In one of the web-design classes I've taken here at Cornell, our group final project was to build a website for a client. My group included myself and two others. To evaluate our success as a group, I can apply the Input-Output-Process model as outlined in "Applying Social Psychological Theory to the Problems of Group Work" by Kraut. According to the model, the input consists of us three members, our skill sets and attitudes, the task, and any tools we used. Our task was to find a client and build a website that met the course's standards and the client's needs. Two of the members, including myself, were both InfoSci majors. The third member was an alumni who was taking the course out of interest. Because of my artistic background, I naturally took on the role of designer. It was my responsibility to create the layout and style of the web pages, using tools like CSS and Photoshop. The other two members worked on the framework XHTML and PHP code. Perhaps due to his older age and because our client was his landlord, the alumni took on a role as leader.
In our process, our group used e-mails to coordinate meeting times and communicate. Interestingly, I found FtF interaction more efficient for generative tasks such as discussing ideas and planning, but working alone more efficient for the problem-solving task of the actual site work. The higher cooperation and coordination of FtF was needed to clearly delegate work, but were not as necessary in our individual tasks. Because we all felt similarly about how often to meet, the interaction process ran smoothly. Had the other members demanded that we discuss every detail, tension may have arose from conflicting work styles. Thus, it became a group norm to entrust each other with a level of autonomy, as we each had our own module to contribute. Though this fueled group maintenance and satisfaction, it could have affected our final product. There were some flaws in our site that would have been fixed had we been more cohesive a group and open with one another. Perhaps our website could have been more stunning had we met more and gave more aggressive feedback, but it had become a norm to offer mostly positive feedback out of politeness (or the sake of group maintenance?).
Personally, I found it easier to give criticism and nag others via e-mail, whereas in FtF interaction, it was much easier to agree and cooperate, as the lack of social cues in online interaction would predict.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Was the project for Info 130? We had a group of 3 as well and did 90% of our work in ftf. We also found it a lot easier to plan and design while we were together as the turnaround for feedback was quicker. We ended up designing a website for Shadows Dance Troupe and I also had the role of designer for the project. Do you think video conferencing could have been a reliable and affective alternative to meeting ftf?
ReplyDeleteWhenever I have worked in a group like this, one thing has remained common. While the roles were clearly defined from the beginning, and the work was split up depending on certain skills, there were always long, arduous Ftf sessions before the due date of each project. It may be easier to criticize in emails, but in keeping distance from each other like that, you can often lose site of the fact that this is a collaborative project and not a specialized assignment (simply for yourself). Combining elements at the end is always the hardest.
ReplyDeleteDid you find that the diversity in your group, the difference in age and school, was beneficial or detrimental for your group? you said he took on the role as a leader- was this embraced by the other group members? Were there any issues you faced that you can attribute to this diversity?
ReplyDelete