#1i]. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1990, pp. 375-405.
62. Langfred, C., and Shanley, M. The importance of organizational context - I: A conceptual model of cohesiveness and effectiveness in work groups. [i#Public Administration Quarterly, 21,#1i] 3 (Fall 1997), 349-369.
63. Leonard, D., and Sensiper, S. The role of tacit knowledge in group innovation. [i#California Management Review, 40,#1i] 3 (Spring 1998), 112-132.
64. Mankin, D.; Cohen, S.; and Bikson, T. [i#Teams and Technology: Fulfilling the Promise of the New Organization#1i]. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1996.
65. Manz, C.C., and Sims, H.P. Leading self-managed teams: A conceptual analysis of a paradox. [i#Economic and Industrial Democracy, 7,#1i] 1 (1986), 141-165.
66. March, J., and Simon, H. [i#Organizations#1i]. New York: Wiley, 1958.
67. Mason, R., and Mitroff, L. [i#Challenging Strategic Planning Assumptions#1i] New York: Wiley, 1981.
68. McGrath, J.E. Studying groups at work: Ten critical needs for theory and practice. In P.S. Goodman (ed.), [i#Designing Effective Work Groups#1i]. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1986, pp. 362-392.
69. McGrath, J.E., and Hollingshead, A.B. [i#Groups Interacting with Technology: Ideas, Evidences, Issues, and an Agenda#1i]. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1994.
70. Mennecke, B.E., and Valacich, J.S. Information is what you make of it: The influence of group history and computer support on information sharing, decision quality, and member perceptions. [i#Journal of Management Information Systems, 15,#1i] 2 (Fall 1998), 173-197.
71. Mohrman, S.; Cohen, S.; and Mohrman, A. [i#Designing Team-Based Organizations: New Forms for Knowledge Work#1i]. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass, 1995.
72. Mossholder, K.; Bennett, N.; and Martin, C. A multilevel analysis of procedural justice context. [i#Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19,#1i] 2 (March 1998), 131-141.
73. Mykytyn, P., and Green, G. Effects of computer experience and task complexity on attitudes of managers. [i#Information & Management, 23,#1i] 5 (November 1992), 263-278.
74. Navarro, J.J. Computer supported self-managing teams. [i#Journal of Organizational Computing, 4,#1i] 3 (1994), 317-342.
75. Nonaka, I., and Konno, N. The concept of "ba": Building a foundation for knowledge creation. [i#California Management Review, 40,#1i] 3 (Spring 1998), 40-54.
76. Pepinsky, P.N.; Pepinsky, H.B.; and Pavlik, W.B. The effects of task complexity and time pressure upon team productivity. [i#Journal of Applied Psychology, 44,#1i] 2 (1960), 34-38.
77. Pinto, M.B.; Pinto, J.K.; and Prescott, J.E. Antecedents and consequences of project team cross-functional cooperation. [i#Management Science, 39,#1i] 10 (October 1993), 1281-1297.
78. Pollack, B. Hierarchical linear modeling and the "unit of analysis" problem: A solution for analyzing responses of intact group members. [i#Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 2,#1i] 4 (1998), 299-312.
79. Raudenbush, S.; Bryk, A.; Cheong, Y.; and Congden, R. [i#HLM 5: Hierarchical Linear and Nonlinear Modeling#1i]. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International, 2000.
80. Remus, W. Graduate students as surrogates for managers in experiments on business decision-making. [i#Journal of Business Research, 14,#1i] 1 (1986), 19-25.
81. Robey, D., and Newman, M. Sequential patterns in information systems development: An application of a social process model. [i#ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 14,#1i] 1 (1996), 30-63.
82. Robey, D.; Farrow, D.; and Franz, C. Group process and conflict in system development. [i#Management Science, 35,#1i] 10 (October 1989), 1172-1191.
83. Robey, D.; Smith, L.; and Vijayasarathy, L. Perceptions of conflict and success in information systems development projects. [i#Journal of Management Information Systems, 10,#1i] 1 (Summer 1993), 123-139.
84. Sambamurthy, V., and Poole, M.S. The effects of variations in capabilities of GDSS designs on management of cognitive conflict in groups. [i#Information Systems Research, 3,#1i] 3 (1992), 224-251.
85. Saunders, C., and Miranda, S. Information acquisition in group decision making. [i#Information and Management, 34,#1i] 1 (September 1998), 55-74.
86. Schmidt, R.; Lyytinen, K.; Keil, M.; and Cule, P. Identifying software project risks: An international Delphi study. [i#Journal of Management Information Systems, 17,#1i] 4 (Spring 2001), 5-36.
87. Schwenk, C. Conflict in organizational decision making: An exploratory study of its effects in for-profit and not-for-profit organizations. [i#Management Science, 36,#1i] 4 (April 1990), 436-448.
88. Shah, P., and Jehn, K. Do friends perform better than acquaintances? The interaction of friendship, conflict and task. [i#Group Decisions and Negotiations, 2,#1i] 2 (1993), 149-166.
89. Shaw, M.E. [i#Group Dynamics: The Psychology of Small Group Behavior#1i]. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1976.
90. Smith, H.; Keil, M.; and Depledge, G. Keeping mum as the project goes under: Toward an explanatory model. [i#Journal of Management Information Systems, 18,#1i] 2 (Fall 2001), 189-227.
91. Smith, K.G.; Smith, K.A.; Alian, J.; Smis, H.; O'Bannon, D.; and Scully, J. Top management team demography and process: The role of social integration and communication. [i#Administrative Science Quarterly, 39,#1i] 3 (1994), 412-438.
92. Stone, D.; Sivitanides, M.; and Magro, A. Formalized dissent and cognitive complexity in group processes and performance. [i#Decision Sciences, 25,#1i] 2 (March-April 1994), 243-261.
93. Thamheim, H., and Wilemon, D. Criteria for controlling projects according to plan. [i#Project Management Journal, 17,#1i] 3 (1986), 75-81.
94. Thomas, S.; Tucker, R.; and Kelly, W. Compass: An assessment tool for improving project team communications. [i#Project Management Journal, 30,#1i] 4 (December 1999), 15-23.
95. Vancouver, J. The application of HLM to the analysis of the dynamic interaction of environment, person, and behavior. [i#Journal of Management, 23,#1i] 6 (1997), 795-818.
96. Waller, M.J. The timing of adaptive group responses to nonroutine events. [i#Academy of Management Journal, 42,#1i] 2 (April 1999), 127-137.
97. Waltz, D.B.; Elam, J.J.; and Curtis, B. Inside a software design team: Knowledge acquisition, sharing, and integration. [i#Communications of the ACM, 36,#1i] 10 (1993), 62-80.
98. Watson, W.E., and Michaelsen, L.K. Group interaction behaviors that affect group performance on an intellective task. [i#Group and Organization Studies, 13,#1i] 4 (1988), 495-516.
99. Watson, W.E.; Johnson, L.M.; and Merritt, D. Team orientation, self-orientation, and diversity in task groups. [i#Group and Organization Management, 23,#1i] 2 (June 1998), 161-188.
100. Williges, R.C.; Kies, J.K.; and Rosson, M.B. Coordinating computer-supported cooperative work: A review of research issues and strategies. [i#Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49,#1i] 9 (1998), 776-791.
101. Wong, W., and Radcliffe, D. The tacit nature of design knowledge. [i#Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 12,#1i] 4 (December 2000), 493-512.
102. Wood, R. Task complexity: Definition of a construct. [i#Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37,#1i] 1 (1986), 60-82.
103. Worchel, S. You can go home again: Returning group research to the group context with an eye on developmental issues. [i#Small Group Research, 25,#1i] 2 (1994), 205-223.
104. Zigurs, I., and Buckland, B. A theory of task/technology fit and group support systems effectiveness. [i#MIS Quarterly, 22,#1i] 3 (September 1998), 313-334.