Comparing collaborative drawing tools and whiteboards: An analysis of the group process

  • Kregg Aytes


Collaborative drawing tools, which are designed to allow multiple users to share an electronic drawing space, have recently become the focus of many researchers' efforts. While advances have been made in the technological implementation of these tools, little is known about the effect these tools have on group processes. This paper discusses a study that was conducted to compare groups using conventional (whiteboard) technology to those using collaborative drawing tools. The results of these two experiments provide evidence that these tools alter the way in, which groups work. For some types of tasks, the amount of interaction among group members using a collaborative drawing tool tends to be less than among groups using conventional technology. Groups using collaborative drawing tools tended to take significantly longer than whiteboard groups. Possible reasons for these results are further explored in this paper.

Key words

Collaborative drawing tools group process shared drawing space 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Benbasat, I. and Lim, L. (1993): The Effects of Group. Task, Context, and Technology on the Usefulness of Group Support Systems,Small Group Research, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 430–462.Google Scholar
  2. Bly, S. A. (1988). A use of drawing surfaces in different collaborative settings. InProceedings of the Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (Portland., OR. September, 1988). 250–256.Google Scholar
  3. Bly, S. A., Harrison, S. R. and Irwin, S. (1993): Media Spaces: Video, audio and computing,Communications of the ACM, vol. 34, no. 1 (Jan.), pp. 28–47.Google Scholar
  4. Ellis, C. A., Gibbs, S. J., and Rein, G. L. (1991): Groupware: Some Issues and Experiences.Communications of the ACM, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 39–58.Google Scholar
  5. Greenberg, S., Roseman, M., Webster, D. and Bohnet, R. (1992): Issues and experiences designing and implementing two group, drawing tools.Proceedings of the 25th Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences, vol IV, pp. 139–150.Google Scholar
  6. Hayne, S., Pendergast, M. and Greenberg, S. (1992): Gesturing through cursors: Implementing multiple pointers in group support systems. InProceedings of HICSS'93, vol. IV, pp. 4–12.Google Scholar
  7. Hackman, J. R., and Morris, C. G. (1975): Group tasks, group interaction process and group performance effectiveness: a review and proposed integration. InAdvances in Experimental Social Psychology (vol 8), ed. L. Berkowitz. Academic Press, Orlando, FL, pp. 45–99.Google Scholar
  8. Ishii, H., Kobayashi, M. and Grudin, J. (1991): Integration of interpersonal space and shared workspace: ClearBoard design and experiments,ACM Transactions on Information Systems, vol. 11, no. 4 (Oct.), pp. 349–375.Google Scholar
  9. Ishii, H. and Miyake, N. (1991): Toward an open shared workspace: Computer and video fusion approach of Team Workstation,Communications of the ACM, vol. 34, no. 12, pp. 37–50.Google Scholar
  10. Keyton, J. (1991): Evaluating individual group member satisfaction as a situational variable,Small Group Research, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 200–219.Google Scholar
  11. Marsten, P. J., and Hecht, M. L. (1988): Group satisfaction. InSmall group communication: A reader, eds. R. S. Cathcart and L. A. Samovar. Dubuque, Iowa: Brown, pp. 236–246.Google Scholar
  12. McGrath, J. E. (1990): Time matters in groups. InIntellectual Teamwork, eds. Gallagher, J., Kraut, R. E., and Egido, C. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
  13. Minneman, S. L., and Bly, S. A. (1991): Managing à trois: a study of a multi-user drawing tool in distributed design work. InACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems — CHI'91 Proceedings, April 28–May 2. ACM Press: New Orleans, Louisiana, pp. 217–224.Google Scholar
  14. Pendergast, M. O. (1992). “GroupGraphics: Prototype to Product”, Proceedings of the Workshop on Multi-user Drawing Tools, Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, Toronto, Canada, 1992. Accepted for republication in Real Time Group Drawing and Writing Tools, McGraw-Hill, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  15. Pendergast, M. and Hayne, S. (1995): Alleviating convergence problems in group support systems: the shared context approach,Computer Supported Cooperative Work, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1–28.Google Scholar
  16. Peng, C. (1993): Survey of collaborative drawing support tools.Computer Supported Cooperative Work, vol. 1, pp. 197–228.Google Scholar
  17. Posner, I. R. and Baecker, R. M. (1992): How people write together.Proceedings of Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences, Vol. IV, pp. 127–138.Google Scholar
  18. Stefik, M., Foster, G., Bobrow, D., Kahn, K., Lanning, S. and Suchman, L. (1987): Beyond the chalkboard: Computer support for collaboration and problem solving in meetings.Communications of the ACM, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 32–47.Google Scholar
  19. Tang, J. C. (1991): Findings from observational studies of collaborative work.International Journal of Man-machine Studies, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 143–160.Google Scholar
  20. Tang, J. C. and Leifer, L. J. (1988): A framework for understanding the workspace activity of design teams.Proceedings of the Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (Portland, OR, September, 1988), pp. 244–249.Google Scholar
  21. Tang, J. C. and Minneman, S. (1990): VideoDraw: a video interface for collaborative drawing. InACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems — CHI'90 Proceedings, April 1–5. ACM Press: Seattle, WA, pp. 313–320.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kregg Aytes
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer Information SystemsIdaho State UniversityPocatelloUSA

Personalised recommendations