The Effects of Collaborative Technology Appropriation on Group Outcomes

Groups are increasingly utilizing collaborative technologies to facilitate distributed work processes. While these groups are assembled based upon the task knowledge possessed by their members, collaborative technology adoption decisions are often made at an organizational level, where the members’ knowledge of the technology is necessarily discounted. However, in this paper we argue that a group’s knowledge of collaborative technology will impact the manner in which the technology is appropriated. Further, the manner in which a group uses collaborative technology will impact its ability to unlock the task knowledge embedded in individual group members; a critical factor in determining group outcomes in distributed environments. In short, a group’s know-how regarding the collaborative technology can unlock its know-what regarding the task. We argue that focusing on task knowledge while ignoring technological knowledge will prevent organizations from fully leveraging group knowledge in virtual settings.

[1]  M. Audrey Korsgaard,et al.  Procedural Justice in Performance Evaluation: The Role of Instrumental and Non-Instrumental Voice in Performance Appraisal Discussions , 1995 .

[2]  Kyle Lewis,et al.  Knowledge and Performance in Knowledge-Worker Teams: A Longitudinal Study of Transactive Memory Systems , 2004, Manag. Sci..

[3]  Daniel H. Kim.  The Link between individual and organizational learning , 1997 .

[4]  E. Mannix,et al.  The Dynamic Nature of Conflict: A Longitudinal Study of Intragroup Conflict and Group Performance. , 2001 .

[5]  Laku Chidambaram,et al.  Relational Development in Computer-Supported Groups , 1996, MIS Q..

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

[7]  Dale Goodhue,et al.  Understanding user evaluations of information systems , 1995 .

[8]  D. Wegner.  Transactive Memory: A Contemporary Analysis of the Group Mind , 1987 .

[9]  L. Chidambaram,et al.  A Capabilities-Based Theory of Technology Deployment in Diverse Teams: Leapfrogging the Pitfalls of Diversity and Leveraging Its Potential with Collaborative Technology , 2004, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[10]  S. Seashore,et al.  Group Cohesiveness in the Industrial Work Group. , 1955 .

[11]  K. Eisenhardt,et al.  How management teams can have a good fight. , 2009, Harvard business review.

[12]  R. Folger,et al.  Effects of Procedural and Distributive Justice on Reactions to Pay Raise Decisions , 1989 .

[13]  L. Weingart,et al.  Representational gaps, information processing, and conflict in functionally diverse teams , 2007 .

[14]  K. Jehn.  A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in , 1997 .

[15]  Dale Goodhue,et al.  Task-Technology Fit and Individual Performance , 1995, MIS Q..

[16]  A. Dennis.  Information Exchange and Use in Small Group Decision Making , 1996 .

[17]  A. Hollingshead.  The Rank-Order Effect in Group Decision Making , 1996 .

[18]  Ajay S. Vinze,et al.  Polarization and Persuasive Argumentation: A Study of Decision Making in Group Settings , 1998, MIS Q..

[19]  Felix C. Brodbeck,et al.  Group Decision Making Under Conditions of Distributed Knowledge: The Information Asymmetries Model. , 2007 .

[20]  Traci Carte,et al.  A Capabilities-Based Theory of Technology Deployment in Diverse Teams: Leapfrogging the Pitfalls of Diversity and Leveraging Its Potential with Collaborative Technology , 2004, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

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

[22]  Bryan L. Bonner,et al.  The effects of variability and expectations on utilization of member expertise and group performance , 2004 .

[23]  Alan R. Dennis,et al.  Information exchange and use in GSS and verbal group decision making: effects of minority influence , 1997, Proceedings of the Thirtieth Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[24]  Robert W. Zmud,et al.  Social influence and individual IT use: unraveling the pathways of appropriation moves , 1999, ICIS.

[25]  I. Nonaka.  A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation , 1994 .

[26]  Suprateek Sarker,et al.  Using A Positivist Case Research Methodology To Test Three Competing Theories-In-Use Of Business Process Redesign , 2001, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[27]  John R. Austin.  Transactive memory in organizational groups: the effects of content, consensus, specialization, and accuracy on group performance. , 2003, The Journal of applied psychology.

[28]  Alan R. Dennis,et al.  Understanding Fit and Appropriation Effects in Group Support Systems via Meta-Analysis , 2001, MIS Q..

[29]  Kyle Lewis.  Measuring transactive memory systems in the field: scale development and validation. , 2003, The Journal of applied psychology.

[30]  Ken T. Trotman,et al.  Member Variation, Recognition of Expertise, and Group Performance , 1987 .

[31]  G. Littlepage,et al.  Effects of Task Experience and Group Experience on Group Performance, Member Ability, and Recognition of Expertise , 1997 .

[32]  L. Sproull,et al.  Coordinating Expertise in Software Development Teams , 2000 .