Groups are not always the same

dc.contributor.authorLyytinen, Kalle
dc.contributor.authorMaaranen, Petri
dc.contributor.authorKnuuttila, Juha
dc.date.accessioned2020-06-06T00:42:35Z
dc.date.available2020-06-06T00:42:35Z
dc.date.issued1993
dc.date.issued1993
dc.description.abstractThe idea of supporting group meetings at the same time and at the same place by computer raises the problem of how salient features of group behaviors are understood in meetings. In this paper we take a critical look at several beliefs about group behaviors in research dealing with electronic meeting systems (EMS). The paper argues based on an empirical study that the concept of a small, cohesive business team, so widely held, in all EMS research is not necessarily a valid starting point in thinking of meeting support. In particular, the paper critically evaluates a number of beliefs of user aspects, group features such as composition, structure and protocols, and task characteristics such as nature, importance and meeting goals. In consequence, if these prominent features can vary markedly all meeting support cannot be designed in ways envisaged in current research. In conclusion we outline some research questions—both of empirical and constructive nature—that need to be addressed if the EMS research wants to address issues in computer support in groups that are not similar with business teams.de
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/BF00805694
dc.identifier.pissn1573-7551
dc.identifier.urihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00805694
dc.identifier.urihttps://dl.eusset.eu/handle/20.500.12015/3440
dc.publisherSpringer
dc.relation.ispartofComputer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW): Vol. 2, No. 4
dc.relation.ispartofseriesComputer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW)
dc.subjectcomputer import
dc.subjectElectronic Meeting Systems
dc.subjectgroup behaviors
dc.subjectgroup decision support
dc.subjectimplementation
dc.subjectmeetings
dc.subjectmultilateral diplomacy
dc.titleGroups are not always the samede
dc.typeText/Journal Article
gi.citation.endPage284
gi.citation.startPage261
gi.citations.count8
gi.citations.elementAdekunle Okunoye, Mark Frolick, Elaine Crable (2008): Stakeholder Influence and ERP Implementation in Higher Education, In: Journal of Information Technology Case and Application Research 3(10), doi:10.1080/15228053.2008.10856139
gi.citations.elementJ.F. George, J.R. Carlson (2000): Group support systems and deceptive communication, In: Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences. 1999. HICSS-32. Abstracts and CD-ROM of Full Papers, doi:10.1109/hicss.1999.772722
gi.citations.elementKent Marett, Joey F. George (2012): Barriers to Deceiving Other Group Members in Virtual Settings, In: Group Decision and Negotiation 1(22), doi:10.1007/s10726-012-9297-3
gi.citations.elementOjelanki K. Ngwenyama, Kalle J. Lyytinen (1997): Groupware Environments as Action Constitutive Resources: A Social Action Framework for Analyzing Groupware Technologies, In: Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 1(6), doi:10.1023/a:1008600220584
gi.citations.elementMark Aakhus (2012): Managing Conflict in Information System Design Stakeholder Conferences: The Role of Transparency Work, In: Creativity and Rationale, doi:10.1007/978-1-4471-4111-2_16
gi.citations.elementE. F. Churchill, D. Snowdon (1998): Collaborative virtual environments: An introductory review of issues and systems, In: Virtual Reality 1(3), doi:10.1007/bf01409793
gi.citations.elementEtiënne Rouwette, Inge Bleijenbergh, Jac Vennix (2014): Group Model‐Building to Support Public Policy: Addressing a Conflicted Situation in a Problem Neighbourhood, In: Systems Research and Behavioral Science 1(33), doi:10.1002/sres.2301
gi.citations.elementArto Lanamäki, Karin Väyrynen (2016): Six Issues in Which IS and CSCW Research Communities Differ, In: COOP 2016: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on the Design of Cooperative Systems, 23-27 May 2016, Trento, Italy, doi:10.1007/978-3-319-33464-6_1

Files