Turn On, Log In, Drop Out Preventing Productivity Loss in Technology-Supported Teams

1. Turn On, Log In, Drop OutPreventing Productivity Loss in Technology-Supported Teams Laku Chidambaram University of Oklahoma Lai Lai Tung Nanyang Technological University, Singapore

2. A Matter of Perspective

3. Are You “Pulling Your Weight”? SOCIAL LOAFING: Exerting less effort when working in a group than when working alone

4. Individual effort Number of members What Contributes to Social Loafing? • Group Size • Technology • 87% of US employees do “some” personal browsing at work • 53% do it daily - ZDNet Research, Aug 2005

5. What We Studied Group Size Technology Individual Contributions Group Outcomes GROUP DECISION MAKING

6. How We Studied It • 240 business students (juniors and seniors) participated in an experiment • 40 teams—half comprised of four members and half comprised of eight—met either in a collocated setting or a distributed setting • Teams generated ideas about an image problem facing an international winery, examined alternatives and recommended a solution • A groupware tool called GroupSystems that supports group decision making was used • A variety of objective measures (e.g., number of ideas produced) and perceptual data (e.g., how cohesive a group was) were collected

7. First, the Good News … • Our fears about turning on, logging in and dropping out were largely unfounded • In other words, technology support did not contribute to any productivity loss (attributable to group size) • Thus, working remotely—where members relied exclusively on technology—did not exacerbate social loafing • Technology support also did not reduce the quality of individual contributions • The average quality of ideas generated by remote groups was comparable to those of collocated groups

8. Now, the Rest of the Story … • Group size, however, had a negative effect along two dimensions: • It reduced individual contributions, both in terms of idea quantity and idea quality • It lowered group outcomes, both in terms of “hard” numbers (the quality of the final decision) and the “touchy/feely” stuff (cohesiveness of the group)

9. Lessons Learned • Group Size: Less is more • Getting lost in the crowd was easy in larger groups • Individual contributions need to be identified: Give credit where credit is due (or place blame where it needs to be placed) • Technology: “Mere presence” may matter – sometimes • Working remotely, without any face time, did not have a detrimental effect on the outcome of group decision making • However, collocated members responded to the “mere presence” of others by visibly contributing more ideas

10. So, What’s the Message? • As far as social loafing goes … … size matters a lot, but distance only matters a little.

11. Questions/Comments?

12. More Bang for Your Buck:Maximizing the Payoff from IT Investments through Complementary Investments Yong-Mi Kim Shaila Miranda Bob Zmud University of Oklahoma

13. Research Questions • Overall • How do organizations maximize the value they garner from investments in IT-enabled business solutions? • Focusing on SCM • What constitutes an SCM capability? • What other capabilities support SCM?

14. Complementarities • Ancillary investments that enhance expected benefits obtained from a focal investment • Investment-specific complements • Directly linked to the focal investment • Constitute a business capability when packaged together • Investment-related complements • Other business capabilities that amplify benefits of capability being constituted by focal investment

15. Constituting the Focal Capability:Investment-specific Complements Focal Technology Training IT-Enabled Business Capability Decision Structures Internal Work-Related Relationships External Work-Related Relationships

16. Leveraging Associated Capabilities:Investment-related Complements Synergistic Capabilities IT Management Capabilities IT-Enabled Business Capability Firm Performance Foundational Capabilities

17. Hypothesizing a Payoff from the SCM Capability Focal Technology CRM Capability IT Management Capabilities Training IT-Enabled SCM Capability Firm Performance Decentralized Decision Structures Internal SCM-Related Relationships Manufacturing Capabilities Supplier Relationships

18. Investigating the SCM Payoff • Focus on 111 firms that invested in SCM from 1995-2003 • In 3 types of industries • Transformational: Pharmaceutical • Informational: Food and drug retail, packaged food • Automational: Fertilizer and agriculture, agricultural products, diversified chemicals, household products • Through • Print media on SCM and related investments: annual reports, press releases, articles in business/industry newspapers/periodicals • COMPUSTAT: inventory turns, net cash flow, gross profits, EBITDA

19. Effects of SCM Capability Components Training Decentralized Decision Structures • Net Cash Flow • Gross Profit • EBITDA Internal SCM-Related Relationships Supplier Relationships

20. Effects of Related Capabilities CRM Capability IT Management Capabilities • Net Cash Flow • Gross Profit • EBITDA Manufacturing Capability

21. Management Implications(To Get More Bang from Your Buck) • Recognize and invest richly in investment-specific complementarities • Employee training • Decision structures • Internal work-related relationships • Recognize and invest richly in synergistic capabilities • Invest richly in IT management capabilities

22. Questions/Comments?