The analysis and study of the impact of technology on groups: a conceptual framework

This paper examines how various aspects of technology, group and task interplay, affect group processing and performance. Efforts to provide groups with technological support are driven by three basic ideas: improving group task performance, overcoming time and space constraints on group collaborative efforts, and increasing the range and speed of access to information. These are discussed together with three conceptual frameworks within which groupware (defined as computer-based systems that support the efforts of groups engaged in common tasks) can be developed. A conceptual framework is developed within which information systems for assisting groups electronically can be designed and measured. The paper concludes with an agenda for further research.

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

[2]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  Information Technology to Support Electronic Meetings , 1988, MIS Q..

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

[4]  Norman Crolee Dalkey,et al.  An experimental study of group opinion , 1969 .

[5]  J. Hackman,et al.  Toward understanding the role of tasks in behavioral research. , 1969, Acta psychologica.

[6]  Terence Connolly,et al.  On the Effectiveness of Group Brainstorming , 1993 .

[7]  J. Valacich,et al.  Group Size and Anonymity Effects on Computer-Mediated Idea Generation , 1992 .

[8]  S. Kiesler,et al.  Group decision making and communication technology , 1992 .

[9]  Douglas C. Engelbart.  Authorship Provisions in Augment , 1984, COMPCON.

[10]  Gina J. Medsker,et al.  RELATIONS BETWEEN WORK TEAM CHARACTERISTICS AND EFFECTIVENESS: A REPLICATION AND EXTENSION , 1996 .

[11]  Glenn M. Parker,et al.  Team Players and Teamwork: The New Competitive Business Strategy , 1990 .

[12]  Poppy Lauretta McLeod,et al.  An Assessment of the Experimental Literature on Electronic Support of Group Work: Results of a Meta-Analysis , 1992, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[13]  D. Mankin,et al.  Teams and Technology: Fulfilling the Promise of the New Organization [Book Reviews] , 1996, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management.

[14]  R. John,et al.  A criterion validation of multiattribute utility analysis and of group communication strategy , 1980 .

[15]  J. Valacich,et al.  The Effects of Numerical and Logical Group Size on Computer-Mediated Idea Generation , 1995 .

[16]  I. Benbasat,et al.  The Effects of Group, Task,Context, and Technology Variables on the Usefulness of Group Support Systems , 1993 .

[17]  工藤 六三郎.  OSBORN, H.F., From Greeks to Darwin. 2nd ed., xvi+398., New York, C.Scribner's Sons, $2.50. , 1931 .

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

[19]  Kevin Crowston,et al.  What is coordination theory and how can it help design cooperative work systems? , 1990, CSCW '90.

[20]  Ronald E. Rice,et al.  Communication networking in computer-conferencing systems: a longitudinal study of group roles and s , 1982 .

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

[22]  Charles R. Schwenk,et al.  Devil's Advocacy and Dialectical Inquiry Effects on Face-to-Face and Computer-Mediated Group Decision Making , 1995 .

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

[24]  Kim Halskov,et al.  Computer support for cooperative design (invited paper) , 1988, CSCW '88.

[25]  Sirkka L. Jarvenpaa,et al.  The effect of task demands and graphical format on information processing strategies , 1989 .

[26]  George P. Huber,et al.  A theory of the effects of advanced information technologies on organizational design, intelligence , 1990 .

[27]  Mark N. Frolick,et al.  Experimental Investigation of the Impact of Linear and Nonlinear Information Presentation of Problem Solving , 1994, ICIS.

[28]  Jessica Lipnack,et al.  Virtual Teams: Reaching Across Space, Time, and Organizations with Technology , 1997 .

[29]  A. V. D. Ven,et al.  The Effectiveness of Nominal, Delphi, and Interacting Group Decision Making Processes , 1974 .

[30]  Alan R. Dennis,et al.  A Mathematical Model of Performance of Computer-Mediated Groups during Idea Generation , 1994, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[31]  Eduardo Salas,et al.  Team Effectiveness and Decision Making in Organizations , 1995 .

[32]  Paul B. Paulus,et al.  Social influence processes in computer brainstorming , 1996 .

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

[34]  Iris Vessey,et al.  Cognitive Fit: A Theory‐Based Analysis of the Graphs Versus Tables Literature* , 1991 .

[35]  Dennis F. Galletta,et al.  Cognitive Fit: An Empirical Study of Information Acquisition , 1991, Inf. Syst. Res..

[36]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  Information technology for negotiating groups: generating options for mutual gain , 1991 .

[37]  Clarence A. Ellis,et al.  Groupware: some issues and experiences , 1991, CACM.

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