Advertisement

Education and Information Technologies

, Volume 24, Issue 2, pp 1837–1861 | Cite as

One for all and all for one - towards a framework for collaboration support systems

  • Dominik SiemonEmail author
  • Felix Becker
  • Linda Eckardt
  • Susanne Robra-Bissantz
Article

Abstract

To reach their goals, companies are on a never-ending search to find new methods for innovation. In order to tackle the complex problems, which cannot be solved by a single person, the implementation of teamwork is assumed to be applicable. With this paper, we propose a framework for Collaboration Support Systems, which aims to enhance team performance. We outline the differences between teams and groups and examine collective processes that on the one hand benefit from additional knowledge and mutual stimulation, but on the other hand are negatively influenced by various cognitive and social factors. With basic principles of collaboration, we seek to tackle the negative effects of team performance and try to further enhance the benefits of collective work. In this context, we analyzed group support systems and unified research and practice of various disciplines (like collaborative problem-solving, collaborative decision making, collaborative creativity and collaborative learning), in order to develop a framework for Collaboration Support Systems. Our paper addresses on-going topics (like anonymity in collaboration systems) and presents design principles for software engineers. Based on a comprehensive literature analysis, we introduce several principles and aspects for collaboration systems that can help to better understand collaboration in teams. However, to thoroughly understand the phenomenon of digital collaboration, further research is needed.

Keywords

Collaboration Teams Groups Design principles Team performance Creativity Learning 

References

  1. Alrushiedat, N., & Olfman, L. (2012). Anchored asynchronous online discussions: Facilitating participation and engagement in a blended environment. In: 2012 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Science (HICSS). Presented at the 2012 45th Hawaii international conference on system science (HICSS), January, pp. 11–20.  https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2012.113.
  2. Axelrod, R., & Hamilton, W. D. (1981). The evolution of cooperation. Science, 211(4489), 1390–1396.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7466396.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Barczak, G., Lassk, F., & Mulki, J. (2010). Antecedents of team creativity: An examination of team emotional intelligence, team trust and collaborative culture. Creativity and Innovation Management, 19(4), 332–345.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8691.2010.00574.x.Google Scholar
  4. Barki, H., & Pinsonneault, A. (2001). Small group brainstorming and idea quality is electronic brainstorming the most effective approach? Small Group Research, 32(2), 158–205.  https://doi.org/10.1177/104649640103200203.Google Scholar
  5. Bawden, D. (1986). Information systems and the stimulation of creativity. Journal of Information Science, 12(5), 203–216.  https://doi.org/10.1177/016555158601200501.Google Scholar
  6. Bennett, S. (2004). Supporting collaborative project teams using computer-based technologies. Online Collaborative Learning: Theory and Practice, 1–27.Google Scholar
  7. Berge, Z. L., & Collins, M. P. (1995). Computer mediated communication and the online classroom: Distance learning. Cresskill: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bijlsma, K., & Koopman, P. (2003). Introduction: Trust within organisations. Personnel Review, 32(5), 543–555.  https://doi.org/10.1108/00483480310488324.Google Scholar
  9. Blau, P. (1977). Inequality and heterogeneity: A primitive theory of social structure. New York: Macmillan Co..Google Scholar
  10. Bligh, D. A. (1998). What’s the use of lectures? Eastbourne: Intellect Books.Google Scholar
  11. Bodemer, D., & Dehler, J. (2011). Group awareness in CSCL environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(3), 1043–1045.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.07.014.Google Scholar
  12. Bowers, C. A., Pharmer, J. A., & Salas, E. (2000). When member homogeneity is needed in work teams: A meta-analysis. Small Group Research, 31(3), 305–327.  https://doi.org/10.1177/104649640003100303.Google Scholar
  13. Bradley, J. H., & Hebert, F. J. (1997). The effect of personality type on team performance. Journal of Management Development, 16(5), 337–353.  https://doi.org/10.1108/02621719710174525.Google Scholar
  14. Brewer, M. B. (1979). In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive-motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86(2), 307–324.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.307.Google Scholar
  15. Briggs, R., Reinig, B., & de Vreede, G.-J. (2008). The yield shift theory of satisfaction and its application to the IS/IT domain. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 9(5), 267–293 Available at http://aisel.aisnet.org/jais/vol9/iss5/14.Google Scholar
  16. Bruffee, K. A. (1999). Collaborative learning: Higher education, interdependence, and the authority of knowledge. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Bunderson, J. S., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2002). Comparing alternative conceptualizations of functional diversity in management teams: Process and performance effects. The Academy of Management Journal, 45(5), 875–893.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3069319.Google Scholar
  18. Bunnin, N., & Yu, J. (2007). The Blackwell dictionary of western philosophy. Hoboken: Blackwell Publishing Inc.Google Scholar
  19. Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Salas, E., & Converse, S. (1993). Shared mental models in expert team decision making. Individual and Group Decision Making: Current Issues, 221, 221–246.Google Scholar
  20. Chae, S. W., Seo, Y. W., & Lee, K. C. (2015). Task difficulty and team diversity on team creativity: Multi-agent simulation approach. Computers in Human Behavior, Digital creativity: New frontier for research and practice, 42, 83–92.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.032.Google Scholar
  21. Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Reichenbacher, L. (2008). Effects of personality and threat of evaluation on divergent and convergent thinking. Journal of Research in Personality, 42(4), 1095–1101.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2007.12.007.Google Scholar
  22. Chen, F., Zhang, L., & Latimer, J. (2014). How much has my co-worker contributed? The impact of anonymity and feedback on social loafing in asynchronous virtual collaboration. International Journal of Information Management, 34(5), 652–659.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2014.05.001.Google Scholar
  23. Chester, A., and Gwynne, G. 1998. Online teaching: Encouraging collaboration through anonymity. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 4(2), pp. 0.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.1998.tb00096.x.
  24. Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23(3), 239–290.  https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639702300303.Google Scholar
  25. Connolly, T., Jessup, L. M., & Valacich, J. S. (1990). Effects of anonymity and evaluative tone on idea generation in computer-mediated groups. Management Science, 36(6), 689–703.  https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.36.6.689.Google Scholar
  26. Connolly, T., Routhieaux, R. L., & Schneider, S. K. (1993). On the effectiveness of group brainstorming test of one underlying cognitive mechanism. Small Group Research, 24(4), 490–503.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496493244004.Google Scholar
  27. de Vreede, T., Boughzala, I., de Vreede, G., & Reiter-Palmon, R. (2012). A model and exploratory field study on team creativity. In: 2012 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Science (HICSS) (pp. 227–236). Presented at the 2012 45th Hawaii international conference on system science (HICSS), January.  https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2012.66.
  28. De Wit, F. R., Greer, L. L., & Jehn, K. A. (2012). The paradox of intragroup conflict: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(2), 360–390.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024844.Google Scholar
  29. Dennen, V. P. (2000). Task structuring for on-line problem based learning: A case study. Educational Technology & Society, 3(3), 329–336.Google Scholar
  30. Dennis, A. R., Aronson, J. E., Heninger, W. G., & Walker II, E. D. (1999). Structuring time and task in electronic brainstorming. MIS Quarterly, 23(1), 95–108.  https://doi.org/10.2307/249411.Google Scholar
  31. Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1987). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(3), 497–509.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.53.3.497.Google Scholar
  32. Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1991). Productivity loss in idea-generating groups: Tracking down the blocking effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(3), 392–403.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.61.3.392.Google Scholar
  33. Dillenbourg, P. 1999. What do you mean by collaborative learning. Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and computational approaches, 1, pp. 1–15.Google Scholar
  34. Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M. J., Blaye, A., & O’Malley, C. (1995). The evolution of research on collaborative learning. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  35. Druskat, V. U., & Wolff, S. B. (2001). Group emotional intelligence and its influence on group effectiveness. In: The emotionally intelligent workplace: How to select for, measure, and improve emotional intelligence in individuals, groups and organizations (pp. 132–155).Google Scholar
  36. Earley, P. C., & Mosakowski, E. (2000). Creating hybrid team cultures: An empirical test of transnational team functioning. The Academy of Management Journal, 43(1), 26–49.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1556384.Google Scholar
  37. Evans, C. R., & Dion, K. L. (2012). Group cohesion and performance: A meta-analysis. Small Group Research, 43(6), 690–701.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496412468074.Google Scholar
  38. Finke, R. A., Ward, T. B., & Smith, S. M. (1996). Creative cognition: Theory, research, and applications. Cambridge: A Bradford Book.Google Scholar
  39. Forés, B., & Camisón, C. (2016). Does incremental and radical innovation performance depend on different types of knowledge accumulation capabilities and organizational size? Journal of Business Research, 69(2), 831–848.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.07.006.Google Scholar
  40. Forsyth, D. R. (2014). Group dynamics (6th ed.). Wadsworth Cengage Learning: Belmont.Google Scholar
  41. Gabriel, A., Monticolo, D., Camargo, M., & Bourgault, M. (2016). Creativity support systems: A systematic mapping study. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 21, 109–122.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2016.05.009.Google Scholar
  42. Gallupe, R. B., Dennis, A. R., Cooper, W. H., Valacich, J. S., Bastianutti, L. M., & Nunamaker, J. F. (1992). Electronic brainstorming and group size. Academy of Management Journal, 35(2), 350–369.  https://doi.org/10.2307/256377.Google Scholar
  43. Gerosa, M. A., Pimentel, M., Fuks, H., & de Lucena, C. J. P. (2006). Development of groupware based on the 3C collaboration model and component technology. In Y. A. Dimitriadis, I. Zigurs, & E. Gómez-Sánchez (Eds.), Groupware: Design, implementation, and use, lecture notes in computer science (pp. 302–309). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/11853862_24.Google Scholar
  44. Golbeck, J. (2009). Trust and Nuanced Profile Similarity in Online Social Networks. ACM Transactions on the Web, 3(4), 12:1–12:33.  https://doi.org/10.1145/1594173.1594174.Google Scholar
  45. Gross, T., Stary, C., & Totter, A. (2005). User-centered awareness in computer-supported cooperative work-systems: Structured embedding of findings from social sciences. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 18(3), 323–360.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327590ijhc1803_5.Google Scholar
  46. Gulati, R., Wohlgezogen, F., & Zhelyazkov, P. (2012). The two facets of collaboration: Cooperation and coordination in strategic alliances. The Academy of Management Annals, 6(1), 531–583.  https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2012.691646.Google Scholar
  47. Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In J. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  48. Hackman, J. R., & Morris, C. G. (1975). Group tasks, group interaction process, and group performance effectiveness: A review and proposed integration. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 8(C), 45–99.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60248-8.Google Scholar
  49. Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., & Bell, M. P. (1998). Beyond relational demography: Time and the effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on work group cohesion. The Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 96–107.  https://doi.org/10.2307/256901.Google Scholar
  50. Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., Gavin, J. H., & Florey, A. T. (2002). Time, teams, and task performance: Changing effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on group functioning. The Academy of Management Journal, 45(5), 1029–1045.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3069328.Google Scholar
  51. Hayen, R. L., Swaby, S. A., & Huang, Z. (2007). Use of group support systems in today’s society. Issues in Information Systems, 8(2), 120–126.Google Scholar
  52. Helpman, E. (2010). The Mystery of Economic Growth. Cambridge; London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T. M. (2010). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 61(1), 569–598.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100416.Google Scholar
  54. Hilliges, O., Terrenghi, L., Boring, S., Kim, D., Richter, H., & Butz, A. (2007). Designing for collaborative creative problem solving. In Proceedings of the 6th ACM SIGCHI conference on creativity & cognition (pp. 137–146). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  55. Hiltz, S. R. (1998). Collaborative learning in asynchronous learning networks: Building learning communities. In Proceedings of the WebNet 98 World Conference of the WWW. Orlando, USA.Google Scholar
  56. Hoever, I. J., van Knippenberg, D., van Ginkel, W. P., & Barkema, H. G. (2012). Fostering team creativity: Perspective taking as key to unlocking diversity’s potential. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(5), 982–996.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029159.Google Scholar
  57. Hord, S. M. (1981). Working together: Cooperation or collaboration? Available at http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED226450.
  58. Hosack, I. (2004). The effects of anonymous feedback on Japanese university students’ attitudes towards peer review. Language and its Universe, 3, 297–322.Google Scholar
  59. Humphreys, P., & Jones, G. (2006). The evolution of group decision support systems to enable collaborative authoring of outcomes. World Futures, 62(3), 193–222.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02604020500509546.Google Scholar
  60. Huttner, J.-P., & Robra-Bissantz, S. (2016). A design science approach to high immersive mnemonic e-learning. MCIS 2016 proceedings. Available at http://aisel.aisnet.org/mcis2016/28.
  61. Jehn, K. A., Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. (1999). Why differences make a difference: A field study of diversity, conflict and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(4), 741–763.Google Scholar
  62. Jessup, L. M., Connolly, T., & Galegher, J. (1990). The effects of anonymity on GDSS group process with an idea-generating task. MIS Quarterly, 14(3), 313–321.  https://doi.org/10.2307/248893.Google Scholar
  63. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1985). Relationships between black and white students in intergroup cooperation and competition. The Journal of Social Psychology, 125(4), 421–428.Google Scholar
  64. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina: Interaction Book Company.Google Scholar
  65. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1998). Active learning: Cooperation in the college classroom. Edina: Interaction Book Company.Google Scholar
  66. Johnson, T. E., Lee, Y., Lee, M., O’Connor, D. L., Khalil, M. K., & Huang, X. (2007). Measuring Sharedness of team-related knowledge: Design and validation of a shared mental model instrument. Human Resource Development International, 10(4), 437–454.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13678860701723802.Google Scholar
  67. Kallookaran, M., & Robra-Bissantz, S. (2016). Using gamification to decrease anonymity in larger learning environments. AMCIS 2016 proceedings. Available at http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2016/ISEdu/Presentations/1.
  68. Kallookaran, M., & Robra-Bissantz, S. (2017). Reaching beyond the classroom through the use of push notifications, January 4. Available at http://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/handle/10125/41167.
  69. Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(4), 681–706.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.4.681.Google Scholar
  70. Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1997). The effects of group cohesiveness on social loafing and social compensation. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 1(2), 156–168.  https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2699.1.2.156.Google Scholar
  71. Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (2001). Understanding individual motivation in groups: The collective effort model. Groups at Work: Theory and Research (pp. 113–14). London: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  72. Kasper-Fuehrera, E. C., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2001). Communicating trustworthiness and building trust in interorganizational virtual organizations. Journal of Management, 27(3), 235–254.  https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630102700302.Google Scholar
  73. Kerr, N. L. (1983). Motivation losses in small groups: A social dilemma analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(4), 819–828.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.4.819.Google Scholar
  74. Kerr, N. L., & Bruun, S. E. (1982). Dispensability of member effort and group motivation losses: Free-rider effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 78–94.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.78.Google Scholar
  75. Kozlowski, S., & Bell, B. (2008). Team learning, development, and adaptation. Articles and chapters. Available at http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/articles/419.
  76. Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A., & Jochems, W. (2003). Identifying the pitfalls for social interaction in computer-supported collaborative learning environments: A review of the research. Computers in Human Behavior, 19(3), 335–353.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0747-5632(02)00057-2.Google Scholar
  77. Kung, H., & Schmid, L. (2015). Innovation, growth, and asset prices. The Journal of Finance, 70(3), 1001–1037.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jofi.12241.Google Scholar
  78. Laal, M., & Ghodsi, S. M. (2012). Benefits of collaborative learning. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31, 486–490.Google Scholar
  79. Lamprecht, J., Siemon, D., & Robra-Bissantz, S. (2016). Cooperation isn’t just about doing the same thing – Using personality for a cooperation-recommender-system in online social networks. In Collaboration and technology (pp. 131–138). Presented at the CYTED-RITOS international workshop on groupware, springer, Cham, September 14.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44799-5_10.
  80. Lawler, E. J., Thye, S. R., & Yoon, J. (2000). Emotion and group cohesion in productive exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 106(3), 616–657.Google Scholar
  81. Leana, C. R., & van Buren, H. J. (1999). Organizational social capital and employment practices. The Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 538–555.  https://doi.org/10.2307/259141.Google Scholar
  82. Lim, B.-C., & Klein, K. J. (2006). Team mental models and team performance: A field study of the effects of team mental model similarity and accuracy. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(4), 403–418.  https://doi.org/10.1002/job.387.Google Scholar
  83. Link, G. J., Siemon, D., de Vreede, G.-J., & Robra-Bissantz, S. (2016). Anchored discussion: Development of a tool for creativity in online collaboration. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 22(10), 1339–1359.Google Scholar
  84. Lipnack, J., & Stamps, J. (1997). Virtual teams: Reaching across space, time, and organizations with technology. Hoboken: Jeffrey Stamps.Google Scholar
  85. Mamykina, L., Candy, L., & Edmonds, E. (2002). Collaborative creativity. Communications of the ACM, 45(10), 96–99.  https://doi.org/10.1145/570907.570940.Google Scholar
  86. Massetti, B. (1996). An empirical examination of the value of creativity support systems on idea generation. MIS Quarterly, 20(1), 83–97.  https://doi.org/10.2307/249543.Google Scholar
  87. Mattessich, P. W., & Monsey, B. R. (1992). Collaboration: What makes it work. A review of research literature on factors influencing successful collaboration., Amherst H. Wilder Foundation, 919 Lafond, St. Paul, MN 55104. Available at http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED390758.
  88. McComb, M. (1994). Benefits of computer-mediated communication in college courses. Communication Education, 43(2), 159–170.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03634529409378973.Google Scholar
  89. McGrath, R. G. (2001). Exploratory learning, innovative capacity and managerial oversight. The Academy of Management Journal, 44(1), 118–131.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3069340.Google Scholar
  90. McInnerney, J. M., & Roberts, T. S. (2004). Collaborative or cooperative learning. Online Collaborative Learning: Theory and Practice ( pp. 203–214). Hershey: Idea Group Inc.Google Scholar
  91. Milliken, F., & Martins, L. (1996). Searching for Common Threads: Understanding the Multiple Effects of Diversity in Organizational Groups. The Academy of Management Review, 21(2), 402-433.Google Scholar
  92. Miyazoe, T. (2011). Anonymity in blended learning: Who would you like to be? Educational Technology & Society, 14(2), 175–187.Google Scholar
  93. Morschheuser, B., Hamari, J., Werder, K., & Abe, J. (2017). How to gamify? A method for designing gamification. In Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Kaua’i, USA.Google Scholar
  94. Mullen, B., Johnson, C., & Salas, E. (1991). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: A meta-analytic integration. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 12(1), 3–23.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp1201_1.Google Scholar
  95. Müller-Wienbergen, F., Müller, O., Seidel, S., & Becker, J. (2011). Leaving the beaten tracks in creative work – A design theory for systems that support convergent and divergent thinking. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 12(11), 2 Available at http://aisel.aisnet.org/jais/vol12/iss11/2.Google Scholar
  96. Nakakoji, K. (2005). Seven issues for creativity support tool researchers. Creativity support tools. Available at http://www.cs.umd.edu/hcil/CST/creativitybook_final.pdf#page=74.
  97. Nelson, K. M., & Cooprider, J. G. (1996). The contribution of shared knowledge to IS group performance. MIS Quarterly, 20(4), 409–432.  https://doi.org/10.2307/249562.Google Scholar
  98. Newell, S., Tansley, C., & Huang, J. (2004). Social capital and knowledge integration in an ERP project team: The importance of bridging AND bonding. British Journal of Management, 15(S1), S43–S57.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2004.00405.x.Google Scholar
  99. Nijstad, B. A., & Stroebe, W. (2006). How the group affects the mind: A cognitive model of idea generation in groups. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(3), 186–213.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_1.Google Scholar
  100. Nunamaker Jr., J. F., Applegate, L. M., & Konsynski, B. R. (1987). Facilitating group creativity: Experience with a group decision support system. Journal of Management Information Systems, 3(4), 5–19 Available at http://www.jstor.org/stable/41432876.Google Scholar
  101. Nunamaker, J. F., Dennis, A. R., Valacich, J. S., Vogel, D., & George, J. F. (1991). Electronic meeting systems. Communications of the ACM, 34(7), 40–61.Google Scholar
  102. Nunamaker Jr., J. F., Briggs, R. O., Mittleman, D. D., Vogel, D. R., & Balthazard, P. A. (1996). Lessons from a dozen years of group support systems research: A discussion of lab and field findings. Journal of Management Information Systems, 13(3), 163–207 Available at http://www.jstor.org/stable/40398233.Google Scholar
  103. Olguín, C. J. M., Delgado, A. L. N., & Ricarte, I. L. M. (2000). An agent infrastructure to set collaborative environments. Educational Technology & Society, 3(3), 65–73.Google Scholar
  104. Panitz, T. (1999). Benefits of cooperative learning in relation to student motivation. In: Motivationfrom within: Approaches for encouraging faculty and students to excel, New directions for teaching and learning. San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  105. Panitz, T., & Panitz, P. (1999). Assessing students and yourself using the one minute paper and observing students working cooperatively.Google Scholar
  106. Paulus, P. B. (1989). Psychology of group influence: Second edition. London: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  107. Paulus, P. (2000a). Groups, teams, and creativity: The creative potential of idea-generating groups. Applied Psychology, 49(2), 237–262.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00013.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  108. Paulus, P. (2000b). Groups, teams, and creativity: The creative potential of idea-generating groups. Applied Psychology, 49(2), 237–262.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00013.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  109. Paulus, P. B., & Nijstad, B. A. (2009). Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  110. Paulus, P. B., Dzindolet, M., & Kohn, N. W. (2012). Collaborative creativity - group creativity and team innovation. In Handbook of organizational creativity (pp. 327–357). San Diego: Academic Press Available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780123747143000148.Google Scholar
  111. Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Xin, K. R. (1999). Exploring the black box: An analysis of work group diversity, conflict, and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1), 1–28.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2667029.Google Scholar
  112. Pirola-Merlo, A., & Mann, L. (2004). The relationship between individual creativity and team creativity: Aggregating across people and time. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(2), 235–257.  https://doi.org/10.1002/job.240.Google Scholar
  113. Proctor, R. A. (1993). A creative decision support system. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 14(2), 13–17.  https://doi.org/10.1108/01437739310032674.Google Scholar
  114. Randrup, N., Druckenmiller, D., & Briggs, R. O. (2016). Philosophy of Collaboration. In: 2016 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS). Presented at the 2016 49th Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS), Kauai.  https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2016.115.
  115. Redlich, B., Siemon, D., Lattemann, C., & Robra-Bissantz, S. (2017). Shared mental models in creative virtual teamwork. In Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Kaua’i, USA.Google Scholar
  116. Resnick, M., Myers, B., Nakakoji, K., Shneiderman, B., Pausch, R., Selker, T., & Eisenberg, M. (2005). Design principles for tools to support creative thinking. Institute for Software Research. Available at http://repository.cmu.edu/isr/816.
  117. Riconscente, M. M. (2013). Results from a controlled study of the iPad fractions game motion math. Games and Culture, 8(4), 186–214.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1555412013496894.Google Scholar
  118. Riordan, C. M., & Shore, L. M. (1997). Demographic diversity and employee attitudes: An empirical examination of relational demography within work units. Journal of applied psychology, 82(3), 342.Google Scholar
  119. Roberts, T. S., & McInnerney, J. M. (2007). Seven problems of online group learning (and their solutions). Educational Technology & Society, 10(4), 257–268.Google Scholar
  120. Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. D. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In Computer supported collaborative learning (pp. 69–97). Heidelberg: Spring.Google Scholar
  121. Salzman, M. C., Dede, C., Loftin, R. B., & Chen, J. (1999). A model for understanding how virtual reality aids complex conceptual learning. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 8(3), 293–316 Available at http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/105474699566242.Google Scholar
  122. Santanen, E. L., Briggs, R. O., & de Vreede, G. (2000). The cognitive network model of creativity: A new causal model of creativity and a new brainstorming technique. In: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2000. Presented at the proceedings of the 33rd annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences, 2000, January, p. 10 Pp. vol. 1.  https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2000.926895.
  123. Santanen, E. L., Briggs, R. O., & Vreede, G.-J. D. (2004). Causal relationships in creative problem solving: Comparing facilitation interventions for ideation. Journal of Management Information Systems, 20(4), 167–198 Available at http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1277672.1277680.Google Scholar
  124. Sawyer, R. K., & DeZutter, S. (2009). Distributed creativity: How collective creations emerge from collaboration. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 3(2), 81–92.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013282.Google Scholar
  125. Seidel, S., Müller-Wienbergen, F., & Becker, J. (2010). The concept of creativity in the information systems discipline: Past, present, and prospects. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 27(1) available at http://aisel.aisnet.org/cais/vol27/iss1/14.
  126. Shen, S.-T., Prior, S. D., White, A. S., & Karamanoglu, M. (2007). Using personality type differences to form engineering design teams. Engineering Education, 2(2), 54–66 Available at http://www.engsc.ac.uk/journal/index.php/ee/article/view/63/99.Google Scholar
  127. Shepherd, M. M., Briggs, R. O., Reinig, B. A., Yen, J., & Nunamaker Jr., J. F. (1995). Invoking social comparison to improve electronic brainstorming: Beyond anonymity. Journal of Management Information Systems, 12(3), 155–170.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.1995.11518095.Google Scholar
  128. Shneiderman, B. (2007). Creativity support tools: Accelerating discovery and innovation. Communications of the ACM, 50(12), 20–32.  https://doi.org/10.1145/1323688.1323689.Google Scholar
  129. Simons, T., Pelled, L. H., & Smith, K. A. (1999). Making use of difference: Diversity, debate, and decision comprehensiveness in top management teams. The Academy of Management Journal, 42(6), 662–673.  https://doi.org/10.2307/256987.Google Scholar
  130. Slavin, R. E. (1980). Cooperative learning. Review of Educational Research, 50(2), 315–342.Google Scholar
  131. Somech, A., & Drach-Zahavy, A. (2013). Translating team creativity to innovation implementation the role of team composition and climate for innovation. Journal of Management, 39(3), 684–708.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310394187.Google Scholar
  132. Stockleben, B., Thayne, M., Jäminki, S., Haukijärvi, I., Mavengere, N. B., Demirbilek, M., & Ruohonen, M. (2016). Towards a framework for creative online collaboration: A research on challenges and context. Education and Information Technologies, 1–23.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-016-9483-z.
  133. Stumpf, S. A., & Dunbar, R. L. M. (1991). The effects of personality type on choices made in strategic decision situations*. Decision Sciences, 22(5), 1047–1072.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1991.tb01906.x.Google Scholar
  134. Tajfel, H. (1974). Social identity and intergroup behaviour. Information (International Social Science Council), 13(2), 65–93.Google Scholar
  135. Taylor, A., & Greve, H. R. (2006). Superman or the fantastic four? Knowledge combination and experience in innovative teams. The Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 723–740.  https://doi.org/10.2307/20159795.Google Scholar
  136. Thomas, D. M., & Bostrom, R. P. (2007). The role of a shared mental model of collaboration technology in facilitating knowledge work in virtual teams, p. 37.  https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2007.552.
  137. Tinto, V. (1997). Enhancing learning via community. Thought & Action, 13(1), 53–58.Google Scholar
  138. Tinzmann, M., Jones, B. F., Fennimore, T., Bakker, J., Fine, C., & Pierce, J. (1990). What is the collaborative classroom. In Proceedings of NCREL. Oak Brook, USA.Google Scholar
  139. Tiwana, A., & McLean, E. R. (2005). Expertise integration and creativity in information systems development. Journal of Management Information Systems, 22(1), 13–43 Available at http://www.jstor.org/stable/40398757.Google Scholar
  140. Townsend, A. M., DeMarie, S. M., & Hendrickson, A. R. (1998). Virtual teams: Technology and the workplace of the future. The Academy of Management Executive, 12(3), 17–29.  https://doi.org/10.5465/AME.1998.1109047.Google Scholar
  141. Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Hoboken: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  142. Valacich, J. S., Dennis, A. R., Jessup, L. M., & Nunamaker, J. J. F. (1992a). A conceptual framework of anonymity in group support systems. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 1992, (Vol. iv) (pp. 101–112). Presented at the Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 1992, January, vol. 4.  https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.1992.183415.
  143. Valacich, J. S., Dennis, A. R., & Nunamaker, J. F. (1992b). Group size and anonymity effects on computer-mediated idea generation. Small Group Research, 23(1), 49–73.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496492231004.Google Scholar
  144. van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Homan, A. C. (2004). Work group diversity and group performance: An integrative model and research agenda. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 1008–1022.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.1008.Google Scholar
  145. Voigt, M., & Bergener, K. (2013). Enhancing creativity in groups – proposition of an integrated framework for designing group creativity support systems. In: 2013 46th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) (pp. 225–234). Presented at the 2013 46th Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS), January.  https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2013.195.
  146. Voigt, D.-W.-I. M., Bergener, K., & Becker, P. D. J. (2013). Comprehensive support for creativity-intensive processes. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 5(4), 227–242.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-013-0272-6.Google Scholar
  147. Volkema, R. J., Ronald, H., & Gorman, R. H. (1998). The influence of cognitive-based group composition on decision-making process and outcome. Journal of Management Studies, 35(1), 105–121.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00086.Google Scholar
  148. Walther, J. B. (1997). Group and interpersonal effects in international computer-mediated collaboration. Human Communication Research, 23(3), 342–369.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1997.tb00400.x.Google Scholar
  149. Webber, S. S., & Donahue, L. M. (2001). Impact of highly and less job-related diversity on work group cohesion and performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 27(2), 141–162.  https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630102700202.Google Scholar
  150. Weerawardena, J., & Mavondo, F. T. (2011). Capabilities, innovation and competitive advantage. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(8), 1220–1223.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2011.10.012.Google Scholar
  151. Wheelan, S. A. (2009). Group size, group development, and group productivity. Small Group Research, 40(2), 247–262.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496408328703.Google Scholar
  152. Williams, K., & O’Reilly, C. (1998). Demography and diversity in organizations: A review of 40 years of research. Research in Organizational Behavior, 20, 77–140.Google Scholar
  153. Ziegler, C.-N., & Golbeck, J. (2007). Investigating interactions of trust and interest similarity. Decision Support Systems, Emerging Issues in Collaborative Commerce, 43(2), 460–475.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2006.11.003.Google Scholar
  154. Zigurs, I., & Buckland, B. K. (1998). A theory of task/technology fit and group support systems effectiveness. MIS Quarterly, 22(3), 313–334.  https://doi.org/10.2307/249668.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dominik Siemon
    • 1
    Email author
  • Felix Becker
    • 1
  • Linda Eckardt
    • 1
  • Susanne Robra-Bissantz
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut für Wirtschaftsinformatik, Lehrstuhl für Informations ManagementTechnische Universität BraunschweigBraunschweigGermany

Personalised recommendations