Bondarouk, T. & Sikkel, K. (2001). A learning perspective on groupware implementation, Proceedings of the Information Resource Management Association International Conference (IRMA 2001), Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing, 701– 703.
A LEARNING PERSPECTIVE ON GROUPWARE IMPLEMENTATION Tatyana Bondarouk Faculty of Technology & Management Human Resource Management Department University of Twente P.O. Box 217 7500 AE Enschede, the Netherlands phone.: +31-53-4893666 fax: +31 53 4892159 e-mail:
[email protected] Klaas Sikkel Faculty of Computer Science Information Systems Department University of Twente P.O. Box 217 7500 AE Enschede, the Netherlands phone: +31-53-4894003 fax: +31-53-4892927 e-mal:
[email protected]
INTRODUCTION Implementation of collaborative technologies, also called groupware, is a topic of continuous interest for the last two decades. As such technologies become progressively more intertwined in the operations, products, and infrastructure of companies, it is crucial that the implementation be successful. However, the successful implementation of groupware in organizations remains a challenge. Researchers have noted widespread failures in this process (Grudin, 1988; Earl, 1993; Premkumar and King, 1994; Rogers, 1994; Fitzgerald, 1998; Gottschalk, 1999). We propose to look at the implementation of groupware from a learning perspective. In this paper we motivate this view and outline our research model. Research questions of the project are: What are the influential characteristics of learning for the implementation of groupware? And: how can this implementation process be improved? Many authors discuss collaborative technologies from the perspective of how these can affect organizational learning (Neilson, 1997; Collis, 1999; Kock, 1999, 2000). It should be clear that our goal is different: we regard the implementation as a learning process. The proposed model provides a novel view on implementation and the possibility to operationalize that process.
IMPLEMENTATION OF GROUPWARE First, some key definitions are required to outline the basic ideas of the theoretical framework. The terms “groupware” and “implementation” are widely used, but their meaning is often not clearly defined. We understand groupware as any technology that helps groups work together better collaboratively over digital media (Koshafian & Buckiewicz, 1995). Collaboration occurs when individuals interact to share understanding. An essential point in defining implementation is when the implementation process is considered to be completed. The literature shows a great diversity in authors’ opinions. Groupware is considered to be implemented when the system is technically installed (Lucas, 1981; Nutt, 1986); accepted by users (Baronas and Louis, 1988; Alavi and Joachimsthaler, 1992; Lou and Scamell, 1996); adapted (Orlikowski, 1992, 1993; DeSanctis and Poole, 1994; Volkoff, 1999); meets the intended objectives (Lederer and Salmela, 1996); makes the users happy (Griffith, 1996; Klein and Sorra, 1996); or needs to be removed (Pipek and Wulf, 1999). Technical changes to a system after its deployment are often brought about by further refinements or changes in the users’ requirements. For that reason we locate the completion of implementation at the stage when the system is being used stable, i.e. consistently, actively and competently (Klein and Sorra, 1996). Our working definition of implementation of groupware is the set of actions during the transition period between the initiative to get a new system and the stable use of it within a company. A LEARNING PERSPECTIVE We conjecture that purposeful creating of a learning atmosphere in a company will support the development process of groupware implementation. This is based on three reasons: - Groupware technologies require cooperative work. Different studies in human resource management have suggested the interdependency between cooperative work and learning, which is known as cooperative on-the-job learning (Marsik and Watkins, 1992, Dixon, 1994; Swieringa & Wierdsma, 1994; Onstenk, 1995; Watkins & Marsick, 1996). A lot could be gained from the system if people would learn from their own experience and share knowledge during the whole process of implementation. - After groupware is deployed, people have to learn how to use a new system. - Changes in technology inherently lead to changes in different aspects of professional competency as employees act with technology on the basis of their understanding of it, previous experience and personal learning characteristics. Some studies consider different elements of a learning atmosphere that influence groupware implementation: mental frames (Orlikowski, 1992; Wulf, 1999); cognitive styles (Alavi and Joachimsthaler, 1992); education and training (Orlikowski, 1996). But there is not yet a systematic approach to groupware implementation from a learning perspective.
The proposition is to provide a learning atmosphere systematically and study its impact in two directions: horizontal (predictor variables, the evolutionary adoption of groupware, indicators of stable use) and vertical (learning climate in corporation, cooperative team learning, individual learning), see Figure 1.
Figure 1 TOWARDS A RESEARCH MODEL Literature search convinced us that four predictor dimensions are important and influence the process of groupware implementation (Okamuro et al., 1994; Bikson, 1996; Campion et al., 1996; Kinney and Panko, 1996; Klein and Sorra, 1996; Orlikowski, 1996; Mankin et al., 1997; Mark and Wulf, 1999; Nolinske and Millis, 1999; Pipek and Wulf, 1999; Druskat and Kayes, 2000). Each dimension consists of several items (Table 1). Table 1 All learning predictors support the evolution of groupware implementation (Figure 1). The focus of our research, however, will be on team and individual learning predictors. To which extent do they influence the evolutionary process of groupware implementation? In order to gain insight into how employees collectively operate with a system, we describe this process from a cooperative on-the-job learning approach. The model of the learning process is founded on Kolb’s psychological concept of individual learning (Kolb, 1984) and includes collective acting, public reflecting, sharing understanding, sharing knowledge, and mutual adjustment. What are relations between the predictors and the evolutionary process? This is the question for further research. How can we manipulate the learning predictors to monitor the process of evolutionary using of groupware? The indicators of implementation would be skilful, committed and competent use of technology. APPROACH We will apply this model to two or three case studies. We are to develop measures for the learning predictors at the team and individual levels and correlate them with the evolutionary process and the indicators of groupware implementation. In the selection of case studies it is important that the learning climate and technological prerequisites are adequate in accordance with the theoretical description. Moreover, these predictors should have similar characteristics across the case studies. Hence we can control and describe the learning climate and the technological characteristics as environmental conditions, and focus the research on team and individual learning variables. Two rounds of the same quantitative and qualitative methods allow to investigate the evolution in those predictors and in the use of groupware.
With this research we hope to contribute to an increased understanding of the process of groupware implementation and to provide insights how the implementation process can be improved.
REFERENCES Alavi, M., & Joachimsthaler, E.A. (1992), Revisiting DSS Implementation Research: A Meta-analysis of the Literature and Suggestions for Researchers”, MIS Quarterly/ March 1992, pp. 95 – 113. Baronas, A.-M. K., & Louis, M.R. (1988), Restoring a Sense of Control During Implementation: How User Involvement Leads to System Acceptance, MIS Quarterly/ March 1988, pp. 111 – 123. Bikson, T. (1996), Groupware at the World Bank. In: C.U.Ciborra (Ed.), Groupware and Teamwork, John Wiley & Sons Ltd., pp. 145 – 183. Campion, M.A., Papper, E.M., & Medsker, G.J. (1996), Relations Between Work Team Characteristics and Effectiveness: A Replication and Extention, Personnel Psychology, V.49, pp. 429 – 452. Collis, B. (1999), WWW-based Environments for Collaborative Group Work, Education and Information Technologies, V. 3, No. 3/4, pp. 231 – 246. DeSanctis, G., & Poole, M. (1994), Capturing the Complexity in Advanced Technology Use: Adaptive Structuration Theory, Organization Science, V.5, No.2, pp. 121 – 147. Dixon, N. (1994), The Organizational Learning Cycle, London: McGraw-Hill. Druskat, V.U., & Kayes, D.C. (2000), Learning Versus Performance in Short-Term Project Teams, Small Group Research, V.31, No.3, pp. 328 – 353. Earl, M.J. (1993), Experiences in Strategic Information Planning, MIS Quarterly, V.17, No.1, pp.1 – 24. Fitzgerald, G. (1998), Evaluating Information Systems Projects: A Multidimensional Approach, Journal of Information Technology, V.13, pp.15 – 27. Gottschalk, P. (1999), Implementation Predictors of Strategic Information Systems Plans, Information & Management, V.36, pp.77 – 91. Griffith, T.L. (1996), Cognitive Elements in the Implementation of New Technology: Can Less Information Provide More Benefits? MIS Quarterly/ March , pp. 99 – 110. Grudin, J. (1988), Why CSCW Applications Fail: Problems in the Design and Evaluation of Organization Interfaces, Proceedings of the International Conference on CSCW, Portland, Oregon, pp. 85 – 93. Khoshafian, S., & Buckiewicz, M. (1995), Introduction to Groupware, Workflow, and Work-group Computing, New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Kinney,S.T., & Panko, R.R. (1996), Project Teams: Profiles and Member Perceptions, Proceedings of the 29 th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Maui, Hawaii, January 2 – 5. Klein, K.J., & Sorra, J.S. (1996), The Challenge of Innovation Implementation, Academy of Management Review, V.21, No.4, pp. 1055 – 1080. Kock, N. (1999), Process Improvement and Organizational Learning: The Role of Collaboration Technologies, Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing. Kock, N. (2000), Sharing Interdepartmental Knowledge using Collaboration technologies: Action Research Study, Journal of Information Technology Impact, Vo.2, No. 1, pp.5 – 10. Kolb, D. A. (1984), Experiential Learning. Experience as the Source of Learning and Development, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs. Lederer, A.L., & Salmela, H. (1996), Towards a Theory of Strategic Information Systems Planning, Journal of Strategic Information Systems, V.5, pp. 237 – 253. Lou, H., & Scamell, R.W. (1996), Acceptance of Groupware: the Relationships Among Use, Satisfaction, and Outcomes, Journal of Organisational Computing and Electronic Commerce, V.6, No.2, pp.173 – 190. Lucas, H.C. (1981), Implementation – The Key to Successful information systems. New York: Columbia University Press. Mankin, D., Cohen, S.G., & Bikson, T.K. (1997), Teams and Technology: Tensions in Participatory Design, Organizational Dynamics/ Summer, pp. 63 – 76. Mark, G., & Wulf, V. (1999), Changing Interpersonal Communication through Groupware Use, Behaviour & Information Technology, in press. Marsick, V., & Watkins, K.E. (1992), Informal and Incidental Learning in the Workplace, London: Routledge. Neilson, R.E. (1997), Collaborative Technologies and Organizational Learning, Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing. Nolinske, T., & Millis, B. (1999), Co-operative Learning as an Approach to Pedagogy, The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, V. 53, No. 1, pp. 31 – 40. Nutt, P.C. (1986), Tactics of Implementation, Academy of Management Journal, V.29, No. 2, pp.230 – 261. Okamura, K., Orlikowski, W.J., Fujimoto, M., & Yates, J. (1994), Helping CSCW Applications Succeed: The Role of Mediators in the Context of Use, Proceedings of CSCW’94, October, 22 – 26, 1994, Chapel Hill, pp.55 – 65.
Onstenk, J.H.A.M. (1995), Human Resources Development and On-the-job Learning, M. Mulder, W.J. Nijhof & R.O. Brinkerhoff (Eds.), Corporate Training for Effective Performance, Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Orlikowski, W. (1992), Learning from Notes: Organizational Issues in Groupware Implementation, Proceedings of CSCW’92, November 1 – 4, Toronto Canada, pp. 362 – 369. Orlikowski, W. (1993), CASE Tools as Organizational Change: Investigating Incremental and Radical Changes in Systems Development, MIS Quarterly/September 1993, pp. 309 – 339. Orlikowski, W. (1996), Evolving with Notes: Organizational Change Around Groupware Technology, C.U.Ciborra (Eds.), Groupware and Teamwork, John Wiley & Sons Ltd., pp. 23 – 59. Pipek, V., & Wulf, V. (1999), A Groupware’s Life, S. Bodker. In: M. King, and K.Schmidt (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth European Conference on ComputerSupported Cooperative Work, 12 – 16 September 1999, Copenhagen, Denmark, pp. 199 – 218. Premkumar, G., & King, W.R. (1994), Organizational Characteristics and Information Systems Planning An Empirical Study, Information Systems Research: a Journal of the Institute of Management Sciences, V.5, No.2, pp.-75 – 109. Rogers, Y. (1994), Exploring Obstacles: Integrating CSCW in Evolving Organizations, Proceedings on CSCW’94, October 22 - 26, Chapel Hill, NC, pp. 67 – 77. Swieringa, J. & Wierdsma, A. (1994), Becoming a Learning Organization, AddisonWesley Publishing, Volkoff, O. (1999), Using the Structurational Model of Technology to Analyse an ERP Implementation, Proceedings of the Fifth Americas Conference on Information Systems, August 13 – 15, 1999, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA, pp. 235 – 237. Watkins, K. & Marsick, V. (1996), (Eds.), Creating the Learning Organization, Alexandria, Virginia: ASTD. Wulf, V. (1999), “Why Did That Happen?” – Building Appropriate Mental Models on Groupware Functions, Proceedings of HCI’99, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdall, in press.
Organisational learning climate
Group level
Contextual learning variables of the process
Evolutionary adoption of groupware through cooperative learning
Indicators of stable use of groupware
Individual learning characteristics
Figure 1. The systematic learning approach to groupware implementation
Contextual variables
Items
1. Learning climate implementation
(a) ensuring employee skills in use of groupware (b) encouraging use of technology and providing disincentives for its avoidance (c) removing obstacles to groupware use (d) promoting effective communication
2. Team learning potential
(a) (b) (c) (d)
3. Individual learning towards groupware implementation
(a) understanding of functional and technical features of technology (b) knowledge and skills in software use (c) attitudes about content and technical functionality of groupware (d) involvement in the operating of groupware
4. Technological prerequisites
(a) the role of technology in a company (b) specification of software architecture for organisational context (c) users’ requirements (d) enabling fruitful collaboration (e) reliability and flexibility of technology
interpersonal understanding interdependency team structure proactivity in implementation problem solving
Table 1. Implementation contextual variables
