Predicting Groupware Use from the Perspectives of Workflow, Information and Coordination

Although groupware design aims to improve the organizational effectiveness in cooperative work, unintended consequences often persist and even cause the failure in the implementation. This study explores groupware implementation in computer-supported cooperative work, and finds that those unintended consequences could be explained in terms of workflow, information and coordination in prior cases. This study adopts workflow routinization, information integration and coordination fit to assess the outcome quality of groupware use in the workplace. Users are categorized into two groups based on their self-assessment of groupware use in cooperative work. Empirical findings from the survey of 200 experienced groupware users show that the group with high outcome quality of groupware use had stronger workflow routinization, information integration and coordination fit in cooperative work than the other group with low outcome quality. Limitations of this study are discussed accordingly.

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

[2]  J GinzbergMichael,et al.  Lotus notes® and collaboration , 1996 .

[3]  Kevin Crowston,et al.  The interdisciplinary study of coordination , 1994, CSUR.

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

[5]  G. Huber Organizational Learning: The Contributing Processes and the Literatures , 1991 .

[6]  Diane M. Strong,et al.  Supporting software maintenance with software engineering tools: A Computed task-technology fit analysis , 1998, J. Syst. Softw..

[7]  Emilio Paolucci,et al.  Improved communications and collaborations among tasks induced by Groupware , 1995, Decis. Support Syst..

[8]  Nabil N. Kamel,et al.  Applying CSCW technology to overcome traditional barriers in group interactions , 1998, Inf. Manag..

[9]  David C. Yen,et al.  Extranet and Groupware , 2000 .

[10]  Sridhar Narasimhan,et al.  Communication and Coordination in the Virtual Office , 1998, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[11]  Scott Wr,et al.  Technology and the structure of subunits: distinguishing individual and workgroup effects. , 1977 .

[12]  C. Perrow A FRAMEWORK FOR THE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ORGANIZATIONS , 1967 .

[13]  M. Tushman Work Characteristics and Subunit Communication Structure: A Contingency Analysis. , 1979 .

[14]  W. R. Scott,et al.  Technology and the structure of subunits: distinguishing individual and workgroup effects. , 1977, Administrative science quarterly.

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

[16]  Gerardo R. Ungson,et al.  Managerial Information Processing: A Research Review. , 1981 .

[17]  Jonathan Grudin,et al.  Why CSCW applications fail: problems in the design and evaluationof organizational interfaces , 1988, CSCW '88.

[18]  R. Rice Task Analyzability, Use of New Media, and Effectiveness: A Multi-Site Exploration of Media Richness , 1992 .

[19]  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.

[20]  R. Daft,et al.  Information Richness. A New Approach to Managerial Behavior and Organization Design , 1983 .

[21]  Anthony R. Hendrickson,et al.  Meeting the virtual work imperative , 2002, CACM.

[22]  R. Daft,et al.  Toward a Model of Organizations as Interpretation Systems , 1984 .

[23]  Donald M. MacKay,et al.  Information, mechanism and meaning , 1969 .

[24]  Rob Kling,et al.  Cooperation, coordination and control in computer-supported work , 1991, CACM.

[25]  Morten Kyng,et al.  Designing for cooperation: cooperating in design , 1991, CACM.

[26]  Kalle Lyytinen,et al.  Groupware Environments as Action Constitutive Resources: A Social Action Framework for Analyzing Groupware Technologies , 1997, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW).

[27]  M. Feldman,et al.  Organizational Routines as Sources of Connections and Understandings , 2002 .

[28]  Mark Ginsburg,et al.  Enterprise-Level Groupware Choices: Evaluating Lotus Notes and Intranet-Based Solutions , 1997, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW).

[29]  J. Pfeffer,et al.  A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. , 1978, Administrative science quarterly.

[30]  Johanna Gunnlaugsdottir,et al.  Seek and you will find, share and you will benefit: organising knowledge using groupware systems , 2003, Int. J. Inf. Manag..

[31]  Efraim Turban,et al.  Adoption, implementation and use of lotus notes in Singapore , 2000, Int. J. Inf. Manag..

[32]  Helena Karsten,et al.  Collaboration and collaborative information technologies: a review of the evidence , 1999, DATB.

[33]  Brad Hartfield,et al.  Computer systems and the design of organizational interaction , 1988, TOIS.

[34]  J. Habermas The Theory of Communicative Action: Reason and the Rationalization of Society , 1986 .

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

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

[37]  Richard L. Daft,et al.  Measures of Perrow's Work Unit Technology: An Empirical Assessment and a New Scale , 1983 .

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

[39]  Louis Raymond,et al.  Impact of task uncertainty, end-user involvement, and competence on the success of end-user computing , 1998, Inf. Manag..

[40]  Séamas Kelly,et al.  Groupware and the Social Infrastructure of Communication , 2001, CACM.

[41]  E. Hippel Sticky Information and the Locus of Problem Solving: Implications for Innovation , 1994 .

[42]  Ojelanki K. Ngwenyama,et al.  Groupware, social action and organizational emergence: On the process dynamics of computer mediated distributed work , 1998 .

[43]  Rosann Webb Collins,et al.  Technology Requirements and Work Group Communication for Telecommuters , 2001, Inf. Syst. Res..

[44]  R. Daft,et al.  A Tentative Exploration into the Amount and Equivocality of Information Processing in Organizational Work Units. , 1981 .

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

[46]  Michael L. Tushman,et al.  Information Processing as an Integrating Concept in Organizational Design. , 1978 .

[47]  Arun Rai,et al.  The effects of development process modeling and task uncertainty on development quality performance , 2000, Inf. Manag..