Collaborative Environments involve the use of real-time data sharing and visualization technology to enhance collaboration across distances. This paper investigates three different designs of Collaborative Environments and their differential impact on work processes and integration between subparts of distributed teams in the offshore oil and gas industry. Using semi-structured interviews and observations, influences of technology, physical environment, and team composition were studied both on the individual and team level. The most positive effects were found where an environment with high media richness was combined with organizational measures to enhance collaboration between subgroups.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BurkeK.AytesK.ChidambaramL. (2001). Media effects on the development of cohesion and process satisfaction in computer-supported workgroups. An analysis of results from two longitudinal studiesInformation Technology and People, 14 (2), 122–141.
2.
CangeloseV. E.LemoineL. F. (1988). Effects Of Open Versus Closed Physical Environment On Employee Perception And AttitudeSocial Behavior and Personality, 1988, 16(1), 71–77.
3.
DaftR.LengelR. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural designManagement Science, 32(5), 554–571.
4.
EmeryF. E.TristE. L. (1960). Sociotechnical Systems In ChurchmanC. H.VerhulstM. (Eds.). Management science, models and techniques (Vol. 2, pp. 83–97). New York: Pergamon.
5.
LammondD.DanielsK.StandenP. (2003). Teleworking and Virtual Organisations: The Human Impact In HolmanD.WallT. D.CleggC.SparrowP.HowardA. (Eds.). The New Workplace. A Guide to the Human Impact of Modern Working Practices (pp. 197–218). Chichester: John Wiley.
6.
LaucheK. (2008). Overcoming remoteness: Human factors assessment of real-time monitoring and support in drilling operationsInternational Journal of Technology and Human Interaction, 4(1), 94–112.
7.
O'LearyM. B.CummingsJ. (2007). The spatial, temporal and configurational characteristics of geographic dispersion in teamsManagement of Information Systems Quarterly, 31(3), 433–452.
8.
OldhamG. R.RotchfordN. L. (1983). Relationships Between Office Characteristics and Employee Reactions: A Study of the Physical EnvironmentAdministrative Science Quarterly, 28(4), 542–556.
9.
O'MalleyC.LangtonS.AndersonA.Doherty-SneddonG.BruceV. (1996). Comparison of face-to-face and video-mediated interactionInteracting with Computers, 8(2), 177–192.
10.
PattonM. Q. (1980). Qualitative evaluation methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
11.
PerryM. K. (1989). Vertical integration: Determinants and effects In SchmalenseeR.WilligR. D. (Eds.). Handbook of Industrial Organization (Vol. 1, pp. 183–255). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
12.
PettersonM.RandallD.HelgesonB. (2004). Ambiguities, Awareness and Economy: A study of Emergency Service WorkComputer Supported Cooperative Work, 13, 125–154.
13.
SanfordA.AndersonA. H.MullinJ. (2004). Audio channel constraints in video-mediated communicationInteracting with Computers, 16(6), 1069–1094.
14.
SpenglerJ. J. (1950). Vertical Integration and Antitrust PolicyThe Journal of Political Economy, 58(4), 347–352.
15.
SuchmanL. (1997). Centers of Coordination: A Case Study and Some Themes In ResnickL. B.SäljöR.PontecorvoC.BurgeB. (Eds.). Discourse, tools and reasoning: Essays on situated cognition (pp. 41–62). Berlin: Springer.
16.
WallT. D.CorbettM. J.MartinR.CleggC. W.JacksonP. R. (1990). Advanced manufacturing technology, work design and performance: A change studyJournal of Applied Psychology, 75, 691–697.
17.
WeickK. E.RobertsK. (1993). Collective mind in organizations: Heedful interrelating on flight decksAdministrative Science Quarterly, 38, 357–381.
