The Collaborative Use of Information Technology

User participation seems especially important in the development of collaborative work systems where the technology is used by a work group to coordinate their joint activities. Users rather than systems analysts are often the best source of information on how they will use information technology to collaborate. It is almost an axiom of systems development that end users should participate in a broad range of activities/decisions, and that they should be permitted to participate in these decisions as much as they want. Despite these widely held beliefs, research has not focused on the differential efficacy of user participation in collaborative versus non-collaborative applications. Building upon the work of behavioral scientists who study participative decision making, Doll and Torkzadeh (1991) present a congruence construct of participation that measures whether end users participate as much as they want in key systems analysis decisions. Using a sample of 163 collaborative and 239 non-collaborative applications, this research focuses on three research questions: (1) Is user participation more effective in collaborative applications? (2) What specific decision issues enhance user satisfaction and productivity? and (3) Can permitting end-users to participate as much as they want on some issues be ineffective or even dysfunctional? The results indicate that user participation is more effective in collaborative applications. Of the four decision issues tested, only participation in information needs analysis predicts end-user satisfaction and task productivity. Encouraging end users to participate as much as they want on a broad range of systems analysis issues such as project initiation, information flow analysis, and format design appears to be, at best, a waste of time and, perhaps, even harmful. These findings should help managers and analysts make better decisions about how to focus participatory efforts and whether end users should participate as much as they want in the design of collaborative systems.

Conceptual Linkages

The purpose of this chapter is threefold. First, it seeks to establish a conceptual link between three distinct bodies of literature dealing with: (1) learning organizations, (2) collaborative technologies also referred to as groupware, and (3) intellectual capital.

Extending Collaboration Support Systems

This chapter first examines the role of collaboration and collective learning in regional and industry-wide innovation and how remote innovation–that is, innovation organized through electronic collaboration–could be enhanced by comprehensive computer support tools that include sensemaking aids. We look at the importance of sensemaking in collaborations and report on a study in which we analyzed sensemaking processes among students collaborating remotely. We describe a web-based computer system called LiveNet, that incorporates sensemaking aids to facilitate remote innovation. It brings together members within one workspace, provides them with the ability to locate needed information quickly, and supports this process with an agent-based structure that can assist members to achieve their goals. In addition, LiveNet supports the development of a common language and facilitates knowledge sharing, processes deemed important in the innovation and collective learning literatures. In the final section, we describe how this system can be used in remote innovation.

Inspecting Spam

Much coverage of the Internet focuses on undesirable, sometimes intrusive, communication, often referred to as “spam.” Spam has been decried as antisocial, wasteful, and/or fraudulent, with individuals, organizations, and media reports widely advocating regulation or outright banning of the practice, yet no uniform definition exists. Participants in the electronic communication and commerce process generally operate on an “I know it when I see it” basis that is shaped by their personal experience and expectations. This chapter begins with a brief history of this new medium, then defines spam within a typology of undesirable Internet communications. Conflicting definitions of spam are examined in light of their implications for suggested remedies. The paper concludes with recommendations on controlling spam for individuals, managers, and policy makers.

A Framework for the Implementation of a Collaborative Flexible Learning Environment for Academic Institutions

Over the past few years the enormous advances in multimedia and Internet technology have started to affect how we live, play, enjoy and conduct our businesses. At the same time, these technologies have begun to creep into our learning and training environments. Many educational institutions are experimenting with the use of the new technology to enhance existing teaching methods. The traditional instructor-centric method of teaching is giving way to the learner-centric model of learning in which information is interpreted rather than merely received by the students and new knowledge is created (Lotus Corporation , 1997). In the learner-centric model, students learn through discovery. The traditional textual and verbal-based learning method is becoming less acceptable. The new learning model is often driven by interactive multimedia which gives the learner full control over the learning process and hence, the focus is on what the learner does not already know. Interactiveness increases the student’s motivation and rate of retention (Bielenberg & Carpenter-Smith, 1997). The term flexible learning, a contemporary buzzword, is often used to describe the above-mentioned model.

Computer-Mediated Inter-Organizational Knowledge-Sharing

How does a team use a computer-mediated technology to share and reuse knowledge when the team is inter-organizational and virtual, when the team must compete for the attention of team members with collocated teams, and when the task is the creation of a completely new innovation? From a review of the literature on knowledge sharing and reuse using collaborative tools, three propositions are generated about the likely behavior of the team in using the collaborative tool and reusing the knowledge put in the knowledge repository. A multi-method longitudinal research study of this design team was conducted over their ten-month design effort. Both qualitative and quantitative data were obtained. Results indicated that the propositions from the literature were insufficient to explain the behavior of the team. We found that ambiguity of the task does not determine use of a collaborative tool; that tool use does not increase with experience; and that knowledge that is perceived as transient (whether it really is transient or not) is unlikely to be referenced properly for later search and retrieval. Implications for practice and theory are discussed.

A Distributed Cognition Analysis of Mobile CSCW

We use a distributed cognition perspective to analyse mobile CSCW (computer supported co-operative work) among service technicians at a telecom operator. We focus on three aspects, the physical conditions for the interaction, the knowledge necessary for the management of the interaction, and the technology (cognitive tools) that can support the interaction.

Ad Hoc Virtual Teams

Virtual arrangements are proposed as a way for organizations to face the challenges of the upcoming century and to operate both efficiently and innovatively (Bleecker, 1994; Jarvenpaa & Ives, 1994). Information and communication technologies (ICT) serve as powerful enablers of virtual organizing in the form of various intra- and inter-firm arrangements (Knoll & Jarvenpaa, 1995). Among other emerging arrangements, virtual teams, both within and across organizations, are relatively recent phenomena brought about in part by the emergence of technologies such as electronic mail, Internet, groupware and videoconferencing (Barnatt, 1995; Iacono & Weisband, 1997; Lipnack & Stamps, 1997). The reluctance of many workers to relocate for a new job, the global nature of the marketplace, the need to complete projects as quickly as possible, and the need to tap the best brains no matter where they may be, are all examples of drivers of virtual teams within and across organizations (Geber, 1995; Duarte & Snyder, 1999; Lipnack & Stamps, 1997).

Information Technology, Core Competencies and Sustained Competitive Advantage

The value of information technology (IT) in today’s organizations is constantly debated. Researchers and practitioners have examined organizations to try to discover causal links between competitive advantage and IT. This paper presents and details a model that depicts a possible connection between competitive advantage and IT. Furthermore, this paper attempts to show how one major component of the overall IT resources, the IT infrastructure, might yield sustained competitive advantage for an organization. More precisely, IT infrastructure flexibility is examined as an enabler of “core competencies” that have been closely related to sustained competitive advantage in the research literature. The core competencies enabled by IT that are the focus of this study are mass customization and time-to-market. By showing that IT infrastructure flexibility acts as an enabler of these competencies, the relationship to sustained competitive advantage is demonstrated.

Process Improvement and Knowledge Communication

Given the prominent role that information processing seems to play in organizational processes, and the assumption that information processing relies heavily on knowledge, the frequent claims that the collective knowledge held by organizations is the single most important factor defining their competitiveness do not seem unreasonable. The amount of relevant shared knowledge among individuals in process teams has been linked to the efficiency and effectiveness of such teams (Boland and Tenkasi, 1995; Nelson and Cooprider, 1996; Nosek and McNeese, 1997). Shared team knowledge has been equated to higher flexibility of organizational processes, as it can reduce the need for bureaucratic and automated procedures to mechanize and standardize procedures (Davidow and Malone, 1992). That is, more shared knowledge among team members may reduce the need for workflow control and automation.