A comparison of face-to-face and virtual software development teams Hayward P. Andres

General Hypothesis Social presence and media richness associated with a communication medium used to support geographically dispersed software development teams, will have a significant impact on team productivity, perceived interaction quality, and group satisfaction. Face-to-Face (FtF) Videoconferencing (VC) Communication Mediums

Hypotheses H1. Team productivity: FtF > VC H2. Perceived interaction quality: FtF > VC H3. Group process satisfaction: FtF > VC

Communication Medium Face-to-face videoconferencing Group Process Info exchange Clarification of efforts Negotiation Participation Software Project Success Task Outcomes Team Productivity Psychosocial Outcomes Interaction Quality Process Satisfaction Andres’ Theoretical Framework

Communication Medium Videoconference Face to Face Media RichnessSocial Presence Social Context & Backchannel Cues Effective turn-taking, smooth info exchange, clarification of task assignments/efforts, immediate feedback Rich Communication Better able to facilitate highly interpersonal task execution activities  Better team coordination, optimal productivity  Increased satisfaction w/ interactions & process satisfaction Dependent Measures Task Outcome  Completeness of Design Documentation  Completeness of file design  Specification of function prototypes  Pseudocode for each function Psychosocial Outcomes  Interaction Quality  Survey  Negative opinions made by and received by individuals  Degree of frustration with other individuals  Process Satisfaction  Survey  Fairness  Understandability  Satisfaction associated w/ method in which task execution was conducted  Role ambiguity reduction, team consensus, negotiation of a final alternative Uncertainty Reduction Equivocality Reduction Socio-Emotional Communication

Conclusions H1. Team productivity: FtF > VC H2. Perceived interaction quality: FtF > VC H3. Group process satisfaction: FtF > VC