Explaining Sophistication in Collaborative Technology Use: A Context—Technology Fit Perspective

Organizations are increasingly attempting to leverage their IT infrastructures and gain better benefits from them. Collaborative technology is one such IT-based infrastructural application which enables organizations to increase operational efficiencies and effectiveness of organizational decision making. It is important to identify potential challenges and barriers to collaborative technology adoption and use and therefore create means and mechanisms for anticipating challenges, facing them and removing barriers. Motivated by differences in extent of use of collaborative technology by groups in organizations, this paper uses exploratory cases to analyse IT-supported collaborative decision task situations to understand the factors influencing sophistication of use of collaborative technology. Preliminary qualitative analysis suggests that level of sophistication is fit between three constructs including users’ drive to use technology, the need for technology support and the group’s cultural orientation towards collaboration. Potential group contexts are discussed using the cases as samples. Further development of an integrative framework to understand use of collaborative technology is essential for suggesting more precise and fundamental prescriptive mechanisms.

[1]  James D. Thompson.  Organizations in Action , 1967 .

[2]  Jay R. Galbraith.  Designing Complex Organizations , 1973 .

[3]  Henry Mintzberg.  The Manager's Job: Folklore and Fact. , 1975 .

[4]  J. McGrath.  Groups: Interaction and Performance , 1984 .

[5]  R. Yin.  Case Study Research: Design and Methods , 1984 .

[6]  R. Wood.  Task complexity: Definition of the construct , 1986 .

[7]  Richard L. Daft,et al.  Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design , 1986 .

[8]  Gerardine DeSanctis,et al.  A foundation for the study of group decision support systems , 1987 .

[9]  M. Lynne Markus,et al.  Toward a “Critical Mass” Theory of Interactive Media , 1987 .

[10]  D. Campbell.  Task Complexity: A Review and Analysis , 1988 .

[11]  K. Eisenhardt.  Building theories from case study research , 1989, STUDI ORGANIZZATIVI.

[12]  Janet Fulk,et al.  Organizations and Communication Technology , 1990 .

[13]  A. Strauss,et al.  Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. , 1993 .

[14]  A. Pinsonneault,et al.  The effects of electronic meetings on group processes and outcomes: An assessment of the empirical research , 1990 .

[15]  Lynda M. Applegate,et al.  Technology support for cooperative work: A framework for studying introduction and assimilation in organizations , 1991 .

[16]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  Electronic meeting systems , 1991, CACM.

[17]  A. Strauss,et al.  Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. , 1992 .

[18]  Wanda J. Orlikowski,et al.  Learning from Notes: organizational issues in groupware implementation , 1992, CSCW '92.

[19]  James T. C. Teng,et al.  Group Decision Support Systems: Clarifying The Concept And Establishing A Functional Taxonomy , 1993 .

[20]  N. Denzin,et al.  Handbook of Qualitative Research , 1994 .

[21]  Gerardine DeSanctis,et al.  Capturing the Complexity in Advanced Technology Use: Adaptive Structuration Theory , 1994 .

[22]  James L. McKenney,et al.  Social Context and Interaction in Ongoing Computer-Supported Management Groups , 1995 .

[23]  J. Morse.  Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed): Mathew B. Miles and A. Michael Huberman. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1994. Price: $65.00 hardback, $32.00 paperback. 238 pp , 1996 .

[24]  Michael J. Ginzberg,et al.  Lotus Notes and collaboration: le plus c/spl cedil/a change , 1996, Proceedings of HICSS-29: 29th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[25]  Michael J. Ginzberg,et al.  Lotus Notes and Collaboration: Plus ça change , 1996, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[26]  Michael D. Myers,et al.  Qualitative Research in Information Systems , 1997, MIS Q..

[27]  John T. Nosek,et al.  The case for collaborative programming , 1998, CACM.

[28]  Ilze Zigurs,et al.  A Theory of Task/Technology Fit and Group Support Systems Effectiveness , 1998, MIS Q..

[29]  M. Feldman,et al.  Electronic Mail and Organizational Communication: Does Saying Hi Really Matter? , 1998 .

[30]  David C. Yen,et al.  Groupware: a strategic analysis and implementation , 1999 .

[31]  John R. Carlson,et al.  Channel Expansion Theory and the Experiential Nature of Media Richness Perceptions , 1999 .

[32]  H. Bernard,et al.  Data Management and Analysis Methods , 2000 .

[33]  N. Denzin,et al.  The discipline and practice of qualitative research [Introduction]. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed. , 2000 .

[34]  Robert Klepper,et al.  Assimilating New Technologies: The Role of Organizational Culture , 2000, Inf. Syst. Manag..

[35]  M. Maznevski,et al.  Bridging Space Over Time: Global Virtual Team Dynamics and Effectiveness , 2000 .

[36]  H. Bussell.  Qualitative Methods and Analysis in Organizational Research: A Practical Guide , 2000 .

[37]  Gloria Mark,et al.  Diffusion of a collaborative technology cross distance , 2001, GROUP.

[38]  Sajda Qureshi,et al.  Adaptiveness in Virtual Teams: Organisational Challenges and Research Directions , 2001 .

[39]  Chris W. Clegg,et al.  Explaining intranet use with the technology acceptance model , 2001, J. Inf. Technol..

[40]  Subhasish Dasgupta,et al.  User Acceptance of E-Collaboration Technology: An Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model , 2002 .

[41]  S. Taggar.  Individual Creativity and Group Ability to Utilize Individual Creative Resources: A Multilevel Model , 2002 .

[42]  Phil Turner,et al.  End-User Perspectives on the Uptake of Computer Supported Cooperative Working , 2002, J. Organ. End User Comput..

[43]  Nahid Golafshani,et al.  Understanding Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research , 2003 .

[44]  John Lim,et al.  A conceptual framework on the adoption of negotiation support systems , 2003, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[45]  Blake Ives,et al.  Virtual teams: a review of current literature and directions for future research , 2004, DATB.

[46]  Cynthia LeRouge,et al.  A Causal Model for Using Collaborative Technologies to Facilitate Student Team Projects , 2004, J. Comput. Inf. Syst..

[47]  Geoffrey S. Hubona,et al.  Individual differences and usage behavior: revisiting a technology acceptance model assumption , 2005, DATB.

[48]  R. Jarman,et al.  When Success Isn’t Everything – Case Studies of Two Virtual Teams , 2005 .

[49]  Joseph S. Valacich,et al.  Technology Adoption by Groups: A Valence Perspective , 2005, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[50]  Sanjiv D. Vaidya,et al.  Collaborative Technology Use in Organizations: A Typology , 2005, AMCIS.

[51]  B. van den Hooff,et al.  Situational Influences on the Use of Communication Technologies , 2005 .

[52]  N. Denzin,et al.  The Discipline and Practice of Qualitative Research , 2005 .

[53]  Alan R. Dennis,et al.  Media, Tasks, and Communication Processes: A Theory of Media Synchronicity , 2008, MIS Q..

[54]  Bjørn Erik Munkvold,et al.  The wheel of collaboration tools: a typology for analysis within a holistic framework , 2006, CSCW '06.

[55]  France Bélanger,et al.  Virtual Teams and Multiple Media: Structuring Media Use to Attain Strategic Goals , 2006 .

[56]  Deepinder S. Bajwa,et al.  A Cross-Regional Exploration of Barriers to the Adoption and Use of Electronic Meeting Systems , 2007 .

[57]  Sucheta Nadkarni,et al.  A Task-Based Model of Perceived Website Complexity , 2007, MIS Q..

[58]  France Bélanger,et al.  Communication Media Repertoires: Dealing with the Multiplicity of Media Choices , 2007, MIS Q..

[59]  Fadi P. Deek,et al.  Collaborative Problem Solving and Groupware for Software Development , 2003, IEEE Engineering Management Review.

[60]  Deepak Khazanchi,et al.  From Profiles to Patterns: A New View of Task-Technology Fit , 2008, Inf. Syst. Manag..