Advertisement

Group Decision and Negotiation

, Volume 14, Issue 4, pp 267–284 | Cite as

A Tale of Two Cities: Case Studies of Group Support Systems Transition

  • Andrés B. AgresEmail author
  • Gert-Jan de Vreede
  • Robert O. Briggs
Article

Abstract

Research shows that, under certain circumstances, people using GSS can be substantially more productive than people who do not. However GSS has been slow to transition into the workplace. This paper argues that the Technology Transition Model (TTM) may be a useful way to explain this seeming paradox. The paper presents a case study of GSS transition in two organizations – one where a self-sustaining and growing community of users emerged, and one where it did not. Following TTM, it explores the frequency with which users perceived cognitive, economic, affective, political, social, and physical value from using the system. Comparison of the cases reveals differences in perceptions of value along several of these dimensions that are consistent with TTM. The findings suggest the model may be a useful way to explain the transition of collaboration technology, but more research will be required to test the model more rigorously.

Keywords

technology transition group support system technology acceptance technology diffusion electronic meeting systems technology adoption case studies qualitative research Technology Transition Model 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Agarwal, R. and J. Prasad. (1999). “Are Individual Differences Germane to the Acceptance of New Information Technologies?,” Decision Sciences 30, 361–391.Google Scholar
  2. Bikson, T. K. (1996). “Groupware at The World Bank,” in: Ciborra, C. U. (ed.), Groupware and Teamwork – Invisible Aid or Technical Hindrance?, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK, 145–183.Google Scholar
  3. Briggs, R. O., M. Adkins, D. Mittleman, J. Kruse, S. Miller, and J. F. Jr. Nunamaker. (1998). “A Technology Transition Model Derived from Field Investigation of GSS Use Aboard the U.S.S. CORONADO,” Journal of Management Information Systems 15(3), 151–195.Google Scholar
  4. Briggs, R. O. G. J. de Vreede, and J. F. Jr. Nunamaker. (2003). “Collaboration Engineering with ThinkLets to Pursue Sustained Success with Group Support Systems,” Journal of Management Information Systems 19(4), 31–63.Google Scholar
  5. Davis, F. D. (1989). “Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology,” MIS Quarterly 13(3), 319–340.Google Scholar
  6. Davis, F. D. (1993). “User Acceptance of Information Technology: System Characteristics, User Perceptions and Behavioral Impacts,” International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 38, 475–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Davison, R. M. and R. O. Briggs. (2000). “GSS for Presentation Support,” Communications of the ACM 43(9), 91–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Doll, W. J., A. Hendrickson, and X. Deng. (1998). “Using Davis’ Perceived Usefulness and Ease-of-Use Instruments for Decision Making: A Confirmatory and Multigroup Invariance Analysis,” Decision Sciences 29, 839–869.Google Scholar
  9. Fjermestad, J. and S. R. Hiltz. (1999). “An Assessment of Group Support Systems Experimental Research: Methodology and Results,” Journal of Management Information Systems 15(3), 7–149.Google Scholar
  10. Fjermestad, J. and S. R. Hiltz. (2001). “A Descriptive Evaluation of Group Support Systems Case and Field Studies,” Journal of Management Information Systems 17(3), 115–160.Google Scholar
  11. Gordebeke, J. (2002). Ontwerprichtlijnen voor een laagdrempelig Elektronisch Vergadersysteem, Masters of Science Thesis project, Eindhoven Technical University, the Netherlands (in Dutch).Google Scholar
  12. Greenbaum, T. L. (1988). The Handbook for Focus Group Research, New York: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  13. Lacity, M. C. and M. A. Janson. (1994). “Understanding Qualitative Data: A Framework of Text Analysis Methods,” Journal of Management Information Systems 11(2), 137–155.Google Scholar
  14. MFA (2004). Ministry of Foreign Affairs of The Netherlands Web Page, http://www.minbuza.nl/default.asp?CMS_ITEM=MBZ257568, retrieved May 2004.
  15. Moore, G. C. and I. Benbasat. (1991). “Development of An Instrument to Measure the Perceptions of Adopting an Information Technology Innovation,” Information Systems Research 2(3), 192–222.Google Scholar
  16. Morgan, D. L. (1997). Focus Groups as Qualitative Research (2nd edition), London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  17. Myers, M. D. (2004). Qualitative Research in Information Systems, ISWorld Net, http://www.qual.auckland.ac.nz/, retrieved May 2004.
  18. Nunamaker, J. F. Jr., R. O. Briggs, D. D. Mittleman, D. R. Vogel, and P.A. Balthazard. (1997). “Lessons From A Dozen Years of Group Support Systems Research: A Discussion of Lab and Field Findings,” Journal of Management Information Systems 13(3), 163–207.Google Scholar
  19. Orlikowski, W. J. (1992). “The Duality of Technology: Rethinking the Concept of Technology in Organizations,” Organization Science 3(3), 398–427.Google Scholar
  20. Orlikowski, W. J. (2000). “Using Technology and Constituting Structures: A Practice Lens for Studying Technology in Organizations,” Organization Science 11(4), 404–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Parthasarathy, M. and A. Battacherjee. (1998). “Understanding Post-Adoption Behavior in the Context of Online Services,” Information Systems Research 9(4), 362–379.Google Scholar
  22. Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations (4th Edition). New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  23. Straub, D. W., M. Keil, and W. Brennan. (1997). “Testing the Technology Acceptance Model across Cultures: A Three Country Study,” Information and Management 33, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Venkatesh, V. and F. D. Davis. (2000). “A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies,” Management Science 46(2), 186–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Vogel, D. and G. J. de Vreede. (1999). “The Organizational Application Of GSS: A Comparison Across Time And National Boundaries,” in: Vreede, G. J. de and Ackermann, F. (eds.) Proceedings of the 10th EuroGDSS Workshop, Copenhagen, 22 June 1999.Google Scholar
  26. Yin, R. K. (1994). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (2nd edition), London: Sage Publications Ltd.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrés B. Agres
    • 1
    Email author
  • Gert-Jan de Vreede
    • 2
    • 3
  • Robert O. Briggs
    • 4
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Systems Engineering Faculty of Technology, Policy, and ManagementDelft University of TechnologyThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Systems Engineering Faculty of Technology, Policy, and ManagementDelft University of TechnologyThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of Information Systems & Quantitative AnalysisCollege of Information Science & Technology, University of Nebraska at OmahaThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Department of Systems Engineering Faculty of Technology, Policy, and ManagementDelft University of TechnologyThe Netherlands
  5. 5.University of Alaska at FairbanksThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations