Google’s Online Marketing Challenge Lavin, Marilyn
some students to drop the class. Before teams were formed, students were free to identify
classmates with whom they wished to work, and with whom they did not wish to work.
The instructor honored these requests, and also grouped those students, who did not
express a preference, into teams.
Of the total 29 teams, 14 were from an online graduate class, 6 were from an online
undergraduate class, and 9 were from face-to-face undergraduate class. Across the
classes, however, student satisfaction with team members was mixed, and this variation
occurred among graduate and undergraduate students and in both the online and offline
modes of course delivery. Among online graduate students, group members in 3 teams
submitted evaluations indicating that all members contributed equally to the project; the
members of 5 teams noted slight variations in team member effort; and 6 identified
members who were laggards. Among the in-class undergraduate students, team members
of only one group suggested that all members contributed equally; 6 noted marginal
variations in effort; and two reported free-riders. And among the online undergraduate
teams, 2 reported equal involvements of members, 2 indicated slight variation in
participation, and 2 named persons whose participation was unacceptably low.
All of the teams that Google identified as semi-finalists had teams whose members
contributed equal or almost equal effort. Three of the semi-finalist teams were in online
classes. In their Post Campaign Reports, members of those teams noted the importance
of good communication, and mentioned that they utilized email, teleconferencing, and
Google Docs to coordinate their efforts. They also reported keeping logs of changes they
made in their accounts, and assigning specific responsibilities to group members.
Though the members of these teams never met face-to-face, these high performers
worked to assure to they worked cohesively, and one reported that by scheduling e-
meetings that accommodated all members’ needs, they provided “consistency and a
relaxed environment since we all knew we could make the meeting.” The fourth semi-
finalist team was in a traditional classroom setting, but like their online counterparts, this
group reported problems working “around everyone’s school and work schedules.” To
overcome these issues, they did schedule one weekly meeting, and they used Google
Docs to write and edit their reports; even so, they also acknowledged “trouble getting all
members of the group on the same page about AdWords.”
Google gave five of the teams considered in this study its lowest rating of “needs
improvement.” One of these graduate groups acknowledged “communication within our
group was extremely poor,” and attributed this problem to lack of organization. Another
graduate team reported that it “encountered problems with life, work and class conflicts”
and that “communication was difficult,” while the third poor performing graduate team
noted “the hindrance that comes with being in separate physical locations.” The
undergraduate online team that performed poorly similarly complained that
communication was difficult without “an allotted class time for us to meet each week.”
Interestingly, however, the only offline undergraduate team whose work was rated “needs
improvement” also noted that “it was difficult to coordinate schedules and set aside times
each week when everyone was available.”