IT Applications and Groupware, Case Study Example

Abstract

Groupware systems supposedly promote collaboration and empower IT users to work more efficiently. Reputed to ease information overload, and simplify access to people, processes and information regardless of a user’s location, groupware applications certainly benefit organizations, but can also yield unintended consequences for an organization’s end-users. While many businesses have experienced increased efficiencies from these collaborative applications, groupware implementation and integration projects are not a trivial undertaking. This article examines the theory of IT applications and groupware in relation to end-user collaboration and aims to identify elements worth considering for the effective implementation and use of groupware. The research also organizes previous perspectives on groupware implementations, and extends it to illuminate on activities an organization can perform to promote the usability and fluidity of groupware amongst its users.

Introduction

Groupware applications leverage technology resources to centralize knowledge and information sharing among geographically dispersed end-users. Desktop conferencing, videoconferencing, co-authoring functionality, electronic messaging and bulletin boards, meeting support systems, voice applications, workflow systems, and group calendars are prime examples of groupware (Grudin, 1994). Researchers Lou, Scammel, and Shah (2006) agree that groupware increases efficiencies, and optimizes business processes through the integration and centralization of a workforce’s knowledge, business processes and applications. While there are many benefits derived from the implementation of groupware, as with any significant IT undertaking, there are also certain challenges and risks to consider.

End-User Acceptance

Certain technology-enabled collaboration tools, such as electronic and instant messaging, have experienced widespread adoption and usage. Other groupware products have not fared as well despite considerable development effort and more robust functionally. Hills (1997), author of the book Intranets as Groupware, contents that end-users issues are the primary reason groupware implementations are difficult to implement and fraught with risk. Groupware systems are perceived as successful only if end-users choose to adopt and use the system. Historically, groupware projects have failed due to interoperability with other systems and the lack of perceived end-user benefit (Foraker.com, n.d.). To resolve this dilemma, companies can either apply social pressure to enforce groupware usage; or engineer a groupware solution that users will perceive as useful.

Change Management

Change management is required to manage the social dynamics of any groupware project. Change Management allows organizations to communicate groupware impacts to end-users, collect feedback, and address end-user concerns. Researchers Gutwin and Greenberg (2002) agree that understanding these social dynamics improves the adoption and usability of groupware. Users are appropriately trained, feel included in the organizational decision making process, and are aware of how groupware will improve their work processes.

In the context of software development, understanding how end-users will exchange data also contributes to the successful implementation and adoption of groupware. Specifically, by understanding an organization’s collaboration activities, technologists can engineer a groupware configuration that meets those needs. This understanding also defines the initial requirements for future software development work (Gutwin and Greenberg, 2002).

Organizational Culture

In her book, Intranet as Groupware, Hills recommends creating an organizational atmosphere where information flows smoothly, and a culture imbuing teamwork and collaboration. With these aspects in place, companies can then use technologically enabled tools, such as groupware, to encourage continued collaboration. Hills (1997) goes on to say, “It helps if people already know each other, like each other, respect each other, and even trust each other, before they ever start to collaborate. Team building is a useful prerequisite, and is certainly less expensive than the cost of a failed system”.

Successful Groupware Implementations

Global business leaders, including Starbucks, Xerox Corporation, Arthur Andersen, Bank of America and Shell Oil, have successfully used groupware as a principal tool for promoting organizational learning, and maintaining technological excellence in a dynamic business environment (Darr, 1997). While these business leaders have effectively used groupware to support their company’s vision and strategic goals, other companies are reluctant to follow suit.

Researcher Darr (1997) suggests that the lack of groupware adoption among large businesses is due, in part, to existing organizational structures, processes and cultures. “The technology works, but [end-users] often do not embrace it. And without user commitment, groupware […] will not produce potential gains” (Darr, 1997).

Intrapersonal collaboration and teamwork in the current organizational environment then becomes the driver to increase adoption of groupware. End-users must be enticed to accept and adopt the implementation and usage of a technologically enabled collaboration tool. This can only be accomplished if the company actively involves end-users in the groupware decision-making process. Extending the groupware implementation process to include feedback mechanisms, proactive communications and awareness, change management, and end-user agreement will significantly enhance a company’s ability to harness the full potential of groupware.

References

Darr, Eric (1997, 1 May). Making the most of groupware. Chief Executive (U.S.), Retrieved from http://www.thefreelibrary.com/_/print/PrintArticle.aspx?id=19611152

Foraker.com (n.d.). Collaborative software: design issues. Usability First, Retrieved from http://www.usabilityfirst.com/about-usability/web-application-design/collaborative-software-groupware/collaborative-software-design-issues/

Grudin, Jonathan (1994). Groupware and social dynamics: eight challenges for developers. Communications of the ACM, Retrieved from http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/jgrudin/past/papers/cacm94/cacm94.html

Gutwin, Carl; Greenberg, Saul. (2002). A descriptive framework of workspace awareness for real-time groupware. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, Retrieved from http://hci.usask.ca/publications/2002/awareness-jcscw.pdf

Hills, Mellanie (1997). Intranets as groupware (Online Book Exceprt), Retrieved from http://www.intranetjournal.com/features/groupware-1.shtml

Lou, Hao; Scammell, Richard; Shah, Jaymeen R. (2006, July 1). Use of a groupware product: a test of three theoretical perspectives. The Journal of Computer Information Systems, Retrieved from http://www.allbusiness.com/technology/computer-software-management/4078833-1.html