Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Explaining Sophistication in Collaborative Technology Use: A Context—Technology Fit Perspective

  • Published:
Group Decision and Negotiation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Organizations are increasingly attempting to leverage their IT infrastructures and gain better benefits from them. Collaborative technology is one such IT-based infrastructural application which enables organizations to increase operational efficiencies and effectiveness of organizational decision making. It is important to identify potential challenges and barriers to collaborative technology adoption and use and therefore create means and mechanisms for anticipating challenges, facing them and removing barriers. Motivated by differences in extent of use of collaborative technology by groups in organizations, this paper uses exploratory cases to analyse IT-supported collaborative decision task situations to understand the factors influencing sophistication of use of collaborative technology. Preliminary qualitative analysis suggests that level of sophistication is fit between three constructs including users’ drive to use technology, the need for technology support and the group’s cultural orientation towards collaboration. Potential group contexts are discussed using the cases as samples. Further development of an integrative framework to understand use of collaborative technology is essential for suggesting more precise and fundamental prescriptive mechanisms.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Applegate LM (1991) Technology support for cooperative work: a framework for studying introduction and assimilation in organizations. J Organ Comput 1(1): 11–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Bélanger F, Watson-Manheim MB (2006) Virtual teams and multiple media: structuring media use to attain strategic goals. Group Decis Negot 15(2): 299–321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burton-Jones A, Hubona GS (2005) Individual differences and usage behavior: revisiting a technology acceptance model assumption. Database Adv Infor Syst 36(2): 58–77

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell DJ (1988) Task complexity: a review and analysis. Acad Manag Rev 13(1): 40–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlson JR, Zmud RW (1999) Channel expansion theory and the experiential nature of media richness perceptions. Acad Manag J 42(2): 153–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daft RL, Lengel RH (1986) Organisation information requirements: media richness and structural design. Manag Sci 32(5): 554–571

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dasgupta S, Granger M, McGarry N (2002) User acceptance of E-collaboration technology: an extension of the technology acceptance model. Group Decis Negot 11(2): 87–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeFranco-Tommarello J, Deek FP (2004) Collaborative problem solving and groupware for software development. Inf Syst Manag 21(1): 67–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dennis AR, Fuller RM, Valacich JS (2008) Media, tasks and communication processes: a theory of media synchronicity. MIS Quart 32(3): 575–600

    Google Scholar 

  • Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (2000) The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (eds) Handbook of qualitative research. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • DeSanctis G, Gallupe RB (1987) A foundation for the study of group decision support systems. Manag Sci 33(5): 589–609

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeSanctis G, Poole S (1994) Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: adaptive structuration theory. Organ Sci 5(2): 121–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt KM (1989) Building theories from case study research. Acad Manag Rev 14(4): 532–550

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galbraith J (1973) Designing complex organizations. Addison-Wesley, Reading

    Google Scholar 

  • Golafshani N (2003) Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. Retrieved 5th December, 2005, from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR8-4/golafshani.pdf

  • Hoffman N, Klepper R (2000) Assimilating new technologies. The role of organizational culture. Inf Syst Manag 17(3): 36–42

    Google Scholar 

  • Horton RP, Buck T, Waterson PE, Clegg CW (2001) Explaining intranet use with the technology acceptance model. J Inf Technol 16: 237–249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jarman R (2005) When success isn’t everything—case studies of two virtual teams. Group Decis Negot 14(4): 333–354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King N (1998) Template analysis. In: Cassell C, Symon G (eds) Qualitative methods and analysis in organisational research: a practical guide. Sage, London, pp 118–134

    Google Scholar 

  • Lerouge C, Blanton JE, Kittner M (2004) A causal model for using collaborative technologies to facilitate student team projects. J Comp Inf Syst 45(1): 30–37

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis LF, Bajwa DS, Pervan G, King VLS, Munkvold BE (2007) A cross-regional exploration of barriers to the adoption and use of electronic meeting systems. Group Decis Negot 16(4): 381–398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lim J (2003) A conceptual framework on the adoption of negotiation support systems. Inf Softw Technol 45(8): 469–477

    Google Scholar 

  • Mark G, Poltrock S (2001) Diffusion of a collaborative technology cross distance. Paper presented at the international ACM SIGGROUP conference on supporting group work, Boulder, Colorado, USA

  • Markus LM (1990) Toward a ‘critical mass’ theory of interactive media. In: Fulk J, Steinfield CW (eds) Organizations and communication technology. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, pp 194–218

    Google Scholar 

  • Maznevski ML, Chudoba KM (2000) Bridging space over time: global virtual team dynamics and effectiveness. Organ Sci 11(5): 473–492

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGrath JE (1984) Groups: interaction and performance. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles M, Huberman AM (1994) Qualitative data analysis, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Mintzberg H (1975) The manager’s job: folklore and fact. Harv Bus Rev 53(4): 49–61

    Google Scholar 

  • Myers MD (1997) Qualitative research in information systems. Retrieved 31 May 2007, from http://www.qual.auckland.ac.nz/

  • Nadkarni S, Gupta R (2007) A task-based model of perceived website complexity. MIS Quart 31(3): 501–524

    Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka I (1991) Knowledge-creating company. Harv Bus Rev 69(6): 96–104

    Google Scholar 

  • Nosek JT (1998) The case for collaborative programming. Commun ACM 41(3): 105–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nunamaker JFJ, Dennis AR, Valacich JS, Vogel DR, George JF (1991) Electronic meeting systems to support group work. Commun ACM 34(7): 40–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orlikowski W (1992) Learning from notes: organizational issues in groupware implementation. Paper presented at the Computer Supported Cooperative Work ‘92, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

  • Pinsonneault A, Kraemer KL (1990) The effects of electronic meetings on group processes and outcomes: an assessment of the empirical research. Eur J Oper Res 46(2): 143–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powell A, Piccoli G, Ives B (2004) Virtual teams: a review of current literature and directions for future research. Database Adv Infor Syst 35(1): 6–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Qureshi S, Vogel D (2001) Adaptiveness in virtual teams: organisational challenges and research directions. Group Decis Negot 10(1): 27–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan GW, Bernard HR (2000) Data management and analysis methods. In: Denzin N, Lincoln Y (eds) Handbook of qualitative research. Sage Inc., Thousand Oaks, pp 769–802

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarbaugh-Thompson M, Feldman MS (1998) Electronic mail and organizational communication: does saying “Hi” really matter?. Organ Sci 9(6): 685–698

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarker S, Valacich JS, Sarker S (2005) Technology adoption by groups: a valence perspective. J Assoc Infor Syst 6(2): 37–71

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauss A, Corbin J (1990) Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques. Sage, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Taggar S (2002) Individual creativity and group ability to utilize individual creative resources: a multilevel model. Acad Manag J 45(2): 315–330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teng JTC, Ramamurthy K (1993) Group decision support systems: clarifying the concept and establishing a functional taxonomy. INFOR 31(3): 166–185

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson JD (1967) Organizations in action. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner P, Turner S (2002) End-user perspectives on the uptake of computer supported cooperative working. J End User Comput 14(2): 3–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vaidya SD (1990) A framework for analysing end user computing environments in large organisations. Unpublished Dissertation, Indian Institute of Management Calcutta, Calcutta

  • Vaidya SD, Seetharaman P (2005) Collaborative technology use in organizations: a typology. Paper presented at the Americas Conference on Information Systems, Nebraska, Omaha

  • Vanden Hooff B, Groot J, De Jonge S (2005) Situational influences on the use of communication technologies: a meta-analysis and exploratory study. J Bus Commun 42(1): 4–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vandenbosch B, Ginzberg MJ (1996) Lotus notes and collaboration: le plus ca change. J Manag Inf Syst 13(3): 65–81

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson-Manheim MB, Bélanger F (2007) Communication media repertoires: dealing with the multiplicity of media choices. MIS Quart 31(2): 267–293

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiseth PE, Munkvold BE, Tvedte B, Larsen S (2006) The wheel of collaboration tools: a typology for analysis within a holistic framework. Paper presented at the 20th anniversary conference on computer supported cooperative work, Banff, Alberta, Canada

  • Wood RE (1986) Task compexity: definition of the construct. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 37: 60–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yen DC, Wen HJ, Lin B, Chou DC (1999) Groupware: a strategic analysis and implementation. Indus Manag Data Syst 99(2): 64–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin R (1994) Case study research: design and methods. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Zack MH, McKenney JL (1995) Social context and interaction in ongoing computer-supported management groups. Organ Sci 6(4): 394–422

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zigurs I, Buckland BK (1998) A theory of task/technology fit and group support systems effectiveness. MIS Quart 22(3): 313–334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zigurs I, Khazanchi D (2008) From profiles to patterns: a new view of task-technology fit. Infor Syst Manag 25: 8–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. MIS Group, Indian Institute of Management Calcutta, Diamond Harbour Road, Joka, Kolkata, 700104, India

    Sanjiv D. Vaidya & Priya Seetharaman

Authors
  1. Sanjiv D. Vaidya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Priya Seetharaman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Priya Seetharaman.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Vaidya, S.D., Seetharaman, P. Explaining Sophistication in Collaborative Technology Use: A Context—Technology Fit Perspective. Group Decis Negot 20, 185–213 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-009-9172-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-009-9172-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation