Emerging groupware successes in major corporations: Studies of adoption and adaptation

  • Jonathan Grudin
  • Leysia Palen
Session B-2: Collaboration Support Systems
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1274)


Computer support for meeting scheduling is a focus of active research in several areas, including distributed AI and intelligent agents, software engineering, and information systems. It is also of very high applied interest: After a decade of very modest success, commercial scheduling software is taking hold in some organizational settings. However, meeting scheduling is most significant for being one of the first desktop group support applications that is widely used in some large organizations. The slow acceptance of most groupware applications raised questions about the conditions under which successful use would develop. Studies of calendar use and meeting scheduling at Sun, Microsoft, and other organizations provide clear answers to the conditions under which such use can develop. In addition, differences in the patterns of use within and across organizations provide further insight into the relationship between a widely-used technology and the behaviors that accompany it. Relatively minor choices in the way groupware is rolled out could have substantial impact on the way it is used.


Meeting Schedule Read Access Electronic Meeting System Schedule Software Electronic Meeting 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Aucella, A.F. (Moderator), 1987. Voice: Technology searching for communication needs. Proc. CHI+GI'87 (Toronto, April 5–9), 41–44.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beard, D., Palaniappan, M., Humm, A., Banks, D. and Nair, A., 1990. A visual calendar for scheduling group meetings. Proc. CSCW'90, 279–290. New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bullen, C.V. and Bennett, J.L., 1990. Learning from user experience with group-ware. Proc. CSCW'90 (Los Angeles, Oct. 7–10).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Butterfield, J., Rathnam, S. and Whinston, A. B., 1993. Groupware perceptions and reality: An e-mail survey. Proc. 26th Annual HICSS, 208–217.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    CAIA-94 Workshop on Coordinated Design and Planning, Marriott Riverwalk — San Antonio, Texas, March 1, 1994.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ehrlich, S.F., 1987a. Social and psychological factors influencing the design of office communication systems. Proc. CHI+GI '87 (Toronto, April 5–9), 323–329.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ehrlich, S.F., 1987b. Strategies for encouraging successful adoption of office communication systems. ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems, 5, 340–357.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ephrati, E., Zlotkin, G. and-Rosenschein, J.S., 1994. Meet your destiny: A nonmanipulable meeting scheduler. Proc. CSCW'94, 359–371. NY: ACM.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Grudin, J., 1989. Why groupware applications fail: Problems in design and evaluation. Office Technology and People, 4, 3, 245–264.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Grudin, J., 1994. Groupware and social dynamics: Eight challenges for developers. Communications of the ACM, 37, 1, 92–105.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Grudin, J. and Palen, L., 1995. Why groupware succeeds: Discretion or mandate? Proc. ECSCW'95, 263–278. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hsi, I, and Potts, C., manuscript. Integrating rationalistic and ecological design methods for interactive systems.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kozierok, R. and Maes, P. A., 1993. Learning interface agent for scheduling meetings, ACM SIGCHI International Workshop on Intelligent User Interfaces, ACM, Orlando, Florida, January.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kraemer, K. and King, J., 1986. Computer-based systems for group decision support: Status of use and problems in development. Proc. CSCW'86 (Austin, Texas, Dec. 3–5).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kraemer, K. and King, J., 1988. Computer-based systems for cooperative work and group decision making. ACM Computing Surveys, 20, 115–146.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Maes, P., 1994. Agents that reduce work and information. Communications of the ACM, 37, 7, 30.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Markus, M.L. and Connolly, T., 1990. Why CSCW applications fail: Problems in the adoption of interdependent work tools. Proc. CSCW'90 (Los Angeles, Oct. 7–10).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mintzberg, H., 1973. The nature of managerial work. NY: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mitchell, T., Caruana, R., Freitag, D., McDermott, J. and Zabowski, D., 1994. Experience with a learning agent. Communications of the ACM, 37, 7, 80.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nunamaker, J.F., Dennis, A.R., Valacich, J.S., Vogel, D.R., and George, J.F., 1991. Electronic meeting systems to support group work. Communications of the ACM, 34, 7, 40–61.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Orlikowski, W., 1992. Learning from Notes: Organizational issues in groupware implementation. Proc. CSCW'92, 362–369. NY: ACM.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Reder, S. and Schwab, R.G., 1990. The temporal structure of cooperative activity. Proc. CSCW'90, 303–316. NY: ACM.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sen, S. and Durfee, E.H., 1994. On the design of an adaptive meeting scheduler. In Proceedings of the Tenth IEEE Conference on Artificial Intelligence Applications.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Woitass, M., 1990. Coordination of intelligent office agents — applied to meeting scheduling. In S. Gibbs and A. A. Verrijn-Stuart (eds.), Mufti-User Interfaces and Applications, pp. 371–387. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jonathan Grudin
    • 1
    • 2
  • Leysia Palen
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.University of CaliforniaIrvineUSA
  2. 2.Irvine

Personalised recommendations