Discretionary Adoption of Group Support Software: Lessons from Calendar Applications

Although the World Wide Web, Internet and organisational intranets have made computer-mediated collaboration possible for many people, adoption of collaboration technologies in business environments still presents challenges and is often slower or less widespread than anticipated Technologies focused on supporting groups fall between strictly single-user applications and enterprise systems. Single-user applications are designed with a “discretionary use” model. In contrast, for large enterprise systems, upper management support is considered crucial for smooth deployment and adoption. Which one applies to technologies that support group work? The relatively low cost of an application such as a shared calendar lowers its visibility in an organisation, reducing management attention to it. However, some argue that the complex social dynamics surrounding such technologies still necessitate a managerial mandate for use to occur — the large system approach. Interview studies of electronic calendar adoption in two large organisations found successful, near-universal use achieved without managerial mandate. Versatile functionality and ease of use, associated with discretionary products, were factors leading to individual adoption. Other factors leading to “bottom-up” adoption included the presence of an organisation-wide infrastructure, integration with e-mail, and substantial peer pressure that developed over time.

[1]  Susan F. Ehrlich,et al.  Social and psychological factors influencing the design of office communications systems , 1986, CHI '87.

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

[3]  Leysia Palen,et al.  Calendars on the new frontier: challenges of groupware technology , 1998 .

[4]  Wendy E. Mackay,et al.  Triggers and barriers to customizing software , 1991, CHI.

[5]  Ellen Francik,et al.  Putting innovation to work: adoption strategies for multimedia communication systems , 1991, CACM.

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

[7]  Jonathan Grudin,et al.  Groupware and social dynamics: eight challenges for developers , 1994, CACM.

[8]  Andrew B. Whinston,et al.  Groupware perceptions and reality: an E-mail survey , 1993, [1993] Proceedings of the Twenty-sixth Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[9]  M. Lynne Markus,et al.  Why CSCW applications fail: problems in the adoption of interdependent work tools , 1990, CSCW '90.

[10]  David B. Beard,et al.  A visual calendar for scheduling group meetings , 1990, CSCW '90.

[11]  Susan F. Ehrlich,et al.  Strategies for encouraging successful adoption of office communication systems , 1987, TOIS.

[12]  Jonathan Grudin,et al.  Why CSCW Applications Fail: Problems in the Design and Evaluation of Organization of Organizational Interfaces. , 1988 .

[13]  Leysia Palen,et al.  Social, individual and technological issues for groupware calendar systems , 1999, CHI '99.

[14]  Michael Woitass Coordination of intelligent office agents—applied to meeting scheduling , 1990 .

[15]  Steve Cisler Computer-supported cooperative work and groupware , 1988 .

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

[17]  Jonathan Grudin,et al.  Why Groupware Succeeds: Discretion or Mandate? , 1995, ECSCW.