Abstract
Single-user applications are designed with a ‘discretionary use’ model. In contrast, for large systems, upper management support is considered crucial to adoption. Which applies to groupware? The relatively low cost of groupware reduces high-level visibility, but some argue that social dynamics will force mandated use—the large system approach. Interview studies of recently adopted on-line meeting schedulers in two large organizations found successful, near-universal use achieved without managerial mandate. Versatile functionality and ease of use associated with discretionary products appeared to be factors leading to adoption. Other factors included organization-wide infrastructure and substantial peer pressure that developed over time.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
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.
Butterfield, J., Rathnam, S. and Whinston, A. B. (1993): “Groupware perceptions and reality: An e-mail survey.” Proc. 26th Annual HICSS, 208–217.
Ehrlich, S. E. (1987a): “Social and psychological factors influencing the design of office communication systems. “ Proc. CHI+GI ’87, 323–329. New York: ACM.
Ehrlich, S. E. (1987b). “Strategies for encouraging successful adoption of office communication systems.” ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems, 5, 340–357.
Grudin, J. (1988): “Why CSCW applications fail: Problems in the design and evaluation of organizational interfaces.” Proc. CSCW’88, 85–93. New York: ACM.
Grudin, J. (1988): Technology and People, 4, 3, 245–264.
Grudin, J. (1994): “Groupware and social dynamics: Eight challenges for developers.” Communications of the ACM, 37, 1, 92–105.
Grudin, J. and Poltrock, S. E. (1990): “Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Groupware.” CHI’90 Tutorial Notes. NY: ACM.
Markus, M. L. (1987): “Toward a ‘Critical Mass’ Theory of Interactive Media.” Communication Research, 14,5, 491–511.
Markus, M. L. (1995). “Disimpacting use: How use of information technology creates and sustains organizational transformation.” Working paper, February 1995.
Markus, M. L. and Connolly, T. (1990): “Why CSCW applications fail: Problems in the adoption of interdependent work tools.” Proc. CSCW’90, 371–380. New York: ACM.
Orlikowski, W. (1992): “Learning from Notes: Organizational issues in groupware implementation. Proc. CSCW’92, 362–369. NY: ACM.
Woitass, M. (1990): “Coordination of intelligent office agents — applied to meeting scheduling.” In S. Gibbs and A. A. Verrijn-Stuart (eds.), Multi-User Interfaces and Applications, pp. 371–387. Amsterdam: North Holland.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1995 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Grudin, J., Palen, L. (1995). Why Groupware Succeeds: Discretion or Mandate?. In: Marmolin, H., Sundblad, Y., Schmidt, K. (eds) Proceedings of the Fourth European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work ECSCW ’95. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-0349-7_17
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-0349-7_17
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-010-4155-3
Online ISBN: 978-94-011-0349-7
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive