Firms that are trying to stay competitive in the current business environment often require the use of groups. The popularity of group work is tied to the promise of improved productivity via the pooling of information, knowledge, and skills. In recent years, group work has been expanded to virtual or distributed environments. However, there are questions about how aspects of group work-specifically group size and social presence-impact group members' ability to voice opinions. This study examines groups of two sizes in three distinct social presence settings: face-to-face, face-to-face using collaborative software, and virtual using collaborative software. This study finds that both group size and social presence affect individual instrumental voice, value-expressive voice, and the group interaction process. The results show that by increasing social presence through the use of collaborative software, it is possible to lessen the negative impact of increasing group size. These results should be of interest to the increasing number of organizations that are implementing virtual group environments.

Asynchronous-distributed (AD) collaborative writing (CW) is an important form of the growing trend of distributed work. However, AD CW typically results in multiple process losses. We argue that using advanced writing technologies designed for AD work alone is not sufficient by itself to overcome these losses. Instead, adopting high levels of process structure delivered in the form of explicitly written procedural scripts can improve the results of AD CW groups. We performed an experiment with over 500 participants working in groups supported by advanced CW technologies that were designed for AD work. Participants were given six weeks to conduct their work. We found that high levels of process structure in novice AD CW groups that worked on a moderately complex task created significantly better outcomes than did groups using low levels of process structure. Groups with high levels of process structure had better results in terms of production, document quality, satisfaction, relationships, and communication. In no case did low-structure groups outperform high-structure groups. This research supports our hypothesis that increased process structure delivered in the form of a repeatable process script can decrease process losses and increase process gains in novice AD CW groups. We conclude that it is not sufficient to give novice AD writing groups CW technology and time to conduct their tasks; these groups also need appropriate procedural support, which can be provided effectively through written scripts.

This paper summarizes three field experiments involving distributed collaborative writing in traditional educational settings creating a hybrid form of distributed education. One finding shows that specialized collaborative tools allowed for parallel work, group awareness, and coordination, providing substantial advantages over traditional word processors in distributed collaborative writing. However, it was also found that advanced collaborative writing tools alone did not provide optimal results in distributed collaborative writing groups; such groups also needed high levels of process structure, which can be delivered through carefully constructed scripts. Moreover, it was found that introducing face-to-face meetings in distributed collaborative writing work did not necessarily provide advantages over work that was performed in all-distributed settings. Given these findings, this paper concludes by discussing the contributions, implications, limitations, and future research possibilities for hybrid distributed education are discussed.

The paper argues for using specialized collaborative writing (CW) tools to improve the results of distributed, Internet-based writing teams. The key features of collaborative tools that support enhanced coordination and group awareness are compared to existing writing tools. The first Internet-based CW tool, Collaboratus, is introduced, and its group features are compared with those of Microsoft Word. Next, theoretical propositions, hypotheses, and constructs are formulated to predict outcomes of distributed groups that use CW tools. A four-week-long synchronous-distributed experiment then compares the outcomes of Collaboratus and Word groups. Innovative measures show that Collaboratus groups generally experience better outcomes than Word groups, in terms of productivity, document quality, relationships, and communication, but not in terms of satisfaction. The results buttress the conclusion that Internet-based CW teams can benefit from specialized collaborative technologies that provide enhanced coordination, group awareness, and CW activity support.