elektronická verzia publikácie - FIIT STU - Slovenská technická ...

Personalized Collaboration 263
In computer-mediated setting, people communicate via e-mail, videoconferencing,
discussion boards, social networking software, etc. This has led to the notion of virtual
team, denoting any team whose members’ interactions are mediated by time, distance, and
technology (Driskell, 2003), i.e. that the team works together on a common task while
physically separated. The effects of computer-mediated communication technologies are
twofold. Positive effects include better access to and diffusion of information, and easier
connection with others, and negative effects as information overload, less face-to-face
communication, and increased isolation of individual members.
Earlier research showed that in a student group the differences in personal status are
reduced in virtual setting (Parks, 1999). In face-to-face discussions few dominant members
with higher status talk most of the time, and many group members limit their contributions
to supporting the main positions that emerge. In computer-mediated setting on the
other hand, social cues are reduced, and people communicate on the basis of their opinions
and knowledge rather than their social status. In some tasks this proves counterproductive,
and virtual groups perform poorly on decision-making and negotiation tasks where
a consensus on issues is required. Then again, due to more effective and focused communication
tasks such as brainstorming and problem-solving are better suited to virtual
groups (Hertel, 2005). In organizational setting however, members of a virtual team remain
aware of the status of others regardless of the technology used (Driskell, 2003).
Virtual groups also provide effective social support to people in need. Members of
self-help groups instead of leaving their homes and travelling to the meeting are brought
together by computer technology (Tate, 2004). When anonymous, members are not identifiable
and reveal more intimate details about their experiences and respond more emotionally
to others than in a face-to-face meeting. Members praise the quality and quantity
of information they receive; more factual and practical advice is exchanged while instances
of inappropriate behavior and hostile postings are rare (Houston, 2002).
Incentives & Reputation
Success of an interaction largely depends on the amount of effort invested and the reliability
of the parties involved. By participating in large communities the potential for possible
interactions is enormous, and before entering into relations with some unknown others we
need to verify their credibility.
For this purpose, reputation as an aggregated record of previous interactions is collected,
maintained and disseminated to others by the use of reputation systems. The history
of entity’s past interactions accounts for its ability and reliability, allowing others to make
informed choices about how and whether to work together with that entity. Furthermore,
the expectation that current performance will be made visible in the future discourages
cheating and exerting poor effort, and thus creates incentives to perform well and reliably.
Reputation systems process (1) objective feedback such as time spent solving
a particular task, agreed sale price, and (2) subjective feedback such as satisfaction ratings of
working with others. Reputation is computed by aggregating previous reports across users
and time, and often relies on transitivity of trust in that reports originating from more reputable
users are weighted more that those from users having a lower reputation.