The characteristics of a group's task have been shown to account for more than half the variation in group interaction. In the context of group support systems (GSS), the importance of task has been underscored by the recommendation that achieving a fit between task and technology should be a principle for effective GSS use. Although the body of group support systems research has grown in recent years, and experience with different tasks and technologies now exists, no generally accepted theory of task/technology fit has emerged. This paper develops a theory of task/technology fit in GSS environments based on attributes 'Robert Zmud was the accepting senior editor for this paper. GSS Task/Technology Fit of task complexity and their relationship to relevant dimensions of GSS technology. Propositions to guide further research are developed from the theory.

Abstract not found

Abstract. Meetingware supports, manages, guides and stimulates participation in meetings. The evaluation of meetingware has not yet produced concluding results due to many reasons, one of them concerning the high cost (in time, money and logistics) of the evaluation process. This paper proposes a low-cost approach to evaluate meetingware. The approach is centered on a variable – Perceived Value – measuring several external product attributes of meetingware that can be negotiated between developers and users. The proposed approach was used by an organization with the purpose of evaluating a meetingware prototype developed by the authors. 1

This paper reports a study of information and communication technology (ICT) use in Norway and the United States. Forty-two depth interviews completed in both countries provide the data source. Using grounded theory as a research method, and Adaptive Structuration Theory as our conceptual base, we analyze these interviews to generate an empirical model of ICT use. The 1490 incidents identified in our analysis are first reduced to 49 categories. These categories are further reduced to four: satisficing, communication channels, communication structure, and environmental agents. These four categories comprise the major parts of the reflexive model. The findings suggest that the parts of the model are interdependent and mutually causal in that individuals consider and even reconsider the use of multiple communication channels within and between tasks. As a conclusion we address future research including, credibility and time issues in ICT use.

Gerardine DeSanctis and Marshall Scott Poole made an important contribution to the study of IT uses and effects with their insightful concepts of “structural features ” and “spirit. ” Unlike their concept of “appropriation, ” which has found broad acceptance in the IS community, the concepts of structural features and spirit have not been widely used. Published concerns that the concepts are not consistent with basic assumptions in Giddens ’ structuration theory, on which the concepts were based, could account for their neglect. However, concepts like structural features and spirit are indispensable for any program of research that attempts to show how IT artifacts can, together with other influences, contribute to the consequences of IT use. Addressing the criticisms that have been leveled against these concepts is, therefore, important. In this paper we unpack DeSanctis and Poole’s concepts and propose redefining them as three new concepts: technical objects, functional affordances, and symbolic expressions. We believe this reconceptualization addresses several concerns about the original concepts, while retaining the core insights of DeSanctis and Poole’s innovative analysis.

This is a more detailed narrative of the results summarized in the main body and appendix of DeSanctis, Poole, Zigurs, et al. (2008). Section numbers correspond to the sections in the body and table designations correspond to tables in the Appendix to that article. 4.4.1 (Table 1) GDSS Groups Versus Traditional Groups This section and the results in the table address the question: What effects do GDSS have on group processes and outcomes? Our initial studies focused on differences between groups using the GDSS and groups employing more traditional modes of operation. Normatively we were interested in the question of whether there was any net improvement in decision outcomes such as quality, satisfaction, and commitment due to GDSSs. To address these questions we compared three conditions: (1) groups with no support which were given a task and left to their own deserts (Baseline groups), (2) groups with a manual version of the procedures built into the GDSS (Manual groups), and (3) groups with a GDSS (GDSS groups). The contrast of conditions 1 and 2 with condition 3 identified the effects due to computerization, while the contrast of condition 1 with conditions 2 and 3 identified the effects due to structured procedures, whether automated or not. This enabled us to sort out impacts due to procedures, which could be employed manually as well as with the GDSS, from impacts due to computerization.