Information Systems Frontiers

, Volume 17, Issue 2, pp 455–470 | Cite as

Examining structural, perceptual, and attitudinal influences on the quality of information sharing in collaborative technology use



Using collaborative technologies to improve collaborative work is a long-term concern because of over-expected barriers in the implementation. The “quality of information sharing” is a group-level construct for assessing the outcome of collaborative technology use in collaborative work. However, few studies have addressed this informational influence. We propose a research model, grounded in interactivity and fit-appropriation theories, to examine structural, perceptual, and attitudinal influences on the quality of information sharing. Particularly, we incorporate task complexity into this model to examine the direct and interaction effects on collaborative technology use. We empirically test the model by examining the use of Lotus Notes at offices. The empirical results show that structural and perceptual factors have distinct effects on fit and appropriation attitudes, which indirectly or directly determine the quality of information sharing. We also discuss the academic and managerial implications of the research findings.


Collaborative technologies Interactivity theory Fit-appropriation theory Structural influence Perceptual influence Attitudinal influence Informational influence 


  1. Aedo, I., Díaz, P., Carroll, J. M., Convertino, G., & Rosson, M. B. (2010). End-user oriented strategies to facilitate multi-organizational adoption of emergency management information systems. Information Processing and Management, 46(1), 11–21.Google Scholar
  2. Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equations models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74–94.Google Scholar
  3. Bagozzi, R. P., Yi, Y., & Phillips, L. (1991). Assessing construct validity in organizational research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(3), 421–458.Google Scholar
  4. Bajwa, D. S., Lewis, L. F., Pervan, G., & Lai, V. S. (2005). The adoption and use of collaboration information technologies: International comparisons. Journal of Information Technology, 20(2), 130–140.Google Scholar
  5. Barki, H. (1989). Rethinking the concept of user involvement. MIS Quarterly, 13(1), 53–63.Google Scholar
  6. Barki, H., & Hartwick, H. (1994). Measuring user participation, user involvement, and user attitudes. MIS Quarterly, 18(1), 59–82.Google Scholar
  7. Barua, A., & Ravindran, S. (1996). Reengineering information sharing behaviour in organizations. Journal of Information Technology, 11(3), 261–272.Google Scholar
  8. Bélanger, F., & Allport, C. D. (2008). Collaborative technologies in knowledge telework: An exploratory study. Information Systems Journal, 18(1), 101–121.Google Scholar
  9. Bell-Rokeach, S. J., & Reardon, K. (1988). Monologue, dialogue, and telelog: Comparing an emergent form of communication with traditional forms. In R. P. Hawkins, J. M. Wiemann, & S. Pingree (Eds.), Advancing communication science: Merging mass and interpersonal process (pp. 135–161). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  10. Berlanger, F., Collins, R. W., & Cheney, P. H. (2001). Technology requirements and work group communication for telecommuters. Information Systems Research, 12(2), 155–176.Google Scholar
  11. Blair, E., & Zinkhan, G. M. (2006). Nonresponse and generalizability in academic research. Academy of Marketing Science, 34(1), 4–7.Google Scholar
  12. Blili, S., Raymond, L., & Rivard, S. (1998). Impact of task uncertainty, end-user involvement, and competence on the success of end-user computing. Information Management, 33(3), 137–153.Google Scholar
  13. Borges, M. R. S., Brézillon, P., Pino, J. A., & Pomerol, J.-C. (2007). Dealing with the effects of context mismatch in group work. Decision Support Systems, 43(4), 1692–1706.Google Scholar
  14. Brown, S. A., Dennis, A. R., & Venkatesh, V. (2010). Predicting collaboration technology use: Integrating technology adoption and collaboration research. Journal of Management Information Systems, 27(2), 9–53.Google Scholar
  15. Bucy, E. P. (2004). Interactivity in society: Locating an elusive concept. The Information Society, 20(5), 373–383.Google Scholar
  16. Burgoon, J. K., Bonito, J. A., Bengtsson, B., Jr., Ramirez, A., Dunbar, N. E., & Miczo, N. (1999). Testing the interactivity model: Communication processes, partners assessments, and the quality of collaborative work. Journal of Management Information Systems, 16(3), 33–56.Google Scholar
  17. Campbell, D. J. (1988). Task complexity: A review and analysis. Academy of Management Review, 13(1), 40–52.Google Scholar
  18. Chin, W. W., & Gopal, A. (1995). Adoption intention in GSS: Relative importance of beliefs. Data Base, 26(2&3), 43–63.Google Scholar
  19. Cooper, R. B., & Zmud, R. W. (1990). Information technology implementation research: A technological diffusion approach. Management Science, 36(2), 123–139.Google Scholar
  20. Davenport, T. H. (1997). Information ecology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Davis, A., Khazanchi, D., Murphy, J., Zigurs, I., & Owens, D. (2009). Avatars, people, and virtual worlds: Foundations for research in metaverses. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 10(2), 90–117.Google Scholar
  22. DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (2003). The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: A ten-year update. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(4), 9–30.Google Scholar
  23. Dennis, A. R., & Kinney, S. (1998). Testing media richness theory in the new media: The effects of cues, feedback, and task equivocality. Information Systems Research, 9(3), 256–274.Google Scholar
  24. Dennis, A. R., Hilmer, K. M., & Taylor, N. J. (1997). Information exchange and use in GSS and verbal group decision making: Effects of minority influence. Journal of Management Information Systems, 14(3), 61–88.Google Scholar
  25. Dennis, A. R., Pootheri, S. K., & Natarajan, V. L. (1998). Lessons from the early adopters of web groupware. Journal of Management Information Systems, 14(4), 65–86.Google Scholar
  26. Dennis, A. R., Wixom, B. H., & Vandenberg, R. J. (2001). Understanding fit and appropriation effects in group support systems via meta-analysis. MIS Quarterly, 25(2), 167–193.Google Scholar
  27. Dennis, A. R., Fuller, R. M., & Valacich, J. S. (2008). Media, tasks, and communication processes: A theory of media synchronicity. MIS Quarterly, 32(3), 575–600.Google Scholar
  28. DeSanctis, G., & Fulk, J. (1999). Shaping organization form: Communication, connection, and community. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  29. DeSanctis, G., & Poole, M. S. (1994). Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: Adaptive structuration theory. Organization Science, 5(2), 121–147Google Scholar
  30. Dourish, P. (2003). The appropriation of interactive technologies: Some lessons from placeless documents. Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, 12(4), 465–490.Google Scholar
  31. Dubé, L., & Robey, D. (2008). Surviving the paradoxes of virtual teamwork. Information Systems Journal, 19(1), 3–30.Google Scholar
  32. Easley, R. F., Devaraj, S., & Crant, J. M. (2003). Relating collaborative technology use to teamwork quality and performance: An empirical analysis. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(4), 247–268.Google Scholar
  33. Feldman, M. S., & Pentland, B. T. (2003). Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(1), 94–118.Google Scholar
  34. Fjermestad, J., & Hiltz, S. R. (2000). Group support systems: A descriptive evaluation of case and field studies. Journal of Management Information Systems, 17(3), 115–159.Google Scholar
  35. Foa, U. G., & Foa, E. B. (1974). Societal structures of the mind. Springfield: C.C. Thomas.Google Scholar
  36. Fornell, C. R., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50.Google Scholar
  37. Fritz, M. B. W., Narasimhan, S., & Rhee, H. S. (1998). Communication and coordination in the virtual office. Journal of Management Information Systems, 14(4), 7–28.Google Scholar
  38. Fuller, R. M., & Dennis, A. R. (2009). Does fit matter? The impact of task-technology fit and appropriation on team performance in repeated tasks. Information Systems Research, 20(1), 2–17.Google Scholar
  39. Ginsburg, M., & Duliba, K. (1997). Enterprise-level groupware choices: Evaluating Lotus Notes and Intranet-based solutions. Computer Supported Cooperative Work: Journal of Collaborative Computing, 6(2&3), 201–225.Google Scholar
  40. Goodhue, D. L., & Thompson, R. L. (1995). Task-technology fit and individual performance. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 213–236.Google Scholar
  41. Gopal, A., Bostrom, R. P., & Chin, W. W. (1992). Applying adaptive structuration theory to investigate the process of group support systems use. Journal of Management Information Systems, 9(3), 45–69.Google Scholar
  42. Grudin, J. (1994). Groupware and social dynamics: Eight challenges for developers. Communications of the ACM, 37(1), 92–105.Google Scholar
  43. Guillen, M. F. (1994). The age of eclecticism: Current organizational trends and the evolution of managerial models. Sloan Management Review, 36(3), 75–86.Google Scholar
  44. Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action: Reason and the rationalization of society. Boston: Beacon.Google Scholar
  45. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  46. Harris, R. W. (1999). Attitudes towards end-user computing: A structural equation model. Behaviour & Information Technology, 18(2), 109–125.Google Scholar
  47. Huang, W. W., & Wei, K. K. (2000). An empirical investigation of the effects of group support systems (GSS) and task type on group interactions from an influence perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems, 17(2), 181–206.Google Scholar
  48. Hutt, M. D., Stafford, E. R., Walker, B. A., & Reingen, P. H. (2000). Case study: The social network of a strategic alliance. Sloan Management Review, 41(2), 51–62.Google Scholar
  49. Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Staples, D. S. (2000). The use of collaborative electronic media for information sharing: An exploratory study of determinants. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 9, 129–154.Google Scholar
  50. Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Staples, D. S. (2001). Exploring perceptions of organizational ownership of information and expertise. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(1), 151–183.Google Scholar
  51. Jiang, Z., Chan, J., Tan, B. C. Y., & Chua, W. S. (2010). Effects of interactivity on website involvement and purchase intention. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 11(1), 34–59.Google Scholar
  52. Kamel, N. N., & Davison, R. M. (1998). Applying CSCW technology to overcome traditional barriers in group interactions. Information Management, 34(4), 209–219.Google Scholar
  53. Kang, S., Lim, K. H., Kim, M. S., & Yang, H.-D. (2012). A multilevel analysis of the effect of group appropriation on collaborative technologies use and performance. Information Systems Research, 23(1), 214–230.Google Scholar
  54. Karahanna, E., Straub, D. W., & Chervany, N. L. (1999). Information technology adoption across time: A cross-sectional comparison of pre-adoption and post-adoption beliefs. MIS Quarterly, 23(2), 183–213.Google Scholar
  55. Karsten, H. (1999). Collaboration and collaborative information technologies: A review of the evidence. Database for Advances in Information Systems, 30(2), 44–65.Google Scholar
  56. Karsten, H. (2003). Constructing interdependencies with collaborative information technology. Computer Supported Cooperative Work: Journal of Collaborative Computing, 12, 437–464.Google Scholar
  57. Kettinger, W. J., & Grover, V. (1997). The use of computer-mediated communication in an interorganizational context. Decision Sciences, 28(3), 513–555.Google Scholar
  58. Kim, K. K., & Umanath, N. S. (1992). Structure and perceived effectiveness of software development units: A task contingency analysis. Journal of Management Information Systems, 9(3), 157–181.Google Scholar
  59. Kyng, M. (1991). Designing for cooperation. Communications of the ACM, 34(12), 83–88.Google Scholar
  60. Lee, S., & Leifer, R. P. (1992). A framework for linking the structure of information systems with organizational requirements for information sharing. Journal of Management Information Systems, 3(4), 27–44.Google Scholar
  61. Leiner, D. J., & Quiring, O. (2008). What interactivity means to the user essential insights into and a scale for perceived interactivity. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14, 127–155.Google Scholar
  62. Li, E. Y., Jiang, J. J., & Klein, G. (2003). The impact of organizational coordination and climate on marketing executives’ satisfaction with information systems services. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 4(4), 99–117.Google Scholar
  63. Liu, Y. (2003). Developing a scale to measure the interactivity of websites. Journal of Advertising Research, 43(2), 207–216.Google Scholar
  64. Liu, Y., & Shrum, L. J. (2009). A dual-process model of interactivity effects. Journal of Advertising, 38(2), 53–68.Google Scholar
  65. Lou, H., Luo, W., & Strong, D. (2000). Perceived critical mass effect on groupware acceptance. European Journal of Information Systems, 9, 91–103.Google Scholar
  66. Lou, H., Scamell, R., & Shah, J. R. (2006). Use of a groupware product: A test of three theoretical perspectives. The Journal of Computer Information Systems, 46(4), 35–45.Google Scholar
  67. Lowry, P. B., Zhang, D., Zhou, L., & Fu, X. (2010). Effects of culture, social presence, and group composition on trust in technology-supported decision-making groups. Information Systems Journal, 20(3), 297–315.Google Scholar
  68. Malone, T. W., & Crowston, K. (1994). The interdisciplinary study of coordination. ACM Computing Surveys, 26(1), 87–119.Google Scholar
  69. Markus, M. L., & Silver, M. S. (2008). A foundation for the study of IT effects: A new look at DeSanctis and Poole’s concepts of structural features and spirit. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 9(10/11), 609–632.Google Scholar
  70. McMillan, S. J. (2002). Exploring models of interactivity from multiple research traditions: Users, documents, and systems. In L. A. Lievrouw & S. Livingstone (Eds.), Handbook of new media: Social shaping and consequences of ICTs (pp. 163–182). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  71. McMillan, S. J., & Hwang, J.-S. (2002). Measures of perceived interactivity: An exploration of the role of direction of communication, user control, and time in shaping perceptions of interactivity. Journal of Advertising, 31(3), 29–42.Google Scholar
  72. McMillan, S. J., Hwang, J.-S., & Lee, G. (2003). Effects of structural and perceptual factors on attitudes toward the website. Journal of Advertising Research, 43(4), 400–409.Google Scholar
  73. Mentzas, G. N. (1993). Coordination of joint tasks in organizational processes. Journal of Information Technology, 8(3), 139–150.Google Scholar
  74. Meroño-Cerdán, A. L. (2008). Groupware uses and influence on performance in SMEs. The Journal of Computer Information Systems, 48(4), 87–96.Google Scholar
  75. Migliarese, P., & Paolucci, E. (1995). Improved communications and collaborations among tasks induced by Groupware. Decision Support Systems, 14(3), 237–250.Google Scholar
  76. Miranda, S. M., & Saunders, C. S. (2003). The social construction of meaning: An alternative perspective on information sharing. Information Systems Research, 14(1), 87–106.Google Scholar
  77. Moore, G. C., & Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Information Systems Research, 2(3), 192–222.Google Scholar
  78. Newhagen, J. E., Corders, J. S., & Levy, M. R. (1995). Audience scope and the perception of interactivity in viewer mail on the Internet. Journal of Communication, 45(3), 164–175.Google Scholar
  79. Nidumolu, S. R. (1996). A comparison of the structural contingency and risk-based perspectives on coordination in software-development projects. Journal of Management Information Systems, 13(2), 77–113.Google Scholar
  80. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  81. Olorunniwo, F. O., & Li, X. (2010). Information sharing and collaboration practices in reverse logistics. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 15(6), 454–462.Google Scholar
  82. Orlikowski, W.J. (1992). Learning from notes: Organizational issues in groupware implementation. Proceedings of the Conference on computer Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 362–369). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  83. Orlikowski, W. J. (2000). Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Organization Science, 11(4), 404–428.Google Scholar
  84. Pavlou, P. A., & EI Sawy, O. A. (2006). From IT leveraging competence to competitive advantage in turbulent environments: The case of new product development. Information Systems Research, 17(3), 198–227.Google Scholar
  85. Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.Google Scholar
  86. Rafaeli, S. (1988). Interactivity: From new media to communication. In R. P. Hawkins, J. M. Wiemann, & S. Pingree (Eds.), Advancing communication science: Merging mass and interpersonal processes (pp. 110–134). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  87. Rai, A., & Al-Hindi, H. (2000). The effects of development process modelling and task uncertainty on development quality performance. Information Management, 37(6), 335–346.Google Scholar
  88. Reddy, M. C., & Jansen, B. J. (2008). A model for understanding collaborative information behavior in context: A study of two healthcare teams. Information Processing and Management, 44(1), 256–273.Google Scholar
  89. Rice, D. J., Davidson, B. D., Dannenhoffer, J. F., & Gay, G. K. (2007). Improving the effectiveness of virtual teams by adapting team processes. Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, 16(6), 567–594.Google Scholar
  90. Robert, L. P., & Dennis, A. R. (2005). Paradox of richness: A cognitive model of media choice. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 48(1), 10–21.Google Scholar
  91. Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovation (4th ed.). New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  92. Rosenzweig, P. M. (1994). When can management science research be generalized internationally? Management Science, 40(1), 28–39.Google Scholar
  93. Song, J. H., & Zinkhan, G. M. (2008). Determinants of perceived web site interactivity. Journal of Marketing, 72(1), 99–113.Google Scholar
  94. Stromer-Galley, J. (2004). Interactivity-as-product and interactivity-as-process. The Information Society, 20(5), 391–394.Google Scholar
  95. Sundar, S. S. (2004). Theorizing interactivity’s effects. The Information Society, 20(5), 385–389.Google Scholar
  96. Tan, M., & Teo, T. S. E. (2000). Factors influencing the adoption of Internet banking. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 1(5), 1–44.Google Scholar
  97. Thong, J. Y. L. (1999). An integrated model of information systems adoption in small businesses. Journal of Management Information Systems, 15(4), 187–214.Google Scholar
  98. Thorson, K. S., & Rodgers, S. (2006). Relationships between Blogs as eWOM and interactivity, perceived interactivity, and parasocial interaction. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 6(2), 39–50.Google Scholar
  99. Todd, P., & Benbasat, I. (2000). Evaluating the impact of DSS, cognitive effort, and incentives on strategy selection. Information Systems Research, 10(4), 356–374.Google Scholar
  100. Townsend, A. M., Hendrickson, A. R., & DeMarie, S. M. (2002). Meeting the virtual work imperative. Communications of the ACM, 45(1), 23–26.Google Scholar
  101. Van de Van, A. H., Delbecq, A. L., & Koenig, R. (1976). Determinants of coordination modes within organizations. American Sociological Review, 41(Apr), 322–338.Google Scholar
  102. Vandenbosch, B., & Ginzberg, M. J. (1996). Lotus Notes and collaboration. Journal of Management Information Systems, 13(3), 65–81.Google Scholar
  103. Warkentin, M., & Beranek, P. M. (1999). Training to improve virtual team communication. Information Systems Journal, 9(4), 271–289.Google Scholar
  104. Wellman, B., Salaff, J., Dimitrovad, D., Garton, L., Gulia, M., & Haythornthwaite, C. (1996). Computer networks as social networks: Collaborative work, telework, and virtual community. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 213–238.Google Scholar
  105. Wilson, T. D., Lindsey, S., & Schooler, T. Y. (2000). A model of dual attitudes. Psychology Review, 107(1), 101–126.Google Scholar
  106. Wu, G. (1999). Perceived interactivity and attitude toward websites. In M. S. Robert (Ed.), Proceedings of the American Academy of Advertising (pp. 254–262). Gainseville: University of Florida.Google Scholar
  107. Xia, W., & Lee, G. (2005). Complexity of information systems development projects: Conceptualization and measurement development. Journal of Management Information Systems, 22(1), 45–84.Google Scholar
  108. Yates, J., Orlikowski, W. J., & Okamura, K. (1999). Explicit and implicit structuring of genres: Electronic communication in a Japanese R&D organization. Organization Science, 10(1), 83–103.Google Scholar
  109. Yu, C., & Yen, D. C. (2000). Extranet and groupware. The Journal of Computer Information Systems, 40(4), 32–40.Google Scholar
  110. Zack, M. H., & Mckenney, J. L. (1995). Social context and interaction in ongoing computer-supported management groups. Organization Science, 6(4), 394–422.Google Scholar
  111. Zeffane, R., & Gul, F. (1993). The effects of task characteristics and sub-unit structure on dimensions of information processing. Information Processing and Management, 29(6), 703–719.Google Scholar
  112. Zhang, N., Guo, X., & Chen, G. (2011). Why adoption and use behavior of IT/IS cannot last?—Two studies in China. Information Systems Frontiers, 13(3), 381–395.Google Scholar
  113. Zigurs, I., & Buckland, B. K. (1998). A theory of task/technology fit and group support systems effectiveness. MIS Quarterly, 22(3), 313–334.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Information ManagementHsuan Chuang UniversityTaiwanRepublic of China
  2. 2.Department of Logistics and Maritime StudiesThe Hong Kong Polytechnic UniversityHong KongPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations