A Repeatable E-Collaboration Process Based on ... - Semantic Scholar

Group Decision and Negotiation (2007) 16:363–379 DOI 10.1007/s10726-006-9055-5

Ó Springer 2006

A Repeatable E-Collaboration Process Based on ThinkLets for Multi-Organization Strategy Development JOHANNA BRAGGE, HILKKA MERISALO-RANTANEN, ANTTI NURMI and LEENA TANNER Department of Business Technology, Helsinki School of Economics, P.O. Box 1210, 00101 Helsinki, Finland (E-mails: johanna.bragge@hse.fi; hilkka.merisalo-rantanen@hse.fi; antti.nurmi@hse.fi; leena.tanner@hse.fi)

Abstract In recent years, multi-organizational collaboration has become more and more important in both business and research. We conducted an action research (AR) intervention with a consortium of Finnish universities that needed to revise its joint strategy. We designed and facilitated a repeatable collaboration process for this multi-organizational strategy development. The process was built using the Collaboration Engineering (CE) approach with thinkLets, which provides expert-level advice for novice facilitators, and it was powered by Group Support Systems (GSS). Our overall impression of CEÕs ability to provide valuable design and facilitation support for complex processes is very affirmative. The consortium was satisfied with the intervention, as it saved huge amounts of time compared with conventional strategic work. The process was also seen as more democratic, because the GSS tools enabled equal participation during the session. Our study also provides a ready-to-apply CE process recipe to organizations for revising their strategy. Through this recipe, supplemented with knowledge on thinkLets, the strategy development process may easily be repeated by other facilitators or even practitioners. Key words Collaboration Engineering (CE), thinkLets, Group Support Systems (GSS), action research (AR), strategy process, e-collaboration, multi-organizational teams, information systems development

1. Introduction Teamwork and networking with stakeholders are vital to the competitiveness of modern organizations. The main focus of executivesÕ attention should thus be on how to foster collaboration in their organizations. (Hansen and Nohria 2004). By collaboration we mean deliberate efforts towards declared joint goals (Briggs et al. 2003). Information and communication technologies – from e-mail to Group Support Systems (GSS) – are nowadays indispensable collaborative tools enabling efficient and effective communication and sharing of information and expertise, irrespective of time and distance barriers (Bajwa et al. 2003). It is estimated that the market for collaboration software, especially for webconferencing and team-based collaboration tools, will grow very rapidly (Gartner 2005; Greene 2005). These technologies will be increasingly adopted as they become

364

BRAGGE ET AL.

more integrated with business processes (Gartner 2005). However, Austin et al. (2006) argue that without effective meeting discipline (i.e. structure), these multiparty web-conferencing tools with video and audio capabilities may waste more peopleÕs time across a broader geographic range than before. They add, however, that GSS tools can cure much of that dysfunction. Similarly, Munkvold and Zigurs (2005) include GSS among the rare e-collaboration tools that provide structural support for collaboration, in addition to providing support for different media and modes. Participants in GSS-facilitated meetings have considered the tools more productive and effective because they facilitate anonymous and parallel brainstorming, discussion, organizing, priority setting, decision making, and automated reporting (Austin et al. 2006). Although organizations seem to invest increasingly in GSS software, they still lack knowledge on how to apply GSS tools efficiently. To alleviate this problem and to encourage the sustained use of GSS in organizations, Briggs et al. (2003) have recently suggested an approach called Collaboration Engineering (CE). CE is a research-based approach that designs, models, and deploys repeatable collaboration processes for recurring high-value collaborative tasks, e.g. risk management or usability testing. The CE collaboration processes are modeled with standardized and codified components called thinkLets, which yield predictable, repeatable patterns of collaboration among people working together toward a goal. ThinkLets comprise five general patterns: diverge, converge, organize, evaluate, and build consensus. For these patterns, altogether 60–70 thinkLets have been codified so far by the core CE researchers, capturing the best practices of highly experienced meeting facilitators. (Briggs and de Vreede 2001; Briggs et al. 2003; de Vreede and Briggs 2005; Kolfschoten et al. 2006). Hence, thinkLets offer efficient ingredients for group processes. When they are put wisely together to form a coherent whole, the resulting CE processes provide ready-to-apply ‘‘recipes’’ for successful meetings to be conducted by other facilitators, or even by novices and practitioners themselves using facilitation techniques and technology. Our organization started utilizing GSS tools in spring 2003. After the technical training, we still longed for knowledge on how to use the full potential of GSS. From the extensive GSS literature we learned about the CE approach and thinkLets (Briggs et al. 2003), which appeared to be extremely useful for the sessions we were asked to facilitate. Hence, in fall 2003, we started applying single thinkLets in our internal strategy meetings, and soon thereafter, proceeded to designing and facilitating complete processes with thinkLets (Bragge et al. 2005a, b). Based on our experiences, thinkLets are undeniably able to convey the best practices of professional facilitators to novice facilitators in an easily replicable format. In this paper, we describe one of our action research interventions from fall 2004. We were asked to design and facilitate an e-collaboration process for a complex multi-organizational strategy development. The organization is a consortium of 13 Finnish universities in charge of a common student IS. Thus, besides utilizing CE as the problem solving method when designing the process, we took advice from the literature on multi-organizational collaborative teams aided by GSS (especially

E-COLLABORATION PROCESS FOR STRATEGY MAKING

365

Ackermann et al. 2005), and on GSS usage in single-organizational strategic planning sessions (Dennis et al. 1997; Orwig et al. 1997; Tyran et al. 1992). The collaboration process described and illustrated in this paper provides a readyto-apply CE recipe (supplemented with knowledge on thinkLets) for both networked and single organizations in revising their strategy. The process may be conducted by professional or novice facilitators or even by practitioners themselves inside the organization (see discussion in Kolfschoten et al. 2006). So far, we have conducted the designed process only once. Thus, it may need some adaptation when used in different contexts. However, we are convinced that the construction may be reapplied as such in a similar context, and that it provides a means for a successful and efficient strategy formulation process. The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. In Section 2, we first give an overview of the strategy process. Thereafter, we review the literature on GSS in strategic planning, and discuss issues that complicate it in settings with multiple organizations. In Section 3, the research design is presented, followed by the detailed description of the action research intervention in Section 4. The paper ends up with discussion and conclusions in Section 5. 2. Strategy Development in Multi-organizational Contexts Strategy and the strategy development process have been defined in numerous ways in the literature (e.g. Chandler 1962; Mintzberg 1978; Quinn 1999; Thompson et al. 2004). In this paper, we adopt QuinnÕs (1999) definition of strategy: ‘‘the pattern or plan that integrates an organization’s major goals, policies, and action sequences into a cohesive whole’’ [p. 5]. This definition is sufficient and not too restrictive. Thompson et al. (2004) divide the strategy process into six phases. In the (1) preliminary phase, the environmental analysis is conducted. Then the actual strategy-making and executing process starts by (2) developing the strategic vision (where the organization needs to head and why) and mission (what is the basis of an organizationÕs existence). This strategic vision is then converted into specific performance outcomes by (3) setting objectives. Thereafter, in (4), strategy is crafted to achieve the objectives, followed by (5), implementing and executing the strategy. Finally, in (6), monitoring developments, evaluating performance, and making corrective adjustments are taken care of. Furthermore, in each phase, the outcomes of the earlier phases are revised if needed. Strategy development is thus an ongoing process, where an organizationÕs strategy changes and evolves over time (Thompson et al. 2004). There are many challenges in the process as strategy development is often considered inefficient, time consuming, too abstract and irrelevant to actual practices, and especially the implementation of the strategy often fails (Freedman 2003; Mantere et al. 2003). Eden and Ackermann (2001) argue that the single, most important, consideration in managing strategic change is political feasibility. Thus, more attention should be paid to ‘‘the social processes of delivering, discovering and negotiating the data, determining and manipulating its meaning, and agreeing the strategic direction.’’ When the process is

366

BRAGGE ET AL.

felt to be ‘‘procedurally just’’ and fair, the support and emotional commitment to even unfavorable decisions is much increased. In strategy making, the long-term effects of fair social processes are particularly important if change is to be implemented. (Eden and Ackermann 2001). Computer-aided GSS have been found to provide unique assistance in complex and dynamic group processes such as strategy development (Adkins et al. 2003; de Vreede and de Bruijn 1999; Dennis et al. 1997; Eden and Ackermann 2001; Orwig et al. 1997; Tyran et al. 1992). GSS aim to alleviate the problems related to group work (e.g. the domination of one person or the need to wait for oneÕs own turn to speak), and to foster the benefits of group work, e.g., the synergistic effects of building up ideas on othersÕ ideas (Nunamaker et al. 1991). These tools also foster relationship building and fair social processes (Eden and Ackermann 2001; see also Fisher and Brown 1988). Dennis et al. (1997) studied the role of GSS capabilities behind successful strategic planning processes in 30 organizations. They utilized the four capabilities suggested by Nunamaker et al. (1991): process support, process structure, task support, and task structure. Their results suggest that the ability of GSS to provide extensive process support – electronic processes featuring anonymity, parallelism and group memory – is the most important contributor to the successfulness of strategic planning. The effect of GSS on process structure and task structure were also found to be important. The use of process structure was measured by the time spent in strategic planning using a formal process methodology that specifies the order in which activities are to be performed (e.g. through a predefined agenda) and by the time spent in verbal discussions formally chaired by the facilitator. Task structure was measured by the time spent using a formal methodology that specifies how the task should be analyzed (e.g. by using predefined categories on which to brainstorm actions). Task support (e.g. electronic access to information developed before the meeting) was seldom opted to be used, thus having only a little impact on the success of strategic planning processes. In post-session interviews, problem owners cited anonymity as a crucial success factor. It encouraged more open and honest discussions compared with previous ‘‘manual’’ approaches to strategic planning. It also reduced politically based decision-making and encouraged more participation by managers with lower status, particularly in university environments. Eden and Ackermann (2001) add that greater participation likely increases the quality of decision-making. When there are multiple organizations taking part in the strategy process, the situation becomes more complicated. Ackermann et al. (2005), among others, have studied co-operation in multi-organizational collaborative teams (MCTÕs). Based on the previous literature, they developed a framework that depicts five general themes for the factors that impede co-operation in MCTÕs. The first theme, lack of history, refers to the lack of established norms and working rules among the participants. Second, although the organizations may have agreed on the purpose of the collaboration, they may still face conflicting goals. Third, trust is vital for the continuance of the collaboration in MCT settings, but complex politics and power relationships can cause difficulties among participants. Some organizations may be more powerful

E-COLLABORATION PROCESS FOR STRATEGY MAKING

367

than others due to unequal resources or dependency relations. Fourth, people representing their organization in the MCT may have multiple roles depending on the issue under consideration. Finally, for third parties (e.g. consultants, vendors or GSS facilitators), it may be difficult to identify the client. Based on a multiple-case study research, Ackermann et al. (2005) added a theme called facilitator role to the MCT framework. In all their multi-organizational studies, facilitators were found to take on extended roles, e.g. arbitrator, referee, or moderator. Finally, they stressed that it is very important for the facilitators to ensure that the intervention provides the means for developing a common basis for shared understanding. To sum up, collaborative strategy development and facilitation in multi-organizational settings is more complicated than in single organizational cases, due to the demanding task of aligning the individual strategies of the participating organizations. Although GSS have proved valuable in single-organizational strategy processes, their application is not straightforward in multi-organizational cases. For example de Vreede and de Bruijn (1999) found that GSS should be avoided in tasks where winners and losers can be identified (in the separation phase), while they recommended GSS for creativity tasks (for the orientation phase). 3. Methodology of the Study We adopted action research (Baskerville and Myers 2004; Lau 1999) as the main approach in this study. Action research (AR) was chosen because it aims to solve current practical problems while expanding scientific knowledge (Baskerville and Myers 2004). We were asked to design an effective new strategy development process for a consortium, and through our intervention we influenced its organizational change. We studied the whole process at the same time. In accordance with Mingers (2001), we supplement qualitative analyses (session transcript reports, interviews, and observations) with quantitative ones (session feedback survey). We also try to explain our methodological choices clearly and provide sufficient details on the intervention. There are several different ways to define and conduct action research (Lau 1999). We applied the AR cycle presented by Susman and Evered (1978), which includes the following phases: diagnosing, action planning, action taking, evaluating and specifying learning (reflection). Altogether four researchers were involved in the AR intervention. They all had some expertise in GSS and AR, and they were familiar with the case consortium through previous research. All researchers participated in the planning of the strategy session. One researcher provided content-specific expertise on strategy making. The other three were present at the strategy session. One of them facilitated the session, while the others acted as observers and technical facilitators. One technical facilitator took notes throughout the session and kept records on the ideation pace and number of ideas received (time and number of ideas were recorded from the facilitatorÕs screen). She also recorded the key points of the verbal discussions as well as notions on the ‘‘body language’’ of the participants.

368

BRAGGE ET AL.

As the problem solving method, we employed Collaboration Engineering (CE) and thinkLets (Briggs et al. 2003; de Vreede and Briggs 2005; Kolfschoten et al. 2006). CE is, to our knowledge, the only approach that is able to provide novice facilitators with codified and scripted, thus directly applicable, expert-level advice on how to construct and conduct successful collaboration processes. As for the technology, we utilized a centralized GSS called GroupSystemsTM MeetingRoom in a face-to-face setting. De Vreede and de Bruijn (1999) argue that multiple networking parties often have a need for electronic group support. They add that GSS, if skillfully employed, have been found to have distinct potential to provide effective support for collaborative problem solving. The GSS tool automatically produced session transcripts containing all written communication and voting results from the session. To determine the implications of our intervention we conducted two interviews with the chairman of the consortiumÕs Working Committee. The first, full-scale thematic interview was one month after the session, and the other, more informal one, was nearly one year after the session. However, we (Bragge and MerisaloRantanen 2005; Bragge et al. 2005b; Nurmi et al. 2005) also have conducted 13 semistructured thematic interviews with 12 interviewees from the Oodi consortium (1–3 of them in each interview) between November 2003 and May 2005. These interviews were used as background information that considerably increased our understanding of the case organization. The interviewees were CIOs, project managers, system designers, and consortium or student administration personnel. All our interviews except the brief latter interview with the chairman were recorded and transcribed, and the interviewees also validated the memoranda. We also used electronic data sources like the websites of the member universities and received written documents regarding the consortium, its ISD process and the Oodi IS. In addition, we had access to the case information system, Oodi. All the data gathered – observation notes, GSS-produced session transcripts, interview transcripts, and electronic and printed material – were analyzed by all four researchers. We all read through the material carefully and wrote down the key points individually. Then we discussed the key points together and summarized them. We were particularly interested in strategy-related issues and in finding out how the new strategy process was evaluated by the consortium, and how it proceeded after our intervention. 4. E-collaboration process for strategy development 4.1. Oodi consortium and the Oodi IS In this section, we first present the case consortium, Oodi, which consists of 13 out of 21 Finnish universities. It manages and develops a student information system, also called Oodi. The consortium was founded in 1995 by five universities. The main motive for establishing the consortium was to enable cost-efficient development of a common, up-to-date student information system. Finnish universities are non-profit

E-COLLABORATION PROCESS FOR STRATEGY MAKING

369

organizations, governed and financed for the most part by the Ministry of Education. Oodi consortium is a multi-level organization (see details in Bragge et al. 2005c). At the highest decision-making levels are the Control Committee, the Steering Group and the Working Committee. The main task of the Control Committee is to accept the strategy of the consortium, which is prepared in the administrative bodies below it. All other units of the consortium except the Consortium Administration (employing Project Director and five Project Managers) consist of representatives from all or selected member universities appointed for fixed terms. The consortium organization has repeatedly evolved due to the growing number of member universities and their changing needs. Also, a significant joint development and implementation effort for fall 2005 caused some organizational changes. This renewal was due to changes in the Finnish university legislation based on the European-wide Bologna Declaration. It was decided to develop the common student IS, Oodi, from scratch, after feasibility studies of several package software suites. All member universities have implemented the system, either in part or in full. The first two implementations were made in late 1999 and the latest implementation was conducted in March 2005. The IS caters to three user groups: student administration, students, and teachers. As of 2006, the systems development has continued for more than ten years and is still very active. It has been estimated that the Oodi system is in the early stages of its life cycle, and that it will be in use at least 10–15 years from now. 4.2. Collaboration process for the strategy development Next, we present the action research intervention conducted for the strategy development of the Oodi consortium, following Susman and EveredÕs (1978) AR cycle phases. 4.2.1. Diagnosing In summer 2004, the chairman of the Oodi consortiumÕs Working Committee, also the CIO of the Helsinki School of Economics (HSE), contacted one of the researchers, the main GSS facilitator at HSE. The chairman was concerned about the collaboration process for revising the strategy of the consortium. The previous strategy had been made years ago for the period 2002–2006, and had not been revised since. Also, a significant rise in the number of consortium members caused pressure to renew both the content and the process of the strategy. Hence, the chairman asked the facilitator to plan an effective and efficient e-collaboration process for the one-day strategy development workshop of the consortium to be held in fall 2004. Apart from studies related to the Oodi IS (Bragge and Merisalo-Rantanen 2005; Bragge et al. 2005b), the CIO and the facilitator had previously co-operated in HSEÕs internal e-meetings, where the ICT strategy for HSE was developed. Now there would be representatives from 13 different universities, which made planning for the workshop very challenging.

370

BRAGGE ET AL.

4.2.2. Action planning The planning began with a meeting of the main facilitator and three key consortium representatives from the Steering Group and the Working Committee. These representatives hoped that the collaborative strategy session would focus on mission, vision and strategic goals development. They proposed that the session could start by giving each of the 13 universities a 5-min time slot to explain their current issues. That would, however, easily have taken 2 h of the entire workshop. It was therefore decided to conduct this phase electronically, enabling simultaneous input and timesavings (cf. Dennis et al. 1997). The facilitator then drafted the agenda for the strategy workshop, taking advice primarily from the thinkLets book (Briggs and de Vreede 2001), but also from previous literature on successful GSS application and facilitation in MCTÕs (notably Ackermann et al. 2005; de Vreede and de Bruijn 1999; Dennis et al. 1997). Also, insights from negotiation analytic literature was applied e.g. in the form of Single Negotiation Texts (SNTs) (Raiffa et al. 2002). SNT is partly based on the notion that it is usually much easier to criticize something than to invent it from scratch. The detailed agenda draft (in standard text report format) was sent via e-mail to the three consortium representatives, who suggested a few minor changes to it. The researchers also discussed the agenda draft among themselves, both via e-mail and face-to-face. The strategy workshopÕs final agenda is presented in Figure 1. The process and thinkLets will be described in more detail in the next section. 4.2.3. Action taking The strategy workshop was arranged in connection with an annual Oodi seminar in September 2004. The participants, around 40, were able to choose between the GSSenabled strategy workshop and the annual operations plan workshop. However, each consortium university was to be represented in both groups. Out of 16 participants that selected the GSS session, ten represented student administration, seven IT services and one consortium administration (a couple had multiple responsibilities). The actual GSS session started on schedule at 10.30 a.m. Two participants opted to share a computer, others had their own. The session began with a short introduction of the facilitator team (three of the researchers participated in the session), the GSS, and the goals of the session. Thereafter, we started applying the GSS with a warm-up question using the OnePage thinkLet to make the participants feel comfortable with the GSS technology. The actual strategy development started with a concrete task of internal environment analysis. The participants were asked to brainstorm on the needs of their university concerning the Oodi system using the FreeBrainstorm thinkLet. Hence, 18 electronic idea sheets circulated, each with a common question at the top: ‘‘What needs and challenges will your university, and especially your student administration, face in the coming years with respect to the Oodi system?’’. This needs elicitation was finished in 35 min, and 198 comments were gathered.

Figure 1. Facilitation Process Model of the e-collaboration process for strategy development.

E-COLLABORATION PROCESS FOR STRATEGY MAKING

371

372

BRAGGE ET AL.

Thereafter, the key needs stated on the idea sheets were discussed verbally for 15 min using the FastFocus thinkLet. Simultaneously, the facilitator collected and wrote the key needs, 31 altogether, into a common list. After a 45-min lunch break, these needs were prioritized using the StrawPoll thinkLet (with Likert scale 1–7: not at all important-extremely important). First, the needs regarded as the most and least important were discussed (range of means was 2.44–6.44). Thereafter, the results were sorted by standard deviation (SD) to encourage constructive discussion on issues where opinions were divided employing the Crowbar thinkLet. The voting and discussions lasted about 45 min. After this internal environment analysis phase, we continued with mission statement and vision generation using the OnePage thinkLet in both. With the mission statement, we had formed a draft (SNT) based on the previous strategy paper of the consortium. We asked the participants to criticize this less-than-perfect statement by contributing their own, improved version of it. Group work was also encouraged. We got 20 alternative statements or comments on the draft. These were discussed and merged with the Concentration thinkLet, after which the remaining 12 alternatives were prioritized (scale 1–7). The results were again discussed employing the Crowbar thinkLet. Instead of selecting the best mission statement, it was agreed that a smaller working group would finalize the statement later on. The mission generation phase lasted about 50 minutes, after which we had a 20-min coffee break. For the vision generation, we adopted another approach using the same OnePage thinkLet: the participants were asked to imagine a situation where one large Finnish university is considering joining the consortium. This universityÕs management wants to have a description of the state of the Oodi consortium in 2009. Each participant was allowed to give his or her own vision statement. Fourteen alternative statements were contributed and then prioritized using the StrawPoll thinkLet (scale 1–7, range of means 3.43–5.20). We again invited discussion on the statements that had a large spread using the Crowbar thinkLet. As with the mission statement, it was decided to finalize the vision statement in a smaller working group later on. The vision generation took about 20 min. In the final part of the GSS session the strategic goals were ideated using OnePage; the measures to be taken to achieve those goals were considered concurrently using LeafHopper. Altogether 37 strategic goals were ideated and then prioritized by allowing each participant to select the 10 most important ones using StrawPoll. This resulted in ten issues that received at least 6 votes from 15 voters. Next, we categorized the presented strategic goals. Based on the consortiumÕs previous strategy, we had predefined 5 categories that were updated via discussion to 8 categories. The participants were asked to drag and drop the ideas to these eight categories using PopcornSort. We finished again with a short discussion. This phase took 55 min. The strategy session ended with an electronic feedback survey and a wrap-up review. At 4 p.m., according to the pre-planned schedule, the session participants convened together with the operations plan group for the closure of the Oodi seminar day.

E-COLLABORATION PROCESS FOR STRATEGY MAKING

373

4.2.4. Evaluating Our overall impression of the strategy sessionÕs successfulness is very affirmative. The atmosphere of the workshop was relaxed, partly because the session focused mainly on creativity tasks without any pressure to make final decisions, as advised by de Vreede and de Bruijn (1999). Following Dennis et al. (1997), the session provided comprehensive and fair process support (electronic, anonymous and parallel communication with group memory), process structure (e.g. predefined agenda), as well as task structure (e.g. predefined categories, SNT). We allowed also lively faceto-face discussions as one form of task support. The participants were positively surprised by the fact that there were no technical problems. All these aspects seemed to keep up a good spirit throughout the whole workshop. 4.2.4.1. Observation. All three researchers observed the session participants, and one of them took notes on the ideation pace, the ‘‘body language’’ of the participants, and on the discussions throughout the session. At the beginning, some participants were somewhat doubtful towards the technique. This might be the reason why two of the participants chose to share a computer. However, not a single participant had trouble in using the GSS software. The time actually taken for the individual tasks did not match the pre-planned estimates exactly, although we did manage to go through all the tasks in the tight agenda. One obvious reason for the slight discrepancies in timing was that the discussions on the terms and the main principles of the consortium were very lively. However, only less than half of the participants took part in these verbal discussions, implying that the anonymous computer-mediated discussions were able to increase the democratic involvement of the participants. 4.2.4.2. Participant opinions. At the end of the strategy session we collected the participantsÕ opinions with an electronic questionnaire consisting of both quantitative and open-ended questions. The participants gave extremely positive feedback on the strategy session. Based on 16 answers on a Likert scale 1–7, the objectives of the session were well achieved (mean = 5.50, SD = 0.73), the results were very useful (mean = 5.69, SD = 0.70), and the e-collaboration process helped the participants to focus the discussion on essential matters (mean = 5.63, SD = 0.89). All of them would recommend the use of GroupSystems to others, and they would most probably use it or another GSS again in similar tasks. Only two of the participants had used GSS before. Among the benefits of GSS the following issues were highlighted: anonymity, equality, interactivity, efficiency, effectiveness, online voting and documentation. The participants liked the systematic, controlled way of working, and regarded GSS as an ideal tool for a large and heterogeneous group like the Oodi consortium. The ideas collected were considered useful for the development of the consortium strategy as well as for the Oodi system. The comments about the e-collaboration process and its implementation were also mainly positive. The session was looked upon as well planned and implemented, and the process was regarded as very effective and

374

BRAGGE ET AL.

efficient. The quantity and the quality of the results gained were regarded as superior to those obtained using a more conventional strategy development method. Some participants suggested that GSS should be used in the meetings of all OodiÕs work groups, or many meetings could even be replaced with distributed GSS sessions. Also, the facilitator teamÕs situational sensitivity, flexibility as well as expertise on GSS and the substance were appreciated in several comments. We have a university background, but no decision-making power or role regarding the consortium or the Oodi IS. As we have also conducted previous research related to Oodi, we believe we were regarded as legitimate convenors and facilitators of the workshop (see discussion e.g. in Ackermann et al. 2005). A few critical comments, however, were raised. First, one participant pointed out that utilizing GSS software does not eliminate the need for deep face-to-face discussions and deliberation of the ideas. Thus, the process should be continued with conventional meetings as was agreed in the session. Second, in all voting-based methods there is a risk that an average option wins. The wildest options may be automatically discarded, although they may sometimes turn out to be real jewels. However, attempts were made to mitigate this problem through discussions using the Crowbar thinkLet. Third, there were divergent opinions of the workshop schedule. Some thought it was too tight while some regarded it as too slow. 4.2.4.3. Opinions of the chairman of the Working Committee. We interviewed the chairman of the Working Committee twice about the results and implications of the strategy workshop. In the first interview, one month after the session, he mentioned that the process was extremely effective in supporting the strategy development of the consortium, and that it saved several months of time compared with their conventional ways of working. He continued that the material received was abundant and very useful for the strategy process and for the development of the system. Many of the needs gathered in the internal analysis phase were previously known, but it was very useful to find out the relative importance of these needs. It was also important that the newcomer universities were able to learn the plans and projects going on in the consortium. The rich and lively verbal discussions during the session were thus a very essential and useful part of the strategy process. In the later interview, around a year after the strategy session, the chairman stated that the new strategy for the consortium had been formulated largely in keeping with the results obtained in the strategy session. The workshopÕs results were first discussed and further elaborated in the Working Committee. Also, the members of the Steering Group had received and discussed the material. The strategy draft was then processed into a final strategy report using the consortiumÕs traditional processes, i.e. meetings and review rounds. 4.2.5. Reflecting (specifying learning) The CE approach with thinkLets appears to provide significant aid for novices in designing and facilitating efficient and effective collaboration processes, also in complex settings. It certainly enabled us as novice facilitators to bring the best out

E-COLLABORATION PROCESS FOR STRATEGY MAKING

375

of the technical GSS tools selected to support the multi-party task. Furthermore, the strategy development process illustrated in Figure 1 may now be easily repeated by others, either with the same organization or in similar settings. The participants suggested only minor issues to improve the process, in addition to which we recommend a little more time to be used for deepening discussion on the strategic goals. The opportunity to discuss the matters that came up during the day was also an essential part of the strategy process. The key issues in discussions were the lack of common terminology in the consortium and the need for common processes. The session, and especially the discussions raised, was extremely important for newcomers in the consortium. Thus, in a way, the session also served as a staff-training day. In Finland, the universities are governmental institutions, and for reasons of regional policy they are widely scattered all around the country. Lots of time and money from traveling would be saved if the consortiumÕs meetings were made more efficient. As suggested also by some participants, the consortium could arrange virtual meetings instead of some routine face-to-face meetings. Distributed and webbased GSS, possibly backed up with web-based video and audio conferencing technology, could be one means to organize highly efficient virtual meetings. 5. Discussion and Conclusions In this action research, we have designed and conducted a repeatable e-collaboration process for strategy development. This process is built using the Collaboration Engineering approach with thinkLets, and it is powered by GSS. We facilitated the 6-h process in a consortium of 13 Finnish universities in charge of a joint student IS. The strategy session started with an internal environment analysis of ideating the needs of the universities with respect to the common IS. The process continued with the mission statement and vision statement creation, and ended up with the generation of strategic goals and the means to achieve them. The CE approach was able to provide us invaluable aid for designing and facilitating this demanding multi-party process. The implementation of the strategy development process proved that the selected thinkLets provided the patterns of collaboration as predicted. Our intervention resulted in pleased participants and problem-owners and extensive material for the revised strategy. Supplemented with knowledge about the constituent parts of the process – thinkLets – the process may now be easily repeated by others, either by professional or novice facilitators or even practitioners (see discussion in Kolfschoten et al. 2006). According to our experience with business organizations, strategy is a delicate issue in todayÕs competitive global economy. Hence, many companies might be interested in an efficient process that they can manage without the intervention of an external facilitator. Our overall impression of the strategy sessionÕs successfulness is very affirmative. The atmosphere of the workshop was productive and relaxed, partly because the session focused mainly on creativity tasks without any pressure to make final

376

BRAGGE ET AL.

decisions (cf. de Vreede and de Bruijn 1999). Moreover, from the GSS success factors found in Dennis et al. (1997), we provided comprehensive process support, process structure, as well as task structure during the session. The MCT framework of Ackermann et al. (2005) offered us a lot of insights for handling the multi-organizational teamwork dynamics during the session. For example, we were once asked to take the role of a legitimate and knowledgeable arbitrator, that is, to give an opinion during the discussions. We also found GSS to be an excellent instrument for mitigating many of the impediments for MCT co-operation summed up by Ackermann et al. (2005). For example, we believe that the novelty of the GSS-aided way of working alleviated the lack of a common history, and guided the participants to look at the strategy neutrally and focusing on the future, not on the past. The anonymity feature of GSS is extremely valuable. It mitigates the rise of conflicts, complex politics, and power relations, although there are many diverging opinions among the participants and their organizations. Also, the long-term effects related to the strategy making challenges of this kind of a ‘‘procedurally just’’ and fair process should be positive (Eden and Ackermann 2001). The roles of the participants were also regarded as equivalent, and the problem of identifying the client was irrelevant. Our choice of offering more structure in some tasks of the strategy process seemed to work well. That is, we opted to use ‘‘seeds’’ for brainstorming, mainly data from the consortiumÕs previous strategy. It is known from the negotiation analytic literature that it is sometimes wiser to concentrate efforts right from the beginning on a single (non-optimal) negotiation text. It can easily be improved by constructive criticism, in contrast to a straining ‘‘dance of packages,’’ where the parties suggest their own disparate solutions (e.g. Raiffa et al. 2002). Compared with conventional means of carrying out strategy development work, the consortium saved huge amounts of time. The session also produced lots of material for the purposes of the strategy formulation and also for their joint IS development. It was decided that the Working Committee would finalize the material gathered afterwards with conventional strategy development methods. This finding supports the results of Dennis et al. (1997) that GSS were seen as a better way to capture essential information and to begin discussions, but not to finalize them (see also de Vreede and de Bruijn 1999). There are also limitations in our study. Firstly, we have facilitated the designed strategy development process only once in one case organization, so we can only assume that the process can be repeated. Secondly, the process has not yet been transferred to the consortium to be carried out and facilitated by its own staff according to the original, ultimate principles of CE. Thus, we can only speculate whether the case organization will adopt our e-process design as a basis for their strategy development – a longitudinal study would be needed to resolve this issue. According to Pollard (2003), an effective process template is only one factor that will probably increase GSS adoption, others include social system factors (e.g. technographer support), innovation factors (e.g. reliability) and environment factors (e.g. vendor-champion alliances). Nevertheless, we believe that the e-collaboration process constructed has already passed the ‘‘weak market test’’ (Kasanen et al.

E-COLLABORATION PROCESS FOR STRATEGY MAKING

377

1993), because ‘‘a manager with financial responsibility has been willing to apply the construction in his business.’’ Passing the ‘‘semi-strong market test’’ would imply that the construction has become widely adopted by organizations, and a ‘‘strong market test’’ that the units applying the construction systematically would have produced better results than those which are not using it (Kasanen et al. 1993). As Bragge et al. (2005a), we also suggest that CE could be augmented with an equivalent 3-tier market test. We are certain that the collaboration processes that are designed and piloted for various organizational purposes are able to disseminate invaluable information for collaborative teams facing the same situation, even when they are reported after passing only the weak market test, as in our case. In the future, we expect to repeat this e-collaboration process for strategy development in the Oodi consortium, based on the positive results and attitudes. Although we have facilitated the process in a multi-organizational setting, it may also be applied in a single organization. It would also be interesting to modify and facilitate the strategy development process in a distributed setting, utilizing webbased GSS accompanied with web-based video and audio conferencing technology. A GSS-aided session that supports different meeting modes with respect to time and place certainly has lots of potential in the contemporary quartile economy. We also plan to widen our research scope in the field of CE by designing new efficient and effective collaboration processes for different tasks of the case consortiumÕs work groups. The participants in the Oodi strategy session already ideated several team processes and tasks, which could benefit from the use of distributed GSS. Acknowledgements The authors thank the two anonymous referees for their comments on improving this paper. This research was supported in part by the Marcus WallenbergÕs Foundation for Business Research, the HSE Foundation, and the Finnish Foundation for Economic and Technology Sciences.

References Ackermann, F., L. A. Franco, R. B. Gallupe, and M. Parent. (2005). ‘‘GSS for Multi-Organizational Collaboration: Reflections on Process and Content,’’ Group Decision and Negotiation 14(4), 307–331. Adkins, M., M. Burgoon, and J. F. Nunamaker. (2003). ‘‘Using Group Support Systems for Strategic Planning with the United States Air Force,’’ Decision Support Systems 34(3), 315–337. Austin, T., N. Drakos, and J. Mann. (2006). Web Conferencing Amplifies Dysfunctional Meeting Practices, Gartner Research, Nr. G00138101, Gartner, Inc., March 13, 2006. Bajwa, D. S., L. F. Lewis, and G. Pervan. (2003). Adoption of Collaboration Information Technologies in Australian and US Organizations: A Comparative Study, Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii, USA, IEEE, 1–10. Baskerville, R. and M. D. Myers. (2004). ‘‘Special Issue on Action Research in Information Systems: Making IS Research Relevant to Practice,’’ MIS Quarterly 28(3), 329–335.

378

BRAGGE ET AL.

Bragge, J., M. den Hengst, T. Tuunanen, and V. Virtanen. (2005a). ‘‘A Repeatable Collaboration Process for Developing a Road Map for Mobile Marketing,’’ Proceedings of the the 11th Americas Conference on Information Systems AMCIS, August 11–14, Omaha, USA. Bragge, J. and H. Merisalo-Rantanen. (2005). ‘‘Insights on Developing a Collaboration Process for Gathering Innovative End-User Feedback on Information Systems,’’ Proceedings of the Group Decision and Negotiation Conference, July 10–13, Vienna, Austria, pp 1–25. Bragge, J., H. Merisalo-Rantanen, and P. Hallikainen. (2005b). ‘‘Gathering Innovative End-User Feedback for Continuous Development of Information Systems: A Repeatable and Transferable E-Collaboration Process,’’ IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 48(1), 55–67. Bragge, J., H. Merisalo-Rantanen, A. Nurmi, and L. Tanner. (2005c). ‘‘GSS-Enabled Strategy Development in a Multi-Organization Environment,’’ Proceedings of the Group Decision and Negotiation Conference, July 10–13, Vienna, Austria, pp. 1–27. Briggs, R. O. and G. J. de Vreede (2001). ThinkLets: Building Blocks for Concerted Collaboration (Version 1.0). Tucson: GroupSystems.com. Briggs, R. O., G. J. de Vreede, and J. F. Nunamaker. (2003). ‘‘Collaboration Engineering with ThinkLets to Pursue Sustained Success with Group Support Systems,’’ Journal of Management Information Systems 19(4), 31–64. Chandler, A. D. (1962). Strategy and Structure. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. de Vreede, G. J. and R. O. Briggs. (2005). ‘‘Collaboration Engineering: Designing Repeatable Processes for High-Value Collaborative Tasks,’’ Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, January 3–6, Hawaii, USA, IEEE. de Vreede, G. J. and H. de Bruijn. (1999). ‘‘Exploring the Boundaries of Successful GSS Application: Supporting Inter-Organizational Policy Networks,’’ DataBase 30(3–4), 111–131. Dennis, A. R., C. K. Tyran, D. Vogel, and J. F. Nunamaker. (1997). ‘‘Group Support Systems for Strategic Planning,’’ Journal of Management Information Systems 14(1), 155–184. Eden, C. and F. Ackermann. (2001). ‘‘Group Decision and Negotiation in Strategy Making’’ Group Decision and Negotiation 10(2), 119–140. Fisher, R. and S. Brown (1988). Getting Together: Building a Relationship that Gets to Yes. Boston, Mass: Houghton-Mifflin. Freedman, M. (2003). ‘‘The Genius is in the Implementation,’’ Journal of Business Strategy 24(2), 23–31. Gartner, Inc. (2005). Gartner Says WWW Conferencing and Team Collaboration Software Market Will Exceed $1.1 Billion by 2008, Press release, March 23, 2005. Greene, J. (2005). ‘‘Combat over Collaboration,’’ BusinessWeek 18(4), 65–66. Hansen, M.T. and N. Nohria. (2004). ‘‘How to Build Collaborative Advantage,’’ MIT Sloan Management Review, Fall, 22–30. Kasanen, E., K. Lukka, and A. Siitonen. (1993). ‘‘The Constructive Approach in Management Accounting Research,’’ Journal of Management Accounting Research 5(Fall), 243–264. Kolfschoten, G. L., R. O. Briggs, G. J. de Vreede, P. H. M. Jacobs, and J. Appelman. (2006). ‘‘A Conceptual Foundation of the ThinkLet Concept for Collaboration Engineering,’’ International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64(7), 611–621. Lau, F. (1999). ‘‘Toward a Framework for Action Research in Information Systems Studies,’’ Information Technology & People 12(2), 148–175. Mantere, S., V. Ha¨ma¨la¨inen, P. Aaltonen, H. Ika¨valko, and V. Teikari. (2003). Implementing the Organizational Strategy: From Plans to Practice (Finnish Ed.), Helsinki: Edita Publishing Oy. Mingers, J. (2001). ‘‘Combining IS Research Methods: Towards a Pluralist Methodology,’’ Information Systems Research 12(3), 240–259. Mintzberg, H. (1978). ‘‘Patterns in Strategy Formation,’’ Management Science 24(9), 934–948. Munkvold, B. E. and I. Zigurs. (2005). ‘‘Integration of E-Collaboration Technologies: Research Opportunities and Challenges,’’ International Journal of e-Collaboration 1(2), 1–24. Nunamaker, J. F., A. R. Dennis, J. S. Valacich, D. R. Vogel, and J. F. George. (1991). ‘‘Electronic Meeting Systems to Support Group Work,’’ Communications of the ACM 34(7), 40–61. Nurmi, A., P. Hallikainen, and M. Rossi. (2005). ‘‘Coordination of Outsourced IS Development in Multiple Customer Environment-A Case Study of a Joint ISD Project,’’ Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii, USA, 1–10. Orwig, R., H. Chen, D. Vogel, and J. F. Nunamaker. (1997). ‘‘A Multi-Agent View of Strategic Planning Using Group Support Systems and Artificial Intelligence,’’ Group Decision and Negotiation 6(1), 37–59. Pollard, C. (2003). ‘‘Exploring Continued and Discontinued Use of IT: A Case Study of OptionFinder, a Group Support System,’’ Group Decision and Negotiation 12, 171–193.

E-COLLABORATION PROCESS FOR STRATEGY MAKING

379

Quinn, J. B. (1999). ‘‘Strategies for Change’’. in: J. B. Mintzberg and H. Quinn, (eds.) The Strategy Process. Concepts, Contexts, Cases Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Raiffa, H., J. Richardsson, and D. Metcalfe (2002). Negotiation Analysis. The Science and Art of Collaborative Decision Making. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Susman, G. I. and R. D. Evered. (1978). ‘‘An Assessment of the Scientific Merits of Action Research,’’ Administrative Science Quarterly 23(4), 582–603. Thompson, A. A. Jr., J. E. Gamble, and A. J. Strickland III. (2004). Strategy: Winning in the Marketplace: Core Concepts, Analytical Tools, Cases. New York: McGraw-Hill. Tyran, C. K., A. R. Dennis, D. R. Vogel, and J. F. Nunamaker. (1992). ‘‘The Application of Electronic Meeting Technology to Support Strategic Management,’’ MIS Quarterly 16(3), 313–334.