Editing Remote work (section)

==Key concepts==
There are several key terms associated with collocated work and distributed work. The most important concepts are common ground, coupling in work, collaboration readiness, and technology readiness. This section will briefly define these four concepts.

'''Common ground''' refers to the knowledge that participants have in common, and they are aware that they have this information in common. Common ground is not just established from some general knowledge about the person's background, but also through specific knowledge learned from several different cues that are available at the moment, including the person's appearance and behavior during conversational interactions. The figure below, shows the characteristics that contribute to achieving common ground that are inherent in various communication media.<ref name="Distributed Work">{{cite journal |url=https://www.ics.uci.edu/~corps/phaseii/OlsonOlson-DistanceMatters-HCIJ.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160322164159/https://www.ics.uci.edu/~corps/phaseii/OlsonOlson-DistanceMatters-HCIJ.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-date=2016-03-22 |title=Distributed Work |volume=15 |first1=Gary |last1=Olson |first2=Judith |last2=Olson |journal=Human Computer Interaction |year=2000 |location=University of Michigan|pages=139–178|doi=10.1207/S15327051HCI1523_4 }}</ref>{{rp|166}}

{| class="wikitable" align="center"
|-
!
! scope="col" style="background:#efefef;" | Copresence
! scope="col" style="background:#efefef;" | Visibility
! scope="col" style="background:#efefef;" | Audibility
! scope="col" style="background:#efefef;" | Contemporality
! scope="col" style="background:#efefef;" | Simultaneity
! scope="col" style="background:#efefef;" | Sequentiality
! scope="col" style="background:#efefef;" | Reviewability
! scope="col" style="background:#efefef;" | Revisability
|-
! scope="row" style="background:#efefef;" | Face to face
| align="center" | {{checkmark}}
| align="center" | {{checkmark}}
| align="center" | {{checkmark}}
| align="center" | {{checkmark}}
| align="center" | {{checkmark}}
| align="center" | {{checkmark}}
| align="center" | {{checkmark}}
|
|-
! scope="row" style="background:#efefef;" | Telephone
|
|
| align="center" | {{checkmark}}
| align="center" | {{checkmark}}
| align="center" | {{checkmark}}
| align="center" | {{checkmark}}
|
|
|-
! scope="row" style="background:#efefef;" | Video conference
|
| align="center" | {{checkmark}}
| align="center" | {{checkmark}}
| align="center" | {{checkmark}}
| align="center" | {{checkmark}}
| align="center" | {{checkmark}}
|
|
|-
! scope="row" style="background:#efefef;" | Two-way chat
|
|
|
| align="center" | {{checkmark}}
| align="center" | {{checkmark}}
| align="center" | {{checkmark}}
|
|
|-
! scope="row" style="background:#efefef;" | Answering machine
|
|
| align="center" | {{checkmark}}
|
|
|
| align="center" | {{checkmark}}
|
|-
! scope="row" style="background:#efefef;" | Email
|
|
|
|
|
|
| align="center" | {{checkmark}}
| align="center" | {{checkmark}}
|-
! scope="row" style="background:#efefef;" | Letter
|
|
|
|
|
|
| align="center" | {{checkmark}}
| align="center" | {{checkmark}}
|-
|}

It is important to note that those who are remote complain about the difficulty of establishing common ground. This is because when individuals are connected by audio conferencing, it is difficult to tell who is speaking if you do not know the participant well. However, people with video can engage in the subtle negotiation that establishes local common ground- whether what was said was understood or not, whether the conversation can proceed or needs repair. Overall, the more common ground people can establish, the easier the [[communication]] will be and the greater the [[productivity]].

'''Coupling''' refers to the extent and kind of communication required by the work. Tightly coupled work is work that strongly depends on the talents of collections of workers and is non-routine, and even ambiguous. Components of this type of work are highly interdependent, meaning that the work requires frequent, complex communication among group members, with short feedback loops and multiple streams of information. This type of communication is very difficult in remote locations, mostly because technology does not support rapid back and forth conversations or awareness and repair of ambiguity. On the other hand, loosely coupled work has fewer dependencies or is more routine. It is important that all group members establish common ground about the task, goals, and procedures before working, but this type of work overall requires less frequent or less complicated interactions.

'''Collaboration readiness''' is a groups willingness to work together and share their ideas. Using shared technology assumes that the coworkers need to share information and are rewarded for sharing it. It is important to note that one should not attempt to introduce groupware and remote technologies in organizations and communities that do not have a culture of sharing and collaboration.

Common ground is often used in collaboration, where a team is out to solve a complex problem. In order to solve a complex problem, the different skills and perspectives of members in a team must be pooled together. To do so, the team must make sure that they are on common ground in terms of knowledge and representation of the problem. Care must be taken to note that to achieve common ground when collaborating, differences are constructively managed, rather than downplayed. This is because collaboration differs from compromise.<ref name="Kramer, Robert">Kramer, Robert. "Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multiparty Problems." Academy of Management Review 15.3 (1990): 545-47. Web.</ref>

'''Technology readiness''' is a company or groups willingness and ability to use technology. Companies require a technical infrastructure if they are going to adopt technologies in the company. In particular, they require the habits, including those of preparation, regular access, attention given to others’ need for information, in order to effectively use the necessary technology for distributed work. Researchers repeatedly see that failure of distributed work often results from attempts to introduce new technologies to organizations or communities that are not yet comfortable with technologies that are already in place. The following chart explains the order in which various collaboration technologies should be adopted in organizations to allow the employees to become familiar with and learn each new technology.<ref name="Distributed Work"/>

The list below shows the observed order in which various collaboration technologies were adopted and used in different organizations.
* Telephone
* Fax
* E-mail
* Audio conferencing
* Voicemail
* E-mail with attachments
* Video conferencing
* Repositories built by others (e.g., intranet sites of static information)
* Shared calendaring
* Creating repositories
* Hand-off collaboration (e.g., using the Tracking Changes option in MS Word)
* Simultaneous collaboration (e.g., NetMeeting, Exceed, or Timbuktu screen sharing)<ref name="Distributed Work"/>{{rp|166}}

As this chart shows, advanced technologies should be introduced in small steps.

These key concepts are important because they help differentiate between collocated and distributed work. Later on, a fifth concept of organizational management was proposed. Organizational management is the "practices by which management activities are part of shaping the fundamental premises for collaboration without proximity"<ref>{{cite journal |title=Does Distance Still Matter |year=2014 |journal=Human Computer Interaction|location=IT University of Copenhagen|url=http://orgcom17.hciresearch.org/sites/kraut.hciresearch.org/files/protected/Bjorn14-DoesDistanceStillMatter.pdf |last1=Bjørn |first1=Pernille |first2=Morten |last2=Esbensen|first3=Rasmus Eskild |last3=Jensen |first4=Stina |last4=Matthiesen|doi=10.1145/2670534 }}</ref>

===Distributed versus collocated teams===
There are two types of work that explain the geographical distance between coworkers/collaborators. '''Collocated work''' is the case in which team members are at the same location. '''Distributed work''' is the term used to explain team members who are not in the same physical location when working on a project. There are many differences, similarities, benefits, and obstacles between these two types of work. In order to distinguish between collocated and distributed work, it is necessary to go into more detail.

Collocated work is the case in which the team members are at the same physical location. This may be temporary due to travel to a common location or permanent because all collaborators of the group are at the common work site. Same location means that the coworkers can get to each other's workspaces with a short walk and communicate via face-to-face interactions. Also, during meetings or small group meetings, a major advantage of collocated work is that individuals are able to move from one meeting to another, simply by overhearing a conversation, seeing what someone is working on, and being aware of how long they had worked on it with or without progress. In addition, during these meetings, coworkers can observe someone's reaction by being able to see his/her gesture or glance. This allows for one to make sure that the group has common ground prior to moving on. Also, coworkers have access to common spaces for group interactions and have mutual access to significant shared information. In a study, researchers observed an individual describe something by drawing with his hands in the air. Later, someone referred to “that idea” by pointing to the spot in the air where the first person had "drawn his idea".

Opposite of collocated work, distributed work is the case in which team members are not physically in the same location. Thus, they are forced to use different methods of technology to communicate to make progress on the project/problem they are working on. Today, the technology distributed work groups use to communicate is constantly changing because of rapid changes and because different groups have varying access to technology. {{harvp|Olson|Olson|2000}} describe the options of communication today which include:
* Telephony in its current incarnation
* Meeting room video conferencing
* Desktop video and audio conferencing
* Chat rooms for text interactions
* File transfer
* Application sharing
* Some very primitive virtual reality options

Distributed work can be very successful, if the company or group displays technology readiness. Some of the benefits of distributed work include:
* Simultaneous access to real-time data from instruments around the world, allowing coworkers to talk while something is happening
* Cost reduction – both for the employee and the employer. While the company experience sales costs on supplies, office space rental, etc., the remote worker has the same benefit on reducing their own cost on things like meals, fuel and car maintenance.
* [[Microsoft NetMeeting]] has been a success. People who had previously driven long distances to attend a meeting in their area began attending from their offices. These individuals chose to forego the time and stress of travel in favor of remote participation
* Ongoing work – 1,000 software engineers working on the project in four sites. Has allowed numerous people at various different sites to stay in contact over email video and audio conferencing, transferred files and fax. If everyone understands the structure of the collaborative work and knows his or her role, distributed work can be a success.

Distributed work is far from perfect and there are many failures, some of which include:
* Complaints about the quality of communication over audio and video conferencing
* Hard to detect a person's motivation when you are not in the office. For example, if someone had a tough meeting you do not know this and therefore will not know that it is not the right time to send a lengthy, stern email. One important feature of collocation that is missing in remote work is awareness of the state of one's coworkers, both their presence-absence and their mental state.

Overall, people who have little common ground benefit significantly from having a video channel.<ref name="Distributed Work"/>

===Communication technology===
Effective group communication involves various [[nonverbal communication]] characteristics. Because distance limits interpersonal interaction between members of distributed groups, these characteristics often become constrained. Communication media focuses on alternative ways to achieve these qualities and promote effective [[communication]]. This section addresses communication technology in relation to the theories of grounding and mutual knowledge and discusses the costs and benefits of various communication technology tools.

====Grounding and technology====

[[Grounding in communication]] is the process of updating the evolving common ground, or shared information, between participants. The base of mutual knowledge is important for effective coordination and communication.<ref name=":0a" /> Additionally, participants constantly gather various forms of verbal and nonverbal evidence to establish understanding of change and task.

The following are means of grounding and collecting evidence:

{| class=wikitable
|-
! scope="col" | Quality
! scope="col" | Description
|-
! align="center" | Co-presence
|When sharing the same physical environment, participants are able to easily and hear what the other is doing and looking at.
|-
! align="center" | Visibility
|The participants are able to see each other and are able to pick up non-verbal facial cues and body language.
|-
! align="center" | Audibility
|When the participants are able to communicate by speaking, they are able to pick up voice intonation and utterance timing.
|-
! align="center" | Cotemporality
| Efficiency is promoted when an utterance is produced just about when it is received and understood, without delay.
|-
! align="center" | Simultaneity
|Messages can be simultaneously conveyed and received by both participants.
|-
! align="center" | Sequentiality
|The participants speak only with each other without intervening turns from conversations with other people.
|-
! align="center" | Reviewability
|Participants are able to return to a physical form of the exchange at a later time.
|-
! align="center" | Revisability
|Participants are able to privately revise their statements before sending their message.
|}

Different forms of [[communication]] result in the varied presence of these communication characteristics. Therefore, the nature of communication technology can either promote or inhibit grounding between participants. The absence of grounding information results in reduced ability to read and understand social cues. This increases the social distance between them.<ref name=":0a">{{cite book|last1=Herbert|first1=Clark |title=Grounding in Communication |year=1991 |publisher=L.B. Resnick, R.M. Levine, & S.D. Teasley |location=Washington, DC |pages=127–149 |last2=Brennan |first2=Susan}}</ref>

====Costs to grounding change====

The lack of one of these characteristics generally forces participants to use alternative grounding techniques, because the costs associated with grounding change. There is often a trade-off between the costs: one cost will increase as another decreases. There is also often a correlation between the costs. The following table highlights several of the costs that can change as the medium of communication changes.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Gergle |first1=D. |last2=Kraut |first2=R. E. |last3=Fussell |first3=S. R. |title=Using Visual Information for grounding and awareness in collaborative tasks; in press |journal=Human Computer Interaction}}</ref>

{| class=wikitable
|-
! scope="col" | Cost
! scope="col" | Description
! scope="col" | Paid By
|-
! align="center" | Formulation
|Time and effort increase as utterances are created and revised and as utterances become more complicated.
|Speaker
|-
! align="center" | Production
|Effort invested in producing a message varies depending on the medium of communication.
|Speaker
|-
! align="center" | Reception
|Listening is generally easier than reading.
|Addressee
|-
! align="center" | Understanding
|Costs are higher the more often that the addressee has to formulate the appropriate context of the conversation.
|Addressee
|-
! align="center" | Start-up
|The cost of starting up a new discourse. Attention needs to be commanded, the message formulated, and the message needs to be received.
|Both
|-
! align="center" | Delay
|The cost of delaying an utterance in order to more carefully plan, revise and execute the communication.
|Both
|-
! align="center" | Asynchrony
|The cost associated with the work required to cue one participant to stop and another to start.
|Both
|-
! align="center" | Speaker change
|The cost associated with the work required to cue one participant to stop and another to start.
|Both
|-
! align="center" | Display
|The cost associated with displaying non-verbal cues.
|Both
|-
! align="center" | Fault
|The cost associated with producing a mistaken message.
|Both
|-
! align="center" | Repair
|The cost to repair the message and send the correct one.
|Both
|}

====Examples of communication technology====

; Structured Management (Hinds & Kiesler)
It has been argued that work can be adapted to individual situations through task decomposition and version control. This can be applied to distributed groups by allowing groups to divide the work into manageable chunks. Group members can work autonomously and come together to produce a finished product. Many recent software developments have been built to specifically address this method.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Hinds |first1=Pamela |last2=Kiesler|first2=Sara |title=Distributed Work |year=2002 |publisher=MIT Press |location=Cambridge, Mass. |pages=57–73}}</ref>

; Email
Email prevents the communication of verbal inferences, such as sarcasm and humor and, additionally, leaves email writers unaware of what their communication is lacking. When people try to anticipate the perspective of their email audience, studies suggest that they end up pulling upon their own experience and perspective instead. This often leads to inconsistencies in email conversation and chaotic communication.<ref>{{cite journal |title=Egocentrism over e-mail: Can we communicate as well as we think? |year=2005 |journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology |pages=925–936 |last1=Kruger |first1=J. |last2=Epley |first2=N. |last3=Parker |first3=J. |last4=Ng |first4=Z. W.|volume=89 |issue=6 |doi=10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.925 |pmid=16393025 }}</ref>