(^
;DBf;2Y
HD28
.M414
^5
The Impact of Group Context on Patterns
of Groupware Use:
A Study of Computer Conferencing
as a
Medium
of
Work Group Communication and
Coordination
by
Paul Cole
CCS
WP
#182, Sloan
WP
January 1995
# 3795-95
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE
1 i 1996
The Impact of Group Context on Patterns of Groupware Use: A Study of
Computer Conferencing as a Medium of Work Group Communication and Coordination
Paul Cole
Center For Coordination Science
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge, Ma.
Abstract
This paper describes a study of the use of computer conferencing for work group
communication and coordination. The goal of the study was
between group context and technology
relationship
examine the
to
utilization,
i.e.
the social factors
which influence a group's use of groupware. This paper describes three work groups,
identifies patterns
of computer conferencing use for each group, and examines the relationship
between use patterns and group context. The findings provide considerations
for
groupware introductioa
This study examines the use of computer conferencing by three work groups in order to
examine the group
presents three
factors
which influence the use of groupware technology. The paper
work groups, describing group
task, structure
first
and process. Four modes of use
observed are then briefly outlined, followed by a detailed account about each groups' use of
computer conferencing and the
common
themes identified by team members. The next section
analyzes the use patterns across the teams using a framework developed in the study. This
framework draws on
1987).
the small group theory of
The summary
Hackman
(1975), Gladstein (1984) and (Schein,
section presents a set of considerations, based
on
the findings, for
introducing similar groupware technology.
The study was conducted
The
in a software engineering organization of a
three groups studied-- a research group, a senior
development group— represent a variety of tasks and
of conference use by the three groups.
It
computer company.
management team, and
goals.
a product
The study examined
the fu-st year
focused on the use of computer conferences limited
group members rather than 'open' computer conferences
that are
to
used for communication
beyond a work group. Electronic mail was a common means of communication
in the software
engineering environment and most engineering project teams also used computer conferencing.
Both electronic mail and computer conferencing systems had been available
in this software
engineering organization for over ten years.
Data collection involved individual interviews, observation of the members' interactions,
Current Address: Lotus Development Corporation, 55 Cambridge Parkway, Cambridge, Ma.
and analysis of computer messages. Typically interviews involved an examination of the
computer conference with
approach attempts
the individual
group member
uncover use patterns and
to
common
at his
The case study
or her desk.
themes rather than
test specific
hypotheses (Yin, 1984).
The
findings of this study support previous research on group ware implementation (Bullen,
1988, Orlikowski. 1992) yet distinguishes
itself
from the early work on conferencing
(Hiltz,
1984, Johanson, 1979) by the focus on use by existing work groups and the relationship
between group context and patterns of
is
what Markus and Robey (1988)
to create patterns of
use.
The fundamental assumption underlying
label 'emergent', that
technology use, and technology use
is,
is
social
study
this
and technical factors interact
best understood in light of
social
its
context.
CASES
Research Group: The research group was composed of eight people: a manager, a
program manager, four engineers and a
adjoining cubicles along an
facility thirty miles
aisle,
secretary.
The group was co-located,
who was
with the exception of one engineer
away. The work of the group was
to identify,
sitting in
located in another
new
prototype and transfer
technology to product development groups within the same software engineering organization.
The work was divided
into
one
to three
person projects pursuing different technologies. The
projects were planned and implemented independently with the exception of
two technologies
which were interdependent. The cycle of an average project ranged from one
project
commonly
to
two
years.
A
included engineers or product managers from the product development
groups as well as people from university laboratories or small technology companies. The
process were non-routine and highly specific to the project and people involved.
The primary means of communication between group members was through ad hoc,
to-face meetings.
The group had
a regular, weekly staff meeting for several hours, but the
meeting was frequently canceled. Individuals within the group met on a as-needed
first
thing in the morning the
cubicle, filling
them
in
manager would "meet" with group members
frequent use of electronic mail for brief messages regarding ongoing
exchange of more formal documents.
It
was common
for the
work
manager of
basis. Often,
in the aisle
on something or finding out about the process on a
draft versions of "white paper"
face-
project.
The made
activities
the
group
documents or proposals which he was working on
by his
and
to
for
send
for input.
Electronic mail was used for individual communication and for communication to the whole
group via a distribution
list
The manager focused
"selling" the
work of
his attention primarily
on issues external
to the group,
the group to the larger engineering organization
such as
and establishing linkages
to other
He
groups or organizations.
program manager and project
knowledgeable about
all
tended to leave the operational details and planning to the
He was
leaders.
quite involved with the
work of the group and
of the projects, but his style was to talk to group
members
an
in
He
informal, as hoc fashion rather than to have regular meetings or rely on monthly reports.
typically got brief verbal updates
Senior
and his
from group members when he requested them.
Management Team: The
staff of fifteen manager's,
senior
management team, composed of a
was responsible
for the strategic
vice president
and operational management
of one of the principle software engineering organizations. Half of the staff were located in one
building, the remainder were located within
The
opposite coast
staff
managed
30 miles, and one manager was located on the
relatively independent product
development groups. Several
of the product groups were more closely connected, based either on
common customers
or
products that were tested and sold as integrated solutions. At the time of the study, the
management team was newly
created as a result of a cooperate reorganization, which unified a
number of software product groups. The
oriented strategy and establish a
Communication
for the
common
whole
staff
vice president
was brought
set of business practices
in to
develop a market-
and procedures.
occurred in a formal monthly two day staff meeting.
The work and communication processes were semi-formal. There were
regular budgeting
processes and reports, regular product monitoring, processes for capital equipment and for
hiring authorization. Staff meetings addressed these standard business processes as well as the
less structured processes,
common to
the
such as exceptions or changes to plan, strategy and policy issues
whole group. Communication outside of the group was commonly via e-mail,
phone or face-to-face meetings between
individual meetings with his
an as-needed
basis.
staff,
individuals.
The degree of interactions between
with
many
together, but
it
vice president did not hold regular
communicated via e-mail and met with individual on
rather he
based on the degree of interdependency of
on task forces
The
individual staff
their products.
was not uncommon
Staff
members was
members
for individuals to have
largely
periodically
worked
no communication
of the rest of the group between staff meetings.
Product Development Group: The product development group was composed of 12
members who were
all
located in adjacent cubicles. There
technical leaders, developers and a technical writer.
existing software product for a
technical
component
new system
areas, several of
The
architecture.
was a project
leader, several
task of the group
The
project
was
work was divided
functional specifications and the product schedule
worked on coding and
into
which had technical leaders who were more senior
engineers. In the planning phase the features of the product were designed and
the developers
an
to revise
testing the
was determined.
documented as
In the implementation phase
components, finally integrating them in a series
of base levels. The average product cycle for these types of projects was 12-18 months.
The
tasks
were clearly defined, and interdependent with defined prcxedures and clear mUestones.
After six months of
the project leader
initial
prototyping and feasibility planning was completed by two engineers,
was hired and a
project
technically knowledgeable and focused
orientation to the project
He had
team was assembled. The project leader was
on daily operations and project deliverables. His
team was one of team involvement and decentralized decision making.
previously worked with several of the engineers on other projects.
Project communication occurred in the brief, weekly project update meeting or in ad hoc,
informal meetings of group members. The weekly project meeting, lasting about 1/2 hour,
involved reporting of progress
members' reports
to plan for
into a project
each member. The project leader summarized the
team summary for the week and
filed
it
in
one of the
conferences the group used. The group also used e-mail for communication of individual issues
and general corporate information. Communication was characterized by team members as
informal, "over the wall communication", referring to conversations occurring over the cubicle
walls.
The
project leader closely supervised the project, yet expected
own
the decisions in their
team members
to
make
areas and stay informed about the whole project
PATTERNS OF USE
In studying the three groups, four different
cabinet, broadcast and discussion.
active use (see figure
1).
The
modes of conference use emerged:
different
modes
common
Archive use refers to
represent a continuum
information that
archive, five
from passive
to
stored in the
is
conference for access by the whole group, primarily for a historical record. This information
only read on an as-needed basis
(e.g.
reference material). File cabinet use refers to
is
common
information that individuals post, read p)eriodically or used at a later point in the work cycle of a
group.
Frequency of access distinguishes archive from
communication between one group member and
whole group
to see.
In broadcast the
The communication
communication
communication takes
place, the
is
is
to
file
cabinet use. Broadcast use refers to
the group, e.g., posting a
message for the
inform the group rather than to have a dialogue.
two way
usually one way, and in the cases where
exchange
interaction similar to a conversation
is
limited.
The discussion use
between two or more people.
is
In a discussion, the
responses from others generally occur within a few days. The discussion
communication between group members and
the interaction
is
for dialogue, an
is
a
two-way
characterized by responses within
an expected time period.
Each of
the three
managers stated
that the
purpose of using the conference was both to
provide another means of communication for the group as well as a mechanism for storing
common electronic
information,
i.e.,
discussion and archive.
The following
section describes
how each group
members
used the computer conference and presents the
common themes
raised by
team
(see figure 2).
Research Group Conference Use: The research group had one conference which was
created for group
information that
members
may
to file group-related information, e.g.
be of interest to the group, such as
project-related information.
The manager had intended
for the group to share project information, yet
conference with the exception of one individual
Two
served minimally as an archive and contributed
it
regularly after a
when
they
little
value from the
use of the conference.
first arrived,
but both stopped
month or two.
Examination of the conference contents demonstrated
to the
getting
who reported regular
individuals reported reading the conference
reading
conference reports, and specific
the conference to be used as a vehicle
Group members reported
to the functioning of the group.
little
it
trip or
meeting minutes, general
work of the group. Most
the information posted
rather than information that group
members had
was formal and external
The information was
created.
technical or administrative and not directly related to projects group
Information posted included staff meeting minutes,
was not critical
that the information
trip reports
group
to the
often general
members were working
on.
and technical information
received by electronic mail, such as newsletters from specific technology groups and reprints of
newspaper
The conference was
articles.
member posted
a personal
message
in existence for
that included his thoughts
only other example of a discussion in the
later.
In this instance one group
two months before the
first six
member
months of
on a
first
group
specific technical issue.
the conference occurred a
month
posted information that he wanted feedback on.
received one substantial response and second brief response which concurred with the
The
He
first
response.
Group members reported
initial interest in
the conference, reading
and posting messages
weekly, but stated that their use declined gradually, dropping to several times a month.
Periodically a group
member would
post a mail message from the manager, but the
manager
never posted information in the conference. There was uneven use of the conference as some
members posted information
When I asked
key
regularly and others rarely used the conference.
group members
issues surfaced.
why
Group members
or read the conference.
One person
reports feeling
low value". Another
managers communication
was not used more
litfle
actively, a
Many group members
I
and
face-face... if
didn't feel
stated, "the information
common theme was captured by one member who
style is informal
number of
"social pressure" to post information
noted, "I didn't put project information in, but
guilty because a lot of people weren't".
routine and
the conference
was
said, "the
something was important
it
would
be discussed face-face or in e-mail". Most people used e-mail as their principle work
environment and several people objected
to using
two different systems
to
do
their
work, a mail
application and a conferencing application, for example:
work" and
"I
expect e-mail to be read yet
came
Several said that mail
a
directly to
don't
I
"I
only want one in-box to look for
know how
often the conference
them versus the need
to
go
to
is
my
read".
an information source as in
computer conference.
In addition several
members
was used
conference was. They
felt
the right thing to do".
One member
conference:
sure
"
I
thought
it
it
was
principally because
stated that he
for the conferences so
Senior Management
Team Conference
"SW
it
was
the purpose of the
Staff', "Reports"
I
and
available,
was unsure of the protocol
a semi-formal publication process or for a
what was appropriate
conferences:
know what
stated they didn't really
lists
staff
I
wasn't
didn't put anything in".
Use: The Senior management team had three
and "Goals and Objectives". The
from
like
for the
group record.
SW Staff
conference was used for general management team information, including:
minutes, agendas, action item
seemed
"it
staff
meeting
meetings and proposals for review prior to staff
meetings. The Reports conference was for monthly reports, and the Goals/Objectives
conference was for individual managers to post their group's goal and objective statements for
input and discussion with others.
productivity of his dispersed
The manager expected
the conference to
management team by providing
the conference prior to staff meetings.
He
also
improve the
the ability to share information in
wanted a central archive of
staff -related
information for ease of access and for a record. The conferences were used as an archive and
file
cabinet for administrative information, rather than as a
managers posted
the
minimum
medium
Most
for discussion.
required information, such as monthly reports and very few
reported reading information posted by other managers.
The
regular fihng of monthly reports
evennially deteriorated to a few managers posting monthly reports. Several managers reported
using the
SW Staff conference for getting administrative information, such as organization
charts and e-mail distribution hsts, yet most had their secretaries get information they needed
from
the conference.
Most managers reported
they posted in the conference.
didn't post objectives
few comments
Another
me and
who
in the
comments from
stated, "It didn't
others on information
work because
a lot of people
and only a few people commented on what was posted. There were so
that there
was no
common theme
communication was as
posted
One manager
getting no
payoff...
identified
I
got more
comments
by the managers was
effective as the conference. Several
conference seemed optional.
probably required
my
attention.
I
If I didn't
have more
reads the conference regularly." Several
at staff
meetings".
that their usual process of e-mail
managers reported, "The
was OK, yet e-mail was sent
respond
it
faith if
send e-mail, since
I
stuff
members expressed
I
don't
to
know
frustration at the fact the vice
president posted meetings minutes and agendas for future meetings in the conference rather that
using e-mail, but reported, "typically a staff
it
member would
get
it
from
the conference
and share
with others, either via e-mail or hard copy".
Several managers preferred to talk directly with others on the staff rather than posting
messages
Another manager pointed out the lack of teamwork,
in the conference.
"it
One manager
of individuals with individual responsibilities, rather than a group".
was
pointed out
that the vice president "never discussed the use of the conference at staff meetings, so
had an opportunity
how
to learn
a set
we never
to use the conference as a group".
Product Development Group Conference Use: The group had two conferences,
'Internal'
and 'Bugs'. The
information such
as:
work
'Internal'
conference was used for posting general project
plans, status reports
and project
issues.
The 'Bugs' conference was
used to track product bugs, such as specific work items that were assigned to individual team
members. The project leader wanted
project information and as a
mechanism
The product development
information and were used in
archive
it
was used
were assigned
to a
reliable storage.
all
to
monitor project
members
to share relevant
activities.
group's conferences served as the primary source of project
all
modes: archive,
infrequently. For
project leader reviewed
to use the conferences for
file
cabinet, broadcast and discussion.
example just prior
to the close
As an
of the planning phase, the
the issues previously posted in the conference to ensure that they
group member or accounted
One example
for.
As
a file cabinet
use involved documentation, any
it
was used
as
common,
member whose work needed
to
be put in the final product documentation would post his/her working notes in a conference.
The
writer later used the notes
from the conference
as a basis to
work on
the product
documentation. Broadcast usage included such things as the project leader posting the weekly
project reports in a status report topic in the conference. Discussion use involved
project
team members,
proposal.
most of the
either generating ideas in a specific area or giving feedback to a
The discussion
generally involved simple responses, such as agree/disagree,
additional pieces of information, or questions for clarification, but negotiation of differences
more complex
issues
was done
in face-face meetings. Discussions tended to be
issues that needed to be addressed and that affected the
whole group,
on
on
specific
for example, the build
procedure and the testing system. In one instance, a discussion of the testing procedure, the
project leader asked one person to open a topic in the computer conference and asked group
members
to post
messages about
their requirements for a test system. After a
had been generated and responses made
to the ideas,
one person was assigned to take the ideas
and create a formal proposal. The proposal was posted
into the conference
and the
final resolution
number of ideas
in the conference, responses entered
was achieved
in a face-to-face
meeting of several
group members. The discussion in the conference and process took several months from
ideas to final decision.
initial
The product development group members
Most members had
conferences.
minutes
consistently reported regular daily use of both
a daily habit of reading the conference for ten to fifteen
thing in the morning over coffee. "Sort of like an old friend"
first
was
the description
of the conference by one group member. The 'Internals' conference was used more actively in
the planning stage of the project
The
issues were identified but not always assigned to
The 'Bugs' conference was used throughout
individuals.
the project
when
and most intensively close
the implementation/coding stage of
to final project deadline.
project leader moderated the conference and actively encouraged people to use
One member
stated, "In project
meetings an issue would come up, like what should
release notes, and often the project leader
conference".
He would
would suggest
starting a
also intervene in a conference discussion
new
I
it.
do with
topic in the
when he thought
the
discussion was taking too long or not leading to a conclusion. In those cases he would ask
individuals involved to
make
a final decision about the issue, the often involved a face-to-face
meeting. The project leader also included team members in the decisions about the structure
and use of the conference.
The product development team was
computer conference
into their
management team and
work
the only group of the three that integrated the
practices
the research group,
and
relied
on
it
for their work.
communication occurred via e-mail, phone and face-
to-face meetings despite the introduction of computer conferencing.
describes group factors and identifies
how
In the senior
The following
section
they influenced this patterns of use.
ANALYSIS
The following
patterns of
task
fit,
analysis utilizes four group factors (see figure 3) that appear to explain the
computer conference use by
process
fit
the three groups.
The four
and group learning. These factors emerged
analysis of the case data. Figure 4
shows a summary of use
factors include: leadership,
in the study
patterns
from
the thematic
and analysis of group
context.
Leadership as
a factor influencing
group technology use refer to the degree
to
which the
leader integrates the technology, establishing expectations for use, incentives and /or
consequences for use, modeling and reinforcing
management
style also influence
use.
groupware usage.
leader of the product development team
was
The
leader's
In the three
critical issues
and actively moderated
teams studied, the project
the only leader of the three
leadership tasks necessary for successful groupware adoption.
clear exceptions of use for the conference.
communication and
He
who performed
the
established and reinforced
He suggested group members
the conference, limiting discussions
start
when
new
topics
issues
on
remained
unresolved.
He modeled
management team the
commented on information
own
use sent a signal to the team
tool for the project.
vice president identified a clear rationale for the use of
model or reinforce
the conference but did not
His
use.
was an important communication
that the conference
In the senior
own
value through his
its
its
use. Initially he posted
his staff posted, thereby creating
messages and
an incentive for others to use.
As
he became busier he used the conference less and the incentive for use diminished. His lack of
by
use, as well as the lack of use
members began
to expect
his staff,
no responses
became a negative reinforcement,
to their messages.
The
as
when
staff
vice president tried to reinforce
use by posting general staff meeting information rather than distributing
it
via e-maU.
However
Information about staff meetings was in the conference but other
he was inconsistent
information was distributed to staff via e-mail.
manager demonstrated no
In the research group, the
conference use.
He
knew, did not read
visible leadership with regards to the
did not use the technology, post information, and as far as group
the conference. This lack of leadership sent a signal to staff that the
conference was not
critical to the
manager's job, and thereby not
critical to the
research manager neither estabUshed a clear purpose for the conference, nor
expectations for use. This created confusion for group members,
were expected
that use.
to use the conference, yet they did not
The communication
it
approach
to
its
was not used by
to closely
to
do
the
usage patterns, influence
Use of the conference was consistent only with
and the teams' use of the conference allowed him
interacting with each of the
common
small size.
style of the leader, in addition to the leader's
management. He wanted
The
understood that they
topic structure that
did not need a moderator because of
the team's use of groupware.
leader's
who
group.
have a clear objective or standards for
The heaviest user of the conference created a
The group decided
group.
members
the project
monitor the work of the project team
that without
spending additional time
team members. The project leader posted
his
own
status reports in
the conference in addition to participating in the conference discussions. In the senior
management team,
the vice president also closely monitored the
work of his
staff,
but he relied
primarily on business planning and group financial status reports which were information
sources independent of the conference. The communication style of the research group
manager was more informal, ad hoc and
status reports, rather
senior
lot
He did
not require regular monthly
he had periodic face-to-face updates. His preference was to monitor the
work of the group through
encouraged a
interpersonal.
brief,
informal interactions. In the product group the project leader
of direct communication between individual team members, whereas in the
management team and
the research group, the
communication. In both these
latter
manager was more often
the focal point of
groups work direction and information came from the
manager. For the project leader the information in the conference was
critical to
managing the
work group, whereas
for the vice president
and the research manager, the information
in the
conference was not essential. In addition, the vice president did not encourage group
communication nor did
the staff trust
each other enough
to share critical
information in the
conference.
Task
Fit as a factor influencing group use of technology refers to the degree to
technology assists individuals and the whole group in accomplishing
such things
How
group?
does the technology
as,
facilitate critical tasks
and when does the group receive
its
which the
work. This includes
and provide tangible benefits
the benefit?
Of the
to the
three groups studied, the
concrete, defined and interdef)endent tasks of the product development team most clearly
many
benefited from conference use. Individuals often needed real-time information from
group members. The high
level of task interdependency
other
and the resultant high level of
communication and information exchange needed was well suited
to
conferencing. Information
could be posted once for the whole group, rather than a series of individual interactions which
would be redundant and increase
members
directly benefited by having access to the
project had direct impact on
research group
work
in other parts.
same information since work on
Senior
members worked independently and
than group communication.
A
into projects
and
it
part of the
management team members and
their tasks required
more
the
individual rather
shared information source, which the conference provided, did
not add significant benefit beyond the existing e-mail system.
was divided
Group
the probability of lost or mis-interpreted information.
was
project-level
success of the individuals. There was
In the research
team the work
communication which was most
critical to the
ongoing dependency among the projects. The
little
conference was restricted to the group and, therefore did not support communication with
project
for
its
members
outside the group.
task, but a
The group's
internal
communication capacity was
conference restricted to the group did not support the more
communication external
to the group.
The
senior
management team and
sufficient
critical
the research group
both attempted to use the conference as an archive for the group's work, yet a centralized,
electronic record provided no immediate, tangible benefit to the group's success. Establishing
and maintaining an accurate record required work on the part of the individuals
and
in neither
in
both groups
group were there sufficient incentives for individuals to post information to a
group repository.
Process Fit as a factor influencing group use of technology involves the degree
technology matches the work practices and
i.e.
the actual
work
whom about what,
is in
the
steps associated with a task, the
how
the
play.
group functioned,
communication flow,
i.e.
who
In the product group, the use of the
i.e.
there
10
which
of the group. This includes the work flow,
talks to
group values and norms for acceptable behavior, and membership,
group and what roles do they
consistent with
culttire
to
was a high
i.e.
who
conference was
level of information
exchange on
The norm of group- wide communication was already established and so
a project information.
the
computer conference was convenient and
communication
in the senior
efficient
medium
Most of the
for this.
management team and research group was individual
communication rather than group-wide communication. Both groups functioned
did not easily incorporate the use of the conferencing into their
work
practices,
or sub-group
in a
way
that
and so the
conference usage remained marginal. Computer conference supports group-wide
communication which was contrary
groups. Additionally in the
to the
dominant interactions and norms of these two
management team
among team members
the lack of trust
contributed to a secretive environment where information was often not willingly shared.
conference required behavior which individuals perceived as risky and so,
Communication occurred between
individuals or between staff
it
was
members and
The
often unused.
the vice president,
but litde communication occurred across the whole group. In the research group there was a
higher level of trust and group communication, but the group communication was typically
The
characterized by brainstorming and a quick-paced give and take best done face-to-face.
group valued individual, autonomous work and
creativity, rather than tight integration
and
regular communication. Individuals often interacted with others to spark ideas, to get feedback
on some
specific issues, or learn about
coordinate work.
who
The communication
new developments
style of the
in technology rather than to
group evolved in response to the manager
preferred informal communication rather than planned staff meetings or regular one-one
meetings.
The communication needs and
style of the senior
management team and
the research
group were consistent with the one-to-one model of e-mail. E-mail provided a known and
comfortable means of communication which
fit
the existing
norms
for interaction, consequently
conference usage never became an established norm.
The
usage.
quality of information
communicated among
The product development team's work
structured, concrete
and repetitive
dictated information that
and exchange
work
context, or adapt
less predictable
information was more difficult
in a conference without risk misinterpretation
Group Learning refers
its
was often more
that the abstract, impressionistic information of the research
and management teams. The more unstructured,
to capture
the teams differed also and affected
to the
degree which the group
is
and ambiguity.
able to adapt the technology to
behavior to the technology. This includes
how
its
accurately and
consistently the group understands the purpose of the technology, the strength and weakness of
Group
the technology, the opportunities created through technology use as well as risks.
learning also refers to
way
the group
development team established an
identifying the
ways
Group members
in
manages
the introduction of the technology.
explicit learning process that involved
which the technology could be used
in the product
The product
team members
in their specific
group context
development team had similar prior experience with
11
in
conferencing which minimized the learning required. Neither the senior management nor
research teams discussed the use of the computer conference as a group. In both the research
and senior management teams the use of computer conferencing
new
for individuals.
common
internal
as information
information, yet not as a
management
medium
tools,
for internal
group communication was
knowledge or
Individuals from both groups had
computer conferences
for
i.e.
a
means
first
for individuals to access
communication. Use of conferencing for
group communication required explicit learning and discussion
The
early experiences of the research and senior
hand experience with
that failed to occur.
management team created negative
A
expectations for future use which contributed to deterioration of conference use.
spiral
was
established in which
little
negative
valuable information led to diminished individual
expectations and eventually to less use. Individuals learned to expect litde valuable information
and/or communication in the conference. In the product team the project leader involved group
members
process.
in
determining the conference's structure and subsequently modified both
The group
learning and adaptation
was
effective in the product team.
its
structure
The research
and management team neither monitored or evaluated the use of theconference. The absence of
effective learning prevented these groups
from establishing new work practices consistent with
conferencing technology.
SUMMARY
Findings and further research: The findings of this study
illustrates
how group
influences the use patterns of computer conferencing technology for three groups.
does not indicate which of the four factors (leadership, task
fit,
process
fit
context
The study
and group learning)
has the greatest impact on technology utilization and what other social or technical factors
The comparison across
influence a group's use of computer conferencing.
suggests that
it is
the three cases
which determines use
the interaction of the foiu" group factors
patterns.
The
study begins to suggest an effective group context for use of conferencing technology
specifically for internal
is
an important next
Groupware
communication and coordination. Further investigation of these factors
step.
Introduction: The findings and group factors discussed
in this
a framework and set of considerations for introducing groupware technology.
must have a clear purpose
and a process
for
The manager
for the use of technology and establish expectations for individual use
group use. The leader's reinforcement of technology use by modeling
and establishing incentives
The
study provide
that support use
is
likelihood of groupware being used
is
closely linked to the degree to which the
technology to primarily benefit the manager, with
is
use
also critical.
technology supports the successful completion of
Groupware technology
its
critical tasks.
little
also not likely to be used
12
It is
insufficient for the
benefit to the individuals in the group.
when
the goal
is to
enable group behavior or
interactions,
hoped
for
by the manager, but not
in the group's repertoire or to the benefit
of the
individual group members.
Use of
group's
the specific groupware technology
is
most successful when
work practices, norms and communication
it is
consistent with the
patterns rather than requiring behavior in the
group that does not exist or contradicts existing norms of interaction. Groups are
use groupware technology
if it
groupware technology such
requires learning significantiy different
as conferencing,
communication medium, such as e-mail,
ways of
less likely to
interacting.
New
must present tangible benefits over existing
in order for
groups to overcome the barriers to change.
Introduction of group communication technology must take into consideration individual needs
and preferences
in addition to the
personal communication styles
need of the group. Finding ways to incorporate a variety of
is critical if
the technology intends to support
communication for
the entire group.
Groupware technology provides
group behavior
Learning
is
is
opportunities for
the goal of the manager, he or she
a fundamental
new group
must address
many groups
groupware technologies. Individuals have
little
interact in shared, electronic
more
natural
work
spaces.
An
understand a
trial/error learning
new technology and
capacity to learn and adjust to the
learn about
when new
changes required.
to gain the benefits
the conditions for
from new
experience to draw upon as models for
how
to
on-going leamrng strategy integrated with work
effective than a strategy that emphasizes up-front learning.
work rhythms, and
the
component of successful change, and establishing
learning and for change will be critical for
is
interactions, yet
Working within group's
processes allows individuals an opportunity to
its
application in an actual
work environment. Our
demands of this new work environment represent
challenge for users, managers and system designers.
13
the
major
References
Bullen, C.V. and Bennett, J.L. (1990).
Groupware
in Practice:
Experience. Center for Information Systems Research, MIT,
BuIIen, C.V. and Johansen, R.R. (1988). Groupware:
A
Key
(
to
An
Interpretation of
Work
Working Paper No,205)
Managing Business Teams
.
Center for Information Systems Research, MIT, (Working Paper No, 169)
Gladestein, D.L. "Groups in Context:
Science Quarterly 29 (1994)
.
Hackman,
J.R.
:
A Model of Task Group Effectiveness",
Administrative
499-517
and Morris, C.G. 1975. "Group Tasks Group Interaction Process and Group
Performance Effectiveness: Review and Proposed Integration" In Berkowitz, (Ed.) Advances
Experimental Social Psychology
Hiltz, S.R., (1984) Online
New Jersey:
.
New
8.
Communities:
York: Academic Press.
A Case
Study of the Office of the Future Norwood,
.
Ablex
Johansen, R. (1988) Groupware: Computer Support for Business Teams.
New
York: The Free
Press
Markus, M.L. and Robey, D. "Information Technology and Organizational Change: Causal
Structure in Theory and Research",
Orlikowski, W.J. (1992). Learning
Implementation. In
Cooperative
in
Work
Schein, E. (1987)
,
J.
Management
From
Sciences.
May
Notes: Organizational Issues in
Turner and R. Kraut (Ed.) Conference
(pp. 362-369). Toronto,
Or ganizational
1988, Vol. 34, No. 5.
On
Groupware
Computer-Supported
Canada: Association for Computing Machinery.
Culture and Leadership. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass
14
Figure
USAGE MODE
1:
Usage Types
Figure
2:
Conference Patterns of Use
Figure 3: Framework
Leadership
--
Groups and Technology
Figure
4:
Group Factors Summary
Date Due
MIT LIBRARIES
3 9080 00988 0755