Groupware and the Internet: Charting a New World - IEEE Computer ...

Groupware and the Internet: Charting a New World Alan R. Dennis Department of Management University of Georgia Athens GA 30602 [email protected]

Bradley C. Wheeler Accounting & Information Systems Indiana University Bloomington IN 47405 [email protected] 2. Groupware and the Internet

Abstract This paper contrasts web-based groupware with other forms of communication, such as e-mail, listservs, newsgroups, and proprietary conferencing systems. We report the results of a study of more than 100 organizations that have used web-groupware to better understand how they are using it, and what advantages and disadvantages they have experienced. We then use this data to develop a framework for analyzing, organizing, and “fitting” groupware systems to organizational needs.

1. Introduction The Internet and World Wide Web hold many possibilities for new forms of communication. The Internet and the web enable individuals to exchange email, participate newsgroups or listserv discussions, and publish information electronically. The web also enables innovative applications of groupware [4, 8, 19]. Traditional groupware has been primarily focused on private internal corporate networks, often LAN-based. Many groupware tools such as Notes or GroupSystems required proprietary and expensive software. The web is changing this. There are now dozens of web-based systems available that bring the power of groupware to any desktop with a web browser [see 1, 3, 18, 24]. The question, of course, is what advantages and disadvantages do web-based groupware systems have compared to proprietary groupware and the Internetbased systems (e.g., listservs, newsgroups). In this paper, we report on a study of more than 100 organizations that are early adopters of web groupware to better understand how they are using it, and the benefits and limitations they encountered. We then use these results to build a framework for examining the capabilities of groupware and the needs of organizations.

Electronic communities have existed in one form or other for almost as long as there has been reliable electronic communication, at least since the mid 1970s [e.g., 10, 11, 23]. Many of these communities used proprietary conferencing systems (e.g., EEIS [12]). As the Internet and internal networks became commonplace, e-mail, listservs, and usenet newsgroups followed. One of the key advantages that e-mail, listservs, and newsgroups had over the proprietary systems was their universality; thanks to standards, users on variety of different systems could now communicate freely with each other. Conferencing systems, e-mail, listservs, and newsgroups can generally be categorized as different forms of groupware. Groupware is a term that is commonly used, but lacks a commonly accepted definition. In general, groupware is a set of hardware and software designed to help groups work together whether in the same room at the same time, or at different times and places [16]. E-mail, and by extension listservs, enable individuals to send electronic messages to others or to entire groups of other users. Communication is sequential, and generally unstructured. Messages on different topics can follow each other and become intertwined, making communication much like watching many different TV channels at the same time. E-mail and listservs are “push” technologies, in that the sender of the message determines who receives it, not the receiver(s). This can create problems with information overload because users cannot easily filter or summarize messages [13]. Listservs also impose a heavy message load on the network and computers. If there are 1000 members of a listserv, then every message is duplicated and stored 1,000 times. Usenet newsgroups solve some of these problems by imposing some minimal structure to messages. Messages generally can be organized and threaded, so that responses to messages are linked to the original messages

Proceedings of The Thirtieth Annual Hawwaii International Conference on System Sciences ISBN 0-8186-7862-3/97 $17.00 © 1997 IEEE

1060-3425/97 $10.00 (c) 1997 IEEE

and other responses by threads that enable readers to follow related discussions. Newsgroups are “pull” technologies, in that users select which messages to read. This and the limited form of structure available, offer some improvement in the reduction of information overload. However, editing and organizing messages is difficult. Security is also an issue, because unlike e-mail and listservs, it is more difficult to restrict access to newsgroups so that only selected users can participate. Newsgroups reduce network traffic and storage, because only one copy of each message is stored on each newsgroup server. Not all newsgroup servers are updated simultaneously, so there are some inconsistencies in the message structures among different newsgroup servers. Proprietary conferencing systems and groupware systems are pull technologies like the newsgroups, but offer the ability to select the users who can and cannot participate and the privileges that individual users have. They provide two key functions beyond those of e-mail and newsgroups. First, they enable participants to generate, read, and organize information in an archived structured form. Participants can edit, move, and structure the information, to add meaning to the it and reduce the effects of information overload [13, 16]. Many systems also enable anonymous comments to encourage more open and honest comments [13, 16]. The second key function of this form of groupware is the ability for group members to vote, or otherwise quantitatively analyze the relative merits of alternatives [13, 16]. Most groupware systems enable users to vote by ranking or rating alternatives. Some support more formal methods such as multicriteria decision making. While these proprietary conferencing and groupware systems offer several benefits over e-mail, listservs, and newsgroups, traditionally they have used software and architectures running over local area networks or proprietary wide area networks. These architectures severely restrict the generalizability and wide-spread use of these systems. They do not have the same low cost, technical simplicity and “reach” of Internet-based tools. The web presents a new opportunity. Rather than relying on proprietary software and architectures, which by their very nature are limiting, we can now build systems and architectures that take advantage of widely adopted open standards that are available to most potential users of groupware. Many existing proprietary groupware products are embracing the web (e.g., Notes). Today, more than 75 web groupware systems are available, virtually of which have debuted in 1996 [24]. At present, we know very little how web groupware systems are being used, what features users perceive to be important, and what advantages and disadvantages the systems provide. To some extent, we can answer these

questions by building on previous research with non-web groupware and by examining the currently available systems. Much past research likely can generalize to the web, and systems developers are likely to be at least somewhat cognizant of the key features users need. However, the web offers opportunities and limitations not found in traditional environments, and users adapt tools in ways not intended by their designers [7]. Many new adopters of web-groupware are also new to groupware; and have no prior experience or expectations. We developed three research questions: 1. In what ways is web groupware used? 2. What are advantages and disadvantages? 3. What are the key features of web groupware?

3. Method We decided the best way to answer these questions was to use a grounded theory approach [22]. We are not, of course, attempting to develop a theory per se, but rather are using techniques used in grounded theory development to analyze and inductively derive a set of key elements and framework of analysis [c.f. 22, p. 23]. We decided it was best to use a combined case study/interview and survey approach [15]. Interviews would provide a better in-depth understanding, while the survey would provide more breadth and better enable us to understand the opinions of many users.

3.1 Interviews We conducted semi-structured interviews with one to three members of four organizations who had used web groupware. The interviewees were selected purposefully [25] to include two organizations successfully using web groupware and two that had discarded it. The interviews were conducted over the telephone or via e-mail. The interviews began with a set of structured questions (see below), but flowed differently for each interviewee; the responses to these questions were pursued and took each interview in a different direction. The general questions asked were: 1. Please describe how you are thinking about using web groupware or other similar tools. I am interested in: a) the subject matter (e.g., quality teams, distance education) b) the time & place (e.g., different cities different times, same time & place in a decision room), and c) whether a specially trained person (e.g., facilitator) is involved. 2. What do you see as the biggest advantages and disadvantages of web-based tools. Please think beyond

Proceedings of The Thirtieth Annual Hawwaii International Conference on System Sciences ISBN 0-8186-7862-3/97 $17.00 © 1997 IEEE

1060-3425/97 $10.00 (c) 1997 IEEE

the current version of the software you’re using. 3. What additional features or functions would make the system you are using more useful?

3.2 Survey Given the early and rather immature state of the field, we chose to use open-ended, qualitative survey questions to better understand how organizations were using web groupware and what benefits and problems they were experiencing. We used the same questions as used in the interviews above. Once again, our selection of organizations was purposeful, rather than random. We maintain a web site with information about groupware and web groupware. We sent the questionnaire to everyone who had e-mailed us seeking additional information about web groupware. Surveys were e-mailed to 335 potential respondents, with a second “mailing” of the survey sent out one month later to any who had not responded. We received responses from 108 organizations (a response rate of 32%); 102 from the original “mailing” and six from the second mailing. The response rate might have been higher had we pre-qualified our respondents; it may be that some of those to whom we send surveys were not implementing groupware but just seeking information.

3.3 Analysis We followed an analysis approach recommended by several qualitative researchers [15, 17, 22]. First, we drew on previous theory and research, popular press and promotional articles, and our own experiences as developers and users of groupware to develop “theoretical sensitivity” to the issues under study [15, 22] and develop some initial “sensitizing” or “seed” concepts [15, 17]. Next, the interview transcripts and survey responses were read to gain a general gestalt of the responses. We used open coding to develop some possible concepts and to consider whether the initial seed concepts had merit. This resulted in a set of initial concepts. We then analyzed the data a second time, attempting to add and delete concepts, further refine the concepts, and match each response or response fragment to a specific concept. This resulted in a refined set of concepts matched to specific parts of the interview and survey responses. In the cases of RQ1 and RQ2, simple counts of concept frequencies were needed (to determine the most common uses, advantages, and disadvantages). For RQ3, however, the data were more complex. Our goal here was to better understand the features provided by the tools and the key issues in using them. For this

question, the authors met to discuss the concepts, refine them, and develop a higher order level of structure to better organize and interpret them. We then re-analyzed the data to ensure our reorganization of the concepts was consistent with the data.

4. Descriptive Analysis 4.1 What is Web Groupware Used For? The first analysis attempted to understand the ways in which web groupware was being used (or had been used in the case of the discarders). Figure 1 summarizes the results, based on our sample of 112 organizations (four interview, 108 survey). Several organizations reported several ways in which they were using web groupware, so the numbers sum to more than 100%. One major category of use was to support the work of project teams. The most common uses were to support geographically distributed project teams, or co-located teams (teams that worked in the same location (e.g., the same building) but who used it to support different time and place meetings). Most organizations in these categories reported using web groupware to supplement regular face-to-face non-groupware meetings, primarily for meeting preparation and to start discussions. No organization reported using groupware to reach closure on discussions started in face-to-face meetings. Face-toface meetings were seen as sources of closure, not the initiation of new items to be discussed asynchronously. Six organizations reported using web groupware in decision rooms in place of traditional proprietary groupware such as VisionQuest. A second major category educational use, primarily by universities. In some cases, web groupware was used to support in-class discussions in decision rooms, but as with the project teams above, the two most common applications were to supplement or replace face-to-face teaching. In the co-located category, instructors used the software to extend class discussions outside of class in addition to traditional teaching. In the distributed category, the software was used to teach courses that did not have face-to-face class meetings. For most of these organizations, the software was used to supplement other media, such as phone or traditional mail correspondence courses. The final educational applications were researching and teaching groupware. The third major category of applications was to support special interest groups; that is, to replace listservs. The key goal for this application was to hold formal and informal discussions and to share information and opinions among a group of individuals with common

Proceedings of The Thirtieth Annual Hawwaii International Conference on System Sciences ISBN 0-8186-7862-3/97 $17.00 © 1997 IEEE

1060-3425/97 $10.00 (c) 1997 IEEE

interests that distributed around the world. In this case, the web groupware provided a more structured form than a newsgroup, listserv, or mailing list would provide. Figure 1:

How Web Groupware is Used

Project Teams Decision Rooms

6

Co-Located

28

Distributed

26

Education Decision Rooms

4

Co-Located

14

Distributed

11

Groupware Research

6

Groupware Instruction

11

challenges facing developers of web groupware. The second group of disadvantages centered on the features of current web groupware. The lack of features, and a lack of integration with other tools such as e-mail and word processors. These are likely to be overcome in time and represent the immaturity of many web systems. The final set of issues is likely to become more important over time. These issues are operating costs (systems administration, training, and facilitation) and changing workgroup skills and norms to adapt to the new possibilities offered by the software. We believe that training users (both in the use of the technology, and in changing their traditional ways of working) is a fundamental issue that will be faced by every organization adopting web groupware.

Other Special Interest Groups

Figure 2: Advantages and Disadvantages

15 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Disadvantages

Advantages

Percent of Organizations Responding

Network Speed & Reliability

4.2 Advantages and Disadvantages

20

47 Open Network Std

Features 20

The most commonly mentioned advantage of web groupware was the use of open network standards on the Internet to enable any-place-any-time interaction (see Figure 2). The reach of web-based software meant that people could interact in the same building or around the world. Many respondents drew a sharp contrast between this ubiquitous access and the constraints of proprietary or LAN-based systems. This ubiquitous reach was often related to the next most important advantage: the use of an open client standard (i.e., commonly available, platform independent web browser). A second set of advantages focused mostly on the specific functions available to support interaction. The type of transformations available (such as the ability to structure and analyze discussions and sort them to identify key elements), the specific features of the software (e.g., anonymity, imbedding HTML and graphics), and a common tool with which users were familiar were all important. Finally, the inexpensive setup costs and minimal learning were also reported by a small but significant number of organizations. In general, the disadvantages reported can be grouped into three areas. The first and most prominent set of disadvantages dealt with network technologies. Concerns about slow and unreliable networks and network security were common. The lack of web access by some users and limitations of browsers were also reported by several organizations. While some of these issues may improve as network technologies improve, they are likely to remain issues. We regard these as fundamental

22

Network Security

9

14

Operating Costs

7

12

Group Learning

6

12

Client Limitations

5

Lack of Access 30

Transformations Features Familiar Design

9

3 20

Open Client Std

Setup Costs

7 10

0

10

Minimal Learning 20

30

40

50

Percent of Organzations Responding

5. A Framework for Groupware Analysis Task-technology fit theory [9] argues that it is important to fit the capabilities of technology to organizational needs. It became clear that the organizations in our sample had many different visions of groupware and were using it for different applications. Before we can attempt to fit technology to needs, we need a way of discussing groupware and organizational needs. One of the challenges faced by groupware developers, users, and researchers is that the term groupware applies to many different types of software, each of which have different capabilities and uses. We decided that one important step was to develop a framework that could be used to analyze both the capability of specific groupware systems and the needs of organizations. By comparing groupware capabilities and organizational needs in a more structured form, it becomes simpler to identify good and bad “fits.” The framework that emerged from the synthesis of our

Proceedings of The Thirtieth Annual Hawwaii International Conference on System Sciences ISBN 0-8186-7862-3/97 $17.00 © 1997 IEEE

1060-3425/97 $10.00 (c) 1997 IEEE

interview and survey data, prior theory and research, and popular press and commercial discussions of groupware is depicted in Figure 3. This framework is composed of four quadrants divided by vertical and horizontal axes. The vertical axis distinguish between the groupware technology itself and the use of the technology in organizations. The horizontal axis contrasts the capabilities of the software the enabling conditions needed to deploy it. The next sections explain each quadrant and the items contained therein.

5.1 Collaborative Capabilities Quadrant I represents Collaborative Capabilities. It addresses the question of what will groupware do? -- the fundamental activities for which groupware is used.

Dennis and Valacich [5] propose that communication can be understood in terms of conveyance and convergence. Both activities appeared regularly in our data, with conveyance being much more common than convergence. Conveyance is the exchange of information among participants with interpretation, understanding, and use of the information left to the individual. For example, organizations in our survey used groupware for the communication of marketing intelligence, project schedules, or ideas for quality improvements. Convergence is the development of shared meaning among participants. Organizations in our survey used groupware to convergence on the selection of projects to be funded or develop outlines for project reports.

Figure 3: Analysis Framework Technology Use

I. Collaborative Capabilities What will groupware do?

Conveyance

IV. Organizational Requirements What must be done? Low Operating Costs

Convergence

Workgroup Learning

Organizational Memory

Low Startup Costs

Capabilities

Enabling Conditions

Familiar Design Metaphor

Asynchronous Connectivity Open Networking Standards

Transforming Functions Features How is collaboration done? II. Technical Capabilities

Open Client Standards Technology Characteristics

Proceedings of The Thirtieth Annual Hawwaii International Conference on System Sciences ISBN 0-8186-7862-3/97 $17.00 © 1997 IEEE

1060-3425/97 $10.00 (c) 1997 IEEE

What technology is required? III. Technology Requirements

One additional fundamental activity that emerged from the data was organizational memory, an organized “place” for storing and retrieving participant interactions over a long period of time. Threaded discussions, documents, voting results, messages, and other forms of communication can be stored and recalled by participants and others as needed. Organizational memory often involves a long term repository that persists long beyond the life of the current workgroup or project. Organizations in this study used groupware to maintain documentation of bugs and bug fixes among distributed and co-located software development teams, and questions and responses at help desks.

5.2 Technical Capabilities Quadrant II describes the Technical Capabilities of groupware by asking how is collaboration done? The survey respondents often cited familiarity and simplicity as important technology design factors, particularly for distributed teams for whom training was more difficult. The use of a familiar design metaphor such as folders, documents, outlines and index cards can help. Greater familiarity with a design metaphor and its consistency with other common user interface commands (e.g., Windows 95 or Mac OS) can enhance users’ ability to access a product’s functions and features. The use of web browsers was cited as an advantage by many because it was a familiar tool used for many other applications. Specific capabilities provided by groupware systems were mentioned by numerous respondents. We have grouped the many specific capabilities into two fundamental dimensions. The first is transforming functions that add meaning to data by changing it from one form into another form. For example analysis tools such as voting (e.g., ranking, rating) transform individual expressions of opinion into a collective result. Structuring or modeling tools (e.g., conceptual mapping) transform lists of ideas into graphical images by depicting relationships among them. The ability to sort, arrange, or filter data also helps impose meaning. The second category, features, refers to the innate capabilities to perform various functions. For example, some groupware has the capability to enable anonymous communication or to store binary objects (e.g., audio, video, a presentation slideshow, etc.). Restrictiveness [21] refers to the degree of control over the use of features is embedded in the groupware tools and the granularity with which control can be assigned to participants. For example, the ability to introduce a top level discussion topic, delete comments, or invite new users into a discussion may be limited to only the leader, or assigned to participants

5.3 Technology Requirements Quadrant III describes the Technology Requirements necessary to enable the groupware tools by asking what technology is required? Web-groupware, like the web itself, is uses a client-server architecture. Web browsers by Netscape and Microsoft are the dominant clients which both support the existing official standards for HTML. Each, however, has added proprietary extensions to the official HTML specification thus creating de facto standards that, in the short run, are not supported by other browsers. These extensions enable new features at the expense cross-vendor client compatibility. Likewise, a completely proprietary client can be programmed to enable a particular set of features (e.g., Lotus Notes and GroupSystems). Use of open client standards in a widely-available browser increases the reach of webgroupware. Use of proprietary clients or extensions can limit cross-vendor or cross-platform (e.g. Windows, UNIX, Mac) support thus reducing reach. For several organizations in our study, the requirement to install proprietary client software on each user’s desktop eliminated certain groupware systems from consideration. Any benefits from these systems were quickly outweighed by the added expense and system administration problems caused by proprietary clients. Similarly, groupware that requires anything other than open networking standards (e.g., a TCP/IP stack) will also have a much more limited reach. Proprietary networking requirements (e.g., Novell Netware’s IPX/SPX) may work fine for uses within an organization and offer increased network speed, but increase the complexity of interorganizational collaboration. For the organizations in our study, open networking standards was a key factor. The requirement of a continuous connection to a network can also reduce groupware’s reach since this may not be part of the existing technology in some organizations. Replication is the process of keeping multiple copies of a database synchronized over time and distance. Replication of groupware data files to local PCs, notebook computers, or servers can allow participants to work off-line and then reconnect to post their contributions via the next replication process. Asynchronous connectivity to groupware can be essential for highly mobile participants.

5.4 Organizational Requirements Quadrant IV addresses the important Organizational Requirements with the question of what must be done to use groupware? Low startup costs can be important for

Proceedings of The Thirtieth Annual Hawwaii International Conference on System Sciences ISBN 0-8186-7862-3/97 $17.00 © 1997 IEEE

1060-3425/97 $10.00 (c) 1997 IEEE

getting unproven groupware in the door of organizations. Startup costs include the direct costs of hardware and software purchase as well as the indirect costs of installation, training, and setup. Web-groupware that uses existing browsers for clients can offer very low startup costs, and was a major factor in enabling several organizations in our study to consider groupware. Once the groupware is operational, workgroups must learn how to effectively collaborate via electronic media where communication differs from synchronous face-toface meetings. The learning challenge is often more about how to derive value from the use of groupware, rather than understanding which buttons to push. Participants must learn how to design and contribute in meaningful ways to electronic meetings. Organizations and individual workgroups differ in their learning capacity, the speed with which they can assimilate procedural and technology changes; some workgroups can quickly assimilate these changes while others require more time and formal training. Several organizations in our study commented that the greatest challenge in adopting groupware was in changing behavior. Organizations must also consider the ongoing operating costs of using groupware. Unless an organization has a support staff dedicated to troubleshooting and maintaining groupware, lower operating costs can be achieved through the use of nonproprietary clients (and servers) since these add no additional groupware-specific costs. Beyond maintaining the operability of the software, there remain many costs in creating, structuring, facilitating, and archiving meetings as a system is used over time.

To illustrate how the framework displays the fit between organizational needs and groupware capabilities, we present scenarios from two real organizations with which we have worked. Company A, a multi-billion dollar food service firm, had rather sophisticated needs for their use of groupware. They needed groupware to support a major business processing reengineering (BPR) effort that included several processes spanning several business units, each with a project team assigned to it. This organization rated their needs for collaborative capabilities as high (conveyance, 5; convergence, 5; organizational memory, 4). Their technical capabilities were likewise high (familiar design, 4; transforming functions, 5; features, 4). They were willing to use proprietary clients (1), proprietary, though widely available networking (3), and they had a need to support mobile workers working asynchronously (4). They were willing to put considerable resources in the groupware effort, thus low startup (2) and maintenance (2) costs were not extremely important. The teams responsible for the BPR project were sophisticated and had high capacities for learning (4). Company A considered two groupware systems: Notes and GroupSystems. Figures 4 and 5 show the fit of these two systems to Company A’s needs. Solid lines depict Company A's needs while dashed lines plot the capabilities of the two groupware systems. The capabilities of the two systems are based on our many years of experience with these systems. Space precludes a detailed description of the systems and our analysis of their capabilities.

6. Discussion

Figure 4: Company A’s Fit with Notes

6.1 Using the Framework

I. Collaborative Capabilities What will groupware do?

One of the issues in qualitative research is verifying or testing the principal findings [15, 22]. The principal goal of our framework is to serve as a means to evaluate both an organization’s needs and technology infrastructure capabilities, and the capabilities and requirements of specific groupware systems. Each of the twelve items in the framework can be assessed using a five point Likert scale. All items have been defined such that larger values indicate a greater capability or need for that item and can be plotted to build a multi-dimensional profile. By comparing the shapes of the organizational needs profile and the groupware capability profile, one can determine the relative strengths and weakness of the fit of specific groupware systems to the needs of a specific workgroup or organization.

Technology Use

Conveyance

IV. Organizational Requirements What must be done? Low Operating Costs

Convergence

Workgroup Learning

Organizational Memory

Low Startup Costs Enabling Conditions

Capabilities

Familiar Design Metaphor

Asynchronous Connectivity Open Networking Standards

Transforming Functions Features How is collaboration done? II. Technical Capabilities

Proceedings of The Thirtieth Annual Hawwaii International Conference on System Sciences ISBN 0-8186-7862-3/97 $17.00 © 1997 IEEE

1060-3425/97 $10.00 (c) 1997 IEEE

Technology Characteristics

Open Client Standards What technology is required? III. Technology Requirements

Figure 5: Company A’s Fit with GroupSystems I. Collaborative Capabilities What will groupware do?

Technology Use

Conveyance

IV. Organizational Requirements What must be done? Low Operating Costs

Convergence

Workgroup Learning

Organizational Memory

Low Startup Costs Enabling Conditions

Capabilities

Familiar Design Metaphor

structure to focus discussions was seen as a major benefit. However, the use of structure to develop many discussion topics tended to fragment the discussions into too many places. This had practical consequences; for example "There were too many topics, and you have to keep checking to see if someone has posted a comment in every topic." It also had cognitive consequences: “It is comparable to being at a party and trying to involve yourself in three semi-related discussions. You are not able to fully integrate yourself in any one of the discussions plus you run the risk of annoying the people you are talking with since your attention is divided.”

Asynchronous Connectivity

Figure 6: Company B’s Fit with Notes Open Networking Standards

Transforming Functions Features How is collaboration done? II. Technical Capabilities

Open Client Standards What technology is required? Technology III. Technology Characteristics Requirements

I. Collaborative Capabilities What will groupware do?

Technology Use

IV. Organizational Requirements What must be done?

Conveyance

Low Operating Costs

Convergence

For this organization, GroupSystems was a better fit than Notes, although it was not perfect. GroupSystems provided far more of the needed capabilities than Notes, but fell short on the technology requirements for open networking standards and asynchronous connectivity. Company B, a multinational manufacturing firm, wanted to establish discussion lists for communication across several international business units. Their primary collaboration need was conveyance of information (5), with little need for convergence (2) or organizational memory (1). A familiar design was critical (5), but transforming functions (2) and other features (2) were not. Open standards for the client (5) and for the network (5) were important, but support for mobile workers via asynchronous connectivity was not (1). Low startup (5) and maintenance costs (5) were both important and they had low learning capacity (2). Figures 6 and 7 plot Company B's needs (solid line) and the capabilities of Notes and GroupSystems (dashed lines), respectively. Here, Company B’s needs are best met by Notes, although once again, the fit is not perfect. Based on these analyses and their match with the organizations’ actual decisions, we feel reasonably confident that the framework is a useful tool for fitting groupware to organizational needs. Nonetheless, more research is needed to more fully validate the framework.

Workgroup Learning

Organizational Memory

Low Startup Costs Enabling Conditions

Capabilities

Familiar Design Metaphor

Asynchronous Connectivity Open Networking Standards

Transforming Functions Features How is collaboration done? II. Technical Capabilities

Technology Characteristics

Figure 7: Company B’s Fit with GroupSystems I. Collaborative Capabilities What will groupware do?

Technology Use

Conveyance Convergence

Workgroup Learning

Organizational Memory

Low Startup Costs Enabling Conditions

Capabilities

Familiar Design Metaphor

Asynchronous Connectivity Open Networking Standards

Features

One interesting observation from the data is that the use of structure was cited both as an advantage (by 14%) as a disadvantage (4%). On the plus side, the ability of

IV. Organizational Requirements What must be done? Low Operating Costs

Transforming Functions

6.2 The Role of Structure

Open Client Standards What technology is required? III. Technology Requirements

How is collaboration done? II. Technical Capabilities

Proceedings of The Thirtieth Annual Hawwaii International Conference on System Sciences ISBN 0-8186-7862-3/97 $17.00 © 1997 IEEE

1060-3425/97 $10.00 (c) 1997 IEEE

Technology Characteristics

Open Client Standards What technology is required? III. Technology Requirements

We believe that the issue of structure is a fundamental issue that workgroups will need to address. Identifying the “right” number of topics for discussion is difficult. A recent study suggests that imposing structure on discussions by decomposing them into several topics can significantly improve the depth and quality of discussions [6]. However, as noted here, more topics means more discussion areas that participants must follow. There is a need for balance so that the number of topics does not exceed a manageable number. Several organizations reported that three to five topics seemed to work well (and three was the number used in the prior study [6]) but the more research is clearly needed before we attempt to generalize an “ideal” number of topics.

6.3 Critical Mass One major advantage cited by participants was the ability to work any-place and any-time. For most users this was a definite plus. However, we believe this also played a role in two organizations’ decisions to discard web groupware. Both discarding organizations cited a lack of interaction as a major reason for discarding it; that is, no one participated -- there was not a sufficient critical mass [14]. The major source of frustration was that users would connect to the groupware system only to find that no one had entered any comments. After several such experiences, participants no longer made the effort to connect to the system. It may be that these participants did not need to discuss issues as much as originally believed, or that the broadcast or “push” approach of e-mail and listservs was more appropriate than the “pull’ approach of the web groupware system. Students in one distance education class taught entirely over the Internet with no face-to-face interaction also felt this lack of a critical mass to the discussions. Students complained about the “lack of immediate feedback from colleagues” when they entered comments. In response to this, the instructor changed the course so that instead of permitting any-time interaction, all students had to participate in a one-hour discussion session scheduled every week at a specific time. Virtually all students believed this to be an improvement, although one student commented that this same-time interaction put slow typists at a disadvantage, more so than the previous any-time discussions. We believe this critical mass issue is also a fundamental issue. Web groupware is a pull technology that requires users to deliberately access the system, unlike e-mail that is a push technology. If there is insufficient discussion when users access the system, then after several such accesses they are likely to abandon it because it appears there is no one to talk with. This issue

has been well studied in the context of electronic mail [e.g., 14] but we are aware of little research in the groupware area. Some implications for managers, however, are clear. When implementing web groupware, ensure there is a critical mass of users that can benefit from regular discussion. Otherwise, the investment is not likely to succeed. During the initial implementation, strategies such as promoting same-time-different-place discussions for certain groups may have benefits in building the necessary critical mass.

6.4 Implications for the Future Most of the installations and users of the web groupware were new to groupware, and a significant proportion were also new to the Internet. We had erroneously believed that many of the initial users of web groupware would be users of existing groupware interested in expanding its reach -- which was, in fact, true only of the instructors teaching groupware courses. The significant proportion of installations and users new to groupware suggests that we may be about to witness an explosive growth in the acceptance of groupware in “mainstream” computing, making it into more of a standard application such as spreadsheets rather than its current role as a niche application. In the cases of distributed teams, distributed classes, and special interest groups, many of the participants were also new to each other. Many were interacting for the first time with each other (although in some cases members did have a long history of working together). Even the relatively “lean” media provided by the web groupware system [c.f. 2, 20] enabled members to build relationships. The follow comment was typical: “Some of the members feel like friends.” We believe that the web and the Internet will revolutionize groupware and the way in which organizations choose to use it. We believe that within two years, most organizations will realize that the web is not only a means of electronic publishing, but can be a way of building and maintaining virtual organizations and enhancing the work of project teams. Web groupware will play key role. Even systems designed solely for internal intranets (and do not access the Internet) will adopt web groupware. Of course, systems will need to mature, and there will still be the need for traditional groupware applications, but more and more groupware applications that require networking will use the web, rather than proprietary operating systems and networks. The challenges for developers will be to design systems to meet the needs of organizations, and the challenges for organizational will be to select systems that truly meet the needs of users. We believe that our analysis

Proceedings of The Thirtieth Annual Hawwaii International Conference on System Sciences ISBN 0-8186-7862-3/97 $17.00 © 1997 IEEE

1060-3425/97 $10.00 (c) 1997 IEEE

framework can provide some guidance in meeting these challenges. We also believe that those who get to the web first, learn its intricacies, and push its limits will have a distinct advantage.

6. References 1.

Collaborative Strategies, Clearinghouse for Information on Collaboration Technologies, Tools and Methods, http://www.collaborate.com, 1996. 2. Daft, R. L., and Lengel, R. H. “Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design,” Management Science, 32, 1986, 554-571. 3. Dennis, A.R. (ed). Groupware Central, http://www.cba.uga.edu/groupware/groupware.html, 1996. 4. Dennis, A.R., Quek, F. and Pootheri, S.K. "Using the Internet to Implement Support for Distributed Decision Making," in P. Humphreys, L. Bannon, A. McCosh, P. Migliarese, and J. Pomeroi (eds.), Implementing Systems for Supporting Management Decisions: Concepts, Methods, and Experiences, London, Chapman & Hall, 1996, 139-159. 5. Dennis, A.R., and Valacich, J.S., “Rethinking Media Richness: Towards a Theory of Media Synchronicity,” Working Paper, University of Georgia, 1995. 6. Dennis, A.R., Valacich, J.S., Connolly, T., and Wynne, B. "Process Structuring in Group Brainstorming," Information Systems Research, 7, 1996, 268-277. 7. DeSanctis, G. and Poole, M.S. “Capturing the Complexity in Advanced technology Use: Adaptive Structuration Theory,” Organization Science, 5, 1994, 121-147 8. Fellers, J.W., Clifton, A. and Handley, H., “Using the Internet to Provide Support for Distributed Interactions,” Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 1995, 52-60. 9. Goodhue, D. And Thompson, R.L. “TaskTechnology Fit and Individual Performance, MIS Quarterly, 19, 1995, 213-236. 10. Hiltz, S.R. Online Communities: A Case Study of the Office of the Future, Norwood, NJ Ablex, 1984.

11. Hiltz, S.R. and Turoff, M. The Network Nation: Human Communication via the Computer, Reading MA, Addison-Wesley. 1978. 12. Hiltz, S.R. and Turoff, M. “The evolution of user behavior in computerized conferencing system,” Communications of the ACM, 24, 1981, 739-751. 13. Hiltz, S.R. and Turoff, M. “Structuring computermediated communication systems to avoid information overload,” Communications of the ACM, 28, 1985, 690-699. 14. Markus, M. “Toward a critical mass theory of interactive media: universal access, interdependence and diffusion,” Communication Research, 14, 1987, 491-511. 15. Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. Qualitative Data Analysis, Newbury Park, Sage, 1984. 16. Nunamaker, J.F., Dennis, A.R., Valacich, J.S., Vogel, D.R., and George, J.F., “Electronic Meeting Systems to Support Group Work,” Communications of the ACM, 34(7), 1991, 40-61. 17. Patton, M.Q. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, Newbury Park, Sage, 1990. 18. PC Magazine, “51 Inexpensive Ways to Talk, Share, See, Mail on the Internet,” 15(17), 1996, 8 October, 102-239. 19. Quek, F. and Tarr, I. “An Example of the Use of the WWW as a tool and environment for Research Collaboration,” IFIP Working Group 8.4 Conference Proceedings, Arizona, 1996. 20. Rice, R. E. “Task analyzability, use of new media, and effectiveness: A multi-site exploration of media richness,” Organization Science, 3, 1992, 475-500. 21. Silver, M.S. “Decision Support Systems: Directed and Non-Directed Change,” Information Systems Research, 1, 1990, 47-70. 22. Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques, Newbury Park, Sage, 1990. 23. Vallee, J., Johanson, R., Randolph, R. and Hastings, A. Group Communication through Computers, Social, Managerial and Economic Issues, Vol. 4, Menlo Park, CA Institute for the Future, 1978. 24. Woolley, D.R. Conferencing on the Web, http://freenet.msp.mn.us/people/drwool/webconf.html 1996 25. Yin, R.K. Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Newbury Park, Sage, 1989.

Proceedings of The Thirtieth Annual Hawwaii International Conference on System Sciences ISBN 0-8186-7862-3/97 $17.00 © 1997 IEEE

1060-3425/97 $10.00 (c) 1997 IEEE