This study explores how team leaders sense the need for technology adaptation intervention in distributed, computer-mediated ("virtual") teams. Analysis and coding of critical incident data collected in interviews of practicing leaders produce a five-trigger model including (1) external constraint, (2) internal constraint, (3) information and communication technology (ICT) inadequacy, (4) ICT knowledge, skills, and abilities inadequacy, and (5) trust and relationship inadequacies. The resulting five-trigger model provides several key contributions including (1) a diagnostic tool for examining real, multi-trigger team technology adaptation contexts, enabling better leader training and evaluation as well as improved research on team technology adaptation and interventions and (2) a better understanding of the relationship between the technology structure strength indicators in adaptive structuration theory and the need for team technology adaptation intervention.
Information systems (IS) research often attempts to examine and explain how technology leads to outcomes through usage of IS. Although extensive research in this area has resulted in a significant number of theories, limited work has been done on integrating these theories. This paper presents adaptive structuration theory (AST) as a meta-theory for examining IS within an organizational context. The two main contributions of the paper are an understanding of meta-theory's role in IS and building a case for using AST as a meta-theory to (1) provide an overarching perspective for understanding and integrating existing literature and theories, (2) provide a template and set of guidelines for creating better context-specific IS models and theories, and (3) provide a deeper understanding of a theory. Along with discussion of the contributions, we provide examples to guide researchers in applying AST as a meta-theory.
This article examines the impacts of two types of meeting facilitation that occur in traditional and GSS environments: process and content facilitation. Based on existing facilitation, leadership, and GSS research, and structuration theory, the authors articulate hypotheses regarding the impact of GSS use and each type of meeting facilitation on meeting processes and of meeting processes on outcomes. Meeting processes examined in this study included relationship development, participation, issue-based conflict, interpersonal conflict, and negative socioemotional conflict. Outcomes explored were the groups' satisfaction with the decision made and with their meeting process, and the quality of the groups' decision products. Empirical investigation provides the following findings: Process facilitation had a positive impact on meeting processes. Content facilitation had a negative impact on meeting processes. The interaction between GSS use and both process and content facilitation had no significant effect on meeting processes. Meeting processes had a strong positive impact on satisfaction, but no impact on product quality. Implications for meeting facilitation are discussed and future research directions proposed.
This paper addresses the socioemotional dimension in group support systems (GSS) meeting environments from the perspective of the facilitator. A model is presented and discussed. This model represents how facilitators perceive and manage socioemotional issues in a GSS environment. The role of GSS in the model is also explored. The research methodology for gathering and analyzing the data in this paper was based on critical incident technique and semistructured interviews with twenty-six experienced facilitators. The research found that GSS provides a very useful tool for managing socioemotional issues; however, GSS also creates new issues. The implications of this research study's findings for facilitators and future research issues are posited.
Radical and discontinuous change is the order of the day in the 1990s. Organizations are seeking to improve their fit with a constantly changing environment through initiatives such as business process redesign (BPR) and total quality management (TQM). Getting people to think creatively is critical to the success of these change efforts. Group Support Systems (GSS) have emerged as a potential means of supporting and augmenting creativity in the modem team-based organization. GSS research, however, has largely ignored the nature (i.e., creativity) of ideas that are generated. This paper seeks to move GSS research on idea generation beyond its previously limited focus on the quantity of ideas generated when using GSS. Drawing on multiple theoretical perspectives and research streams--creativity and idea generation, Kirton's cognitive style, GSS, and adaptive structuration theory (AST)--we distinguish between two orthogonal dimensions for measuring creativity (of ideas, individuals, and creativity processes)--creativity level and paradigm-relatedness, identify and characterize fundamental structuring mechanisms present in creativity techniques and OSS that influence one or the other dimension; and explore the implications of the above for research, design, and the targeted deployment of GSS and creativity techniques in organizations. We develop a theoretical framework of creative processes that is independent of any available or yet unforeseen technologies and techniques. The framework allows researchers and designers to examine OSS and creativity techniques at a finer level of detail than before, thereby allowing a richer understanding of how they work. This improved understanding will help organizations develop and maintain environments that foster creativity in the work force.
This article proposes a model for examining the impacts of group support systems (GSS) on conflict and conflict management, based on literature on GSS, group conflict, and structuration theory. It reports on a study of the impacts of GSS use on group conflict and conflict management. A total of 25 groups participated in the study. After an initial training session, groups met for four decision-making sessions requiring a consensus decision from each group. Subjects reported their perceptions on group conflict, conflict management strategies used, and the productivity of conflict, using scales developed for this study. Overall, GSS-supported groups perceived lower amounts of issue-based and interpersonal conflict than did control groups. There were no significant differences for reported use of conflict management strategies and perceived productivity of conflict. The authors explore possible reasons for these results and propose future research issues related to conflict and conflict management within a GSS environment.
Adaptive structuration theory (AST) provides a sound basis from which to study the use of group support systems (GSS). The need for a theoretical approach such as AST is especially urgent because it helps explain the process of GSS use, thereby providing insights into the reasons for inconsistent research results. This paper illustrates the development of a research model based on AST, and reports the results of a study conducted on the basis of this model. The independent variables in the study were task and technology. The model's process component was represented by the attitudes of group members toward the technology they used. The six attitude dimensions were obtained from AST as well as from other information technology researchers. The model was tested using the partial least squares (PLS) technique.
This paper reports on a study aimed at integrating an important but neglected behavioral issue--group development--into group decision support systems (GDSS) research. Group development is based on the fact that most groups have a past and a future, and this affects group outcomes. However, most GDSS studies have investigated only a single group session. This study examined the behavior of groups using a GDSS over multiple sessions. The study reported in this paper specifically examined the following two questions: (1) does computer support affect the development of decision-making groups? and (2) do the patterns of development differ over time between computer-supported and manual groups? These two questions were studied using a two-factorial repeated measures research design. Results showed significant differences in development patterns between computer-supported groups and manual groups in terms of conflict management and degree of cohesiveness. After adapting to GDSS, computer-supported groups displayed more productive conflict management and higher group cohesiveness than manual groups.
In formation systems for large firms are typically designed by a team comprised of both users and systems personnel. The Management Information System (MIS) literature discusses a communication gap between the organization oriented users and the more technical systems staff. It is often hypothesized that systems personnel and users are different in terms of personality and behavior characteristics and that these differences are one of the primary reasons for the existence of a communication gap. This article summarizes a two-phased study. The first phase investigated personality characteristics of respondents from thirty-two large organizations who worked on design teams. The second phase examines, in detail, a system success and failure in one organization. Analysis was performed to see if there are significant differences on personality dimensions between users and systems personnel and to explore the relationship between these differences and system success. An denationalization of Jung's personality typology (Myers-Briggs Type Indicator) was employed. The results show that the users involved in the systems design are very similar to their systems counterparts. Even more surprising is that the characteristics of these users are closer to the popular descriptions of systems staff than the analysts are. They also suggest that these similarities in personality types may have an impact on system success. The general implications of these findings in terms of the management of project teams and the MIS designs they create are discussed.