On theory-driven design and deployment of collaboration systems

Early efforts to design and deploy collaboration systems were more art than science, but they produced some solid successes. Commercial groupware products now support millions of collaborations per year. Under certain circumstances teams that use group support systems perform far better than groups that do not. However, as impressive as the achievements are in this field, we can do better. A rigorous theoretical approach to the design of collaboration technology and process can lead us to non-intuitive design choices that produce successes beyond those possible with an intuitive, seat-of-the-pants approach. This paper explains the simple structure of a rigorous scientific theory and offers examples of theory-driven design choices that produced substantial benefits. It then differentiates rigorous theory from several classes of theory that have intuitive appeal, but cannot inform design choices. It concludes that the logic of the theory-driven design approach suggests that the most useful focus for collaboration technology researchers would be the technology-supported work-process, rather than just the technology.

[1]  N. Kerr,et al.  Ringelmann Revisited , 1981 .

[2]  J. Valacich,et al.  Effects of anonymity and evaluative tone on idea generation in computer-mediated groups , 1990 .

[3]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  An Examination of the Impact of Stimuli Type and GSS Structure on Creativity: Brainstorming Versus Non-Brainstorming Techniques in a GSS Environment , 2002, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[4]  Starr Roxanne Hiltz,et al.  Group Support Systems: A Descriptive Evaluation of Case and Field Studies , 2000, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[5]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  Flaming in the Electronic Classroom , 1997, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[6]  N. Kerr,et al.  Dispensability of member effort and group motivation losses: Free-rider effects , 1983 .

[7]  Robert O. Briggs,et al.  The cognitive network model of creativity: a new causal model of creativity and a new brainstorming technique , 2000, Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[8]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  Collaboration Engineering with ThinkLets to Pursue Sustained Success with Group Support Systems , 2003, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[9]  Robert O. Briggs,et al.  A tale of two cities: case studies of GSS transition in two organizations , 2004, 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2004. Proceedings of the.

[10]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  A Technology Transition Model Derived from Field Investigation of GSS Use Aboard the U.S.S. CORONADO , 1998, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[11]  J. Valacich,et al.  Idea Generation in Computer-Based Groups: A New Ending to an Old Story , 1994 .

[12]  J. Valacich,et al.  Computer brainstorms: More heads are better than one. , 1993 .

[13]  J. Darley,et al.  Social Comparison Theory: Self-Evaluation and Group Life , 1987 .

[14]  M. Diehl,et al.  Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle. , 1987 .

[15]  Michael Diehl,et al.  Productivity loss in idea-generating groups: Tracking down the blocking effect. , 1991 .

[16]  Brad Quinn Post,et al.  Building the business case for group support technology , 1992, Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[17]  R. Gallupe,et al.  Unblocking brainstorms. , 1991, The Journal of applied psychology.

[18]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  ELECTRONIC BRAINSTORMING AND GROUP SIZE , 1992 .

[19]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models , 1989 .

[20]  B. Mullen,et al.  Theories of group behavior , 1987 .

[21]  S. Harkins,et al.  The Role of Evaluation in Eliminating Social Loafing , 1985 .

[22]  Starr Roxanne Hiltz,et al.  An Assessment of Group Support Systems Experimental Research: Methodology and Results , 1998, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..