Alignment of system and structure in the implementation of group decision support systems

ALIGNMENT OF SYSTEM AND STRUCTURE IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF GROUP DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS Several theories of innovation emphasize alignment of organizational structure, task and technology as a critical factor in innovation success. This study explores the structuration of alignment of a group decision support system (GDSS), group procedures, tasks, and the internal group system. We posit that this structuration process influences (a) the effectiveness of technology implementation and the impact of the technology on the overall effectiveness of work groups. Eight teams implementing a GDSS in field settings were observed for periods of six months to two years. The teams exhibited variation in degree of acceptance of the GDSS and overall effectiveness. Case studies of the eight groups are used to develop, evaluate and extend an alignment model. The model advances a typology of five general appropriation types and links these to various types of alignments. These type/alignment combinations are related to group effectiveness. ALIGNMENT OF SYSTEM AND STRUCTURE IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF GROUP DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS The past decade has witnessed rapid advances in technologies designed to support teamwork in organizations. Led by conferencing systems such as Lotus Notes and Groupwise, a number of other technologies, such as team work spaces and group decision support systems (GDSSs), wait in the wings. However, a nagging problem besets groupware technologies: it is difficult to get teams to actually use even relatively simple systems. Estimates of Notes implementation difficulties, delays, and failures run as high as 50% of installed capacity. Like their predecessors, electronic boardrooms, too many group decision rooms lie unused or underutilized. And while videoconferencing seems to have turned the corner, at least two decades of resistance and underutilization have been documented (Egido, 1990). How can we understand the resistance groupware often meets? There is a temptation to lump it with the resistance all types of innovations meet (Rogers, 1995). However, it is also important to consider groupware in its particular context, as a particular type of technology adapted to particular circumstances. A more focused analysis can shed light on the dynamics involved in implementing information technologies designed for collaborative work. It may also reflect back to illuminate innovation and implementation in general. This study derives a framework for understanding implementation of information technology from comparative case analysis of eight groups attempting to use a group decision support system. The groups were observed for periods of six months to two years. Data