Understanding colocation requirements and refining expectations about computer network use: a field study of engineering design environments

Expectations about the consequences of information technology frequently assume that computer networks will reduce the need for colocation. However, we do not clearly understand when these networks support collaboration among individuals who work in places geographically far apart and when they do not. This exploratory research seeks to understand work-process colocation requirements in engineering design environments. Among the important colocation requirements identified in the analysis conducted thus far are the inability to parse design tasks and design complexity defined as the number of variables or the interaction among variables that must be considered in the design process. Insights gained from this study may inform research focusing on business, medical, or other research settings. 1. RESEARCH OBJECTIVES An assumption frequently made by both researchers who describe the strategic use of information technology and the emergence of virtual organizations (Davenport 1993; Lucas 1996; Scott Morton 1991) and technical developers who build software tools is that computer networks will reduce the need for colocation. Computer networks provide easy information exchange from one location to another and allow individuals to collaborate on work-related projects. However, we do not clearly understand when these networks support collaboration among individuals who work in places geographically far apart and when they do not (Kraut 1987). This research seeks to answer the question, “What are the characteristics of work processes that require individuals to be colocated regardless of computer network connectivity; that is, access to a network or network bandwidth?” This exploratory research focuses on the colocation requirements of engineers who design complex products (e.g., semiconductors and automobiles). The sheer volume and complexity of information exchanged in engineering environments makes them rich and interesting settings for investigations of computer network use. This research will be useful for software developers by providing a framework for understanding how engineering design processes may constrain the use of collaborative tools for individuals working across geographic distances. It will also contribute to the literature on emerging organizational forms by refining expectations about whether computer networks can be used to Understanding Colocation Requirements and Refining Expectations 485 support organizational forms intended to facilitate collaboration, across distances, among individuals involved in certain work processes, namely engineers working on the design of complex products. 2. THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS Colocation can be defined as the need to have co-workers in close proximity to complete a series of tasks involved in a work process, such as product design. Location requirements can be understood to fall along a continuum. At one end co-workers are in close proximity (e.g., in the same room) and at the other end co-workers are geographically distant (e.g., in a different country). In between are a range of other possibilities, such as co-workers in different rooms on the same floor, different floors but same building, different buildings but same site, different site but same city, and so on. This research focuses on work requirements that make in necessary for codesigners to be located in the same room or building or site. Colocation means that the work process primarily requires face-to-face interaction and this requirement may vary by stages in the work process. Other media are not satisfactory or useful substitutes and thus cannot support interactions that might be conducted across great distances. Interestingly, media use research has not addressed the issue of variance of use across multistage work processes. Nevertheless, in product development, colocation may be important at earlier stages rather than at latter stages. Ancona and Caldwell (1990) have noted the importance of viewing product development as a multistage process and reported that new product teams progress from a creation phase to a development phase and finally a diffusion and ending phase. Adler (1995) has also studied different stages of the product development cycle and found that different coordination mechanisms are useful at different stages, which he identified as preproject, design (conceptual design and detail design), and manufacturing (pilot production and mature production). Colocation may also vary by the interdependence among individuals whose combined contributions constitute a common work process. Thompson’s (1967) set of three types of interdependence describe interactions among organizational units, but they could also describe the interactions among individuals working within a single (or multiple) organizational unit(s). The types are well known, but bear repeating to emphasize their hierarchical nature. Pooled interdependence exists when even though one unit may not interact with another; each unit makes a contribution to the whole. Sequential interdependence exists when the order of the contribution can be specified (i.e., a second unit cannot act until the contribution from the first unit is received). There is a pooled aspect to sequential interdependence, but the primary characteristic is the serial nature of the interactions between units. Reciprocal independence exists when each unit possesses a contingency for another; the outputs of each become the inputs for the others. While there are both pooled and sequential aspects to this type of interdependence, the primary characteristic here is reciprocity. Van de Ven, Delbecq and Koenig (1976) added a fourth type characterized by the simultaneity of multilateral interactions, such as the kind involved in therapy sessions or sports teams playing games. The fourth type is also hierarchical and adds the dimension of simultaneity. While these constructs have been criticized because they do not provide a way to measure degrees of interdependence (Victor and Blackburn 1987), they are useful for this exploratory investigation of colocation. The interdependence among engineers designing complex products is reciprocal; however, depending upon the work process, they could also be characterized by simultaneous multilateral interactions. Since current network technology allows such interactions, this fourth type of interdependence need not require colocation. Thompson does not address the issue of colocation directly. However, he does observe that in the case of reciprocal interdependence, coordination is achieved by mutual adjustment. And, to minimize coordination costs, “organizations seek to place reciprocally interdependent positions tangent to one another, in a common group which is (a) local and (b) conditionally autonomous” (Thompson 1978, p. 58). Greater mutual adjustments require more elaborate coordination mechanisms involving face-to-face interactions (Galbraith 1973), which require colocation. However, not all design engineers appear to colocate. Kraut and Streeter (1995) found that among software engineers, the relationship between the use and value of electronic communication was greater than for other types of coordination techniques investigated, one of which was colocation. Recently Carmel (1999) described the success of 24-hour software development groups who work around the globe. On the other hand, mechanical engineers have had some difficulty in using computer networks and the Internet to support codesigners that are geographically far apart (Cutkowsky, Tenenbaum, and Glicksman 1996). An