Meeting scheduling: Face-to-face, automatic scheduler, and email based coordination
We conducted laboratory experiments based on small groups (4 to 5 participants) to compare the performance of 4 different mechanisms of meeting scheduling: (a) face-to-face coordination wherein individuals negotiate in person and arrive at a consensus on the timing of the meeting, (b) email as the sole communication medium with no structured support, (c) the calendar-based scheduling mechanism using email, and (d) an automated scheduler. Participants of the experiment were drawn from a university in Hong Kong. The experiment was implemented based on the real task of meeting scheduling among project groups that had to meet several times during a 3-month period to work on their project (regardless of this experiment). Postexperimental surveys were used to assess satisfaction with agreed meeting time and perceived efficiency in coordination. The frequency of scheduling conflicts also was measured. Data analysis indicates that even with higher scheduling conflicts among the group members, participants in general showed more satisfaction with the meeting time reached during the face-to-face meeting and also concurred on the efficiency of face-to-face coordination. Overall, they preferred communication-oriented approaches such as face-to-face coordination over decision-oriented ones such as the automated scheduler. We discuss the result of data analysis from the perspective of cultural implications on meeting scheduling and on virtual process management.
meeting scheduling scheduler group coordination cultural study