Literature Review of Groupware Issues

Author: Alan C. Dube

Date: 2/23/97

             Literature Review of Groupware Issues

Introduction

    Burns (1996) defines "groupware" as computer software that

supports groups of people engaged in a common task, providing an

interface to a shared environment.  Groupware has rapidly become

an important catalyst for organizational change and innovation,

fostering new collaborative links within corporations and

eliminating many of the barriers that have hindered productive

communication in the past (Manasco, 1995).  However, groupware is

subject to some of the same pitfalls and problems as other

computer-based systems.  Although technical issues can and do

affect groupware implementation and performance, many issues

surrounding groupware failures and inefficiencies emanate from

problems in managing the collaborative framework of groupware

applications, as well as the corporate culture itself.

    This project studies groupware issues by conducting a

comprehensive literature review on problems and topics related to

groupware, and the management of groupware applications.  The

review discusses the contents (in annotated bibliography format)

of 100 sources (i.e., books, articles, and papers) related to

groupware, notes how these sources were found, summarizes the

findings in the literature, and draws conclusions based on the

information contained within the sources.  The goal of the

project is to provide insight into areas of research that will

impact the use of groupware, assist the author in defining and

narrowing areas of probable dissertation research, and intern

contribute to the field of information systems management.

Literature Review

    Adhikari (1996) surveyed the current groupware market,

discussing the capabilities of products like Lotus Notes,

Novell's Groupwise, Microsoft Exchange, and Netscape's

Communicator client.  Adhikari found that many companies, like

BellSouth Advertising & Publishing Corporation, are choosing to

run groupware applications over their corporate intranets,

because intranets are more cost effective than conventional

groupware products and offer a Web-based interface that is easier

to use.

    Ahuja (1992), through advanced study at AT&T Bell

Laboratories, proposed that both asynchronous and synchronous

multimedia communications are necessary to support collaborative

computing at a distance.  Ahuja suggests that remote

collaboration requires integrated media that must be transparent,

interruptable, and shareable for a successful implementation.

    Groupware is the software that facilitates group efforts.

Allison (1992) studied organizational issues involved with

groupware, noting that groupware can be used for decision making

or the collaborative development of complex systems.  The author

stressed that groupware must be tailored to the needs of the

organization using the product, and that groupware can be

considered "glueware" when it is used to hold together or link a

number of different application programs.

    Anderson (1991) looked at the nature of "groupwork" by

running several experiments on computer-mediated communications.

The author recognized that computer systems affect the social

conditions of work groups, and that in order for groupware to be

successful in an organization, it must incorporate the social

aspects of communication in its design and implementation.

    Bannon, Bjorn-Anderson, and Due-Thomsen (1988) appraised the

field of Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), providing

background and definitions for the concept of CSCW.  Bannon, et

al. noted that CSCW is growing rapidly and that there are

distinct problems insuring the effectiveness of groupware

implementations.

    In their examination on the assumptions in the name

"Computer Supported Cooperative Work" (CSCW), Bannon and Schmidt

(1991) identified core issues of articulating cooperative work,

sharing an "information space," and adapting the technology to

the organization.  The authors concluded that CSCW is a valid

representation of the research area and that there is much work

to be done to address a variety of CSCW issues.

    The Automated Office Metaphor, and described by Benest and

Dukic (1993), places emphasis on the ability to share captured

and computed information.  Through the use of electronic office

forms, Benest and Dukic found that information sharing can

ultimately turn into a conferencing system.  The authors

concluded, however, that conferencing systems are not without a

series of implementation issues that must be addressed through

further study.

    Benton and Devlin (1993) reviewed the evolution of work

group automation, discussing problems and providing some examples

of how systems can be implemented in a Hypertext environment.

Benton and Devlin found that most of the systems fail because

they do not consider problems that are unique to working in the

networked environment and concluded that better cognitive models

are needed.  The models include social structure, politics, and

group dynamics.

    Bigdoli (1996) examined several major software vendor

solutions for Group Support Systems (GSS) and found that when

companies tried to implement the technology, the results were not

always successful.  Bigdoli concluded that to successfully use

GSS technology, the capabilities of the GSS must be appropriately

matched with a decision-making group's needs, and management must

support and champion the use of the technology within the

organization.

    Blum (1996) examined pricing issues associated with

groupware products, noting that all of the major packages (e.g.,

Notes, Exchange, Groupwise, and Collabra Share) cost about $50 to

$75 per client seat.  Blum suggests that although groupware

products are relatively inexpensive, IS managers should avoid

mixing different vendors' client and server technologies in order

to avert a potential loss in functionality throughout the

implementation.

    Bock and Marca (1995), in their book entitled Designing

Software, discuss a variety of social, technical, and human

factors that must be considered when designing software.  Bock

and Marca note that software developers must differentiate

between products that are to be used by one person from those to

be used by a group, as the usage, feedback, and control

mechanisms involved need completely different sets of

requirements and functionality.

    Bock and Marshak (1994) studied the interactions and

discourse involved with several forms of electronic conferencing,

including on-line meetings, discussion databases, and knowledge

capture environments.  Bock and Marshak found that electronic

conferences often provide a framework for organizing business

activities, serving as an entry point for structuring day-to-day

work in a business environment.  The authors concluded that any

groupware tool used to structure such activities should have

proper browsing, notification, security, document handling,

aging, and subject-search capabilities.

    Many companies are trying to decide which groupware product

to adopt and implement.  Booker (1996) interviewed the chief

information officer (CIO) of Watson Wyatt Worldwide to get the

specifics of why the CIO decided upon Collabra Share over Lotus

Notes.  Booker found that the CIO chose Collabra Share because it

was cheaper, easier to install and maintain, and had a graphic

interface similar to Watson Wyatt's existing e-mail platform

(Lotus' cc: Mail).  Booker noted that while many companies

require the sophistication that a tool like Lotus Notes provides,

others are adopting less daunting products, forgoing

functionality for better price and easier integration with

existing network and messaging systems.

    Borg (1996) looked at the current offerings in the groupware

market and studied how businesses are trying to introduce the

products into a team-based environment.  Borg found that many

groupware applications have evolved from mere messaging and

collaboration vehicles to fully powered workgroup applications

that integrate a Web browser.  Borg surmised that Web-enabled

groupware allows business teams to make the collaboration process

easier and more efficient, providing users with platform

independence and the ability to reap the benefits of the Internet

and corporate Intranets as well.

    Bostrom, Watson, and Kinney (1992), in their book entitled

Computer augmented teamwork: A guide tour, studied group systems

technology, electronic meeting technologies, and work group

support structures.  Bostrom et al. stress that all collaborative

systems and computer support must be tailored to the

organization, and concluded that products that allow for easy

installation, customization, maintenance, and integration with

existing systems will win out over their competition in the end.

    Bullin and Benet (1991) interviewed 223 people in 25

organizations to determine how groupware systems were being

utilized.  In doing so, the authors attempted to understand the

value that the technology brings to the office environment.

Bullin and Benet concluded that groupware was indeed living up to

its promise for the most part, providing tools that can be used

by workgroups to facilitate the exchange and sharing of

information.  The information, however, must be actively managed.

    Burns (1996) conducted more than 75 telephone surveys with

information systems (IS) personnel at large organizations in

North America to find out how companies use groupware, and why

they are using it.  Burns found that groupware use had grown

rapidly within corporations because the infrastructure necessary

to support it has been widely implemented, desktop computers have

sufficient horsepower to permit use of a variety of collaborative

computing features, and companies have turned their attention

away from the personal aspect of computing towards workgroup

based computing.  The author concluded that groupware will

continue to flourish as corporations continue to downsize, strive

to improve their customer service, reduce their costs, and

respond more rapidly to changing market conditions.

    Butterfield, Rathnam, and Whinston (1992) conducted a survey

to measure people's perceptions of the field of groupware.  The

survey was administered by electronic mail and asked simple

questions concerning user perceptions.  The authors found that

users had high hopes for the technology, but were skeptical of

its practical value and implementation.  Butterfield, et al.

concluded that the technology needs to be further researched, and

provided suggested directions for doing so.

    Chawla and Renesch (1995), in their work entitled Learning

organizations: Developing cultures for tomorrow's workplace,

explored the use of feedback and reward mechanisms for

implementing collaborative cultures in today's corporate

environments.  The authors discussed problems with the

"protection" of information for job security, and concluded that

management must overcome this protective human nature by

incorporating changes in the corporate culture to encourage,

rather than discourage, cooperation and information sharing.

    Cole (1996) conducted a study of companies that use Lotus

Notes, interviewing 1,500 end users.  Cole found that many firms

are failing to tap into the full potential of the collaborative

platform, using Notes primarily for e-mail.  Only half of the

users interviewed said they regularly used Notes discussion

databases, and only 14 percent used workflow applications at

least 3 times a week.  Cole concluded that management and

corporate issues, not the Notes technology itself, were the

primary reasons for disuse and suggests that the issues

discovered in the study apply to all groupware applications.

    Studies within companies that have implemented groupware

systems show a culture shift can occur within the organization.

To understand this occurrence, Coleman (1992) discussed the types

of: groupware that are available, organizations affected, and

collaborative processes utilized.  Coleman concluded that

collaborative groupware allows individuals to act anonymously,

thus increasing participation, improving the quality and quantity

of workgroup output, and helping to achieve consensus.

    Coleman (1995) continued his work on collaborative computing

in his book entitled Groupware: Technology and applications.

Coleman continued to analyze how groupware technology has evolved

and how organizations are applying it, finding that the

technology alone cannot guarantee the success of an

implementation.  Coleman suggests that groupware technology must

compliment, not replace, the corporate culture in which it

operates.  Management and end-user acceptance of this new

computing paradigm is essential for its successful application.

    Cook, Birch, Murphy, and Woolsey (1991) created software

models that were used in group experiments to explore ideas on

how distributed systems could enhance the effectiveness of group

communications, including support for planning and completion of

cooperative tasks.  The authors found that a variety of

architectural issues, as well as the capabilities of the software

itself, are large factors in the acceptance or rejection of

groupware in a team-based scenario.

    The use of groupware is not limited only to the IBM

compatible computing platforms.  Dale (1993) studied groupware

systems running on the Macintosh network.  In the paper, Dale

discussed the issues for both technical and human-computer

interaction, and compared commonly expressed views of groupware

with real-world experiments.  Dale concluded that although there

are many benefits to using this type of software application,

there are also many problems that warrant further study.

    Dallas (1995), in Special Edition Using Collabra Share,

analyzed how Netscape's Collabra Share product could be used to

make teams more productive.  Dallas looked at how "knowledge"

workers function within an organization, collectively utilizing a

corporate knowledgebase to store and share ideas.  Dallas

discovered that products like Collabra Share make corporate

learning almost automatic because it helps to capture and

categorize information, provide a common frame of reference for

future discussions, and with some discipline, be used for the

tracking of procedural steps in a workflow application.  Dallas

concluded that upper management must be persuaded to re-engineer

fundamental business processes using groupware to help employees

see the value of sharing their knowledge, thus changing their

attitudes about cooperation in the workplace.

    Davenport (1993), in his book entitled Process innovation:

Re-engineering work through information technology, seems to

support Dallas' view of the role technology plays in re-

engineering the corporation.  Davenport used case studies to

examine how corporations are re-engineering their business

practices through the introduction of new information technology.

Davenport found that with proper execution and management

support, new computing technologies can reshape the way

corporations conduct business, and make them more competitive as

the "new" culture adapts to the re-engineered company.

    Dix, Finlay, Abowd, and Beale (1993) in their book entitled

Human-computer Interaction, discuss how the human-computer

interface has adapted over time, and provides extensive

information on groupware frameworks and implementation.  Dix et

al. also address CSCW issues and theory.  The authors concluded

that groupware remains to be proven as a valuable tool for

communication, and needs to adapt to future computing

requirements in order to flourish.

    Successful collaboration requires awareness of both

individual and group activities, and a reconciliation of the

separate work spaces.  CSCW systems support this with information

systems that effectively separate themselves from the shared

domains.  Dourish and Bellotti (1992) discussed a study of

passive awareness mechanisms that allow users to be aware of and

exploit information through a shared environment, while avoiding

problems with active approaches.  Dourish and Bellotti found that

when the correct discipline is used, users can indeed move

between lose and close collaboration and coordinate work

dynamically.

    Dragoon (1996) examined the dilemma CIOs have in choosing

between proprietary groupware systems and a Web-based intranet

for their group communication needs.  Dragoon found that the

distinction between products like Lotus Notes and Web products is

beginning to blur.  Dragoon concluded that for companies that

require high levels of security, workflow capabilities, or

database replication, Notes is the product of choice.  For

organizations that need to share information remotely and for

whom security and workflow capabilities are not important issues,

an internal Web site offers an inexpensive solution.

    The meaning of groupware is extremely difficult to pin down

as it means many things to different people.  Dressler (1992)

discussed the need to establish complimentary and highly

developed delivery channels for groupware and groupware

applications.  Dressler used the Novell Corporation as an example

of how delivery channels worked, thus fostering the LAN industry.

    Dyson (1992), classified groupware as information or

workflow oriented with user-centered, work-centered, or process-

centered categories.  The author found that groupware could be

used as a tool for change in an organization, and provided a new

framework for structuring groupware applications.

    Ellis, Gibbs, and Rein (1991) conducted a thorough

examination of various design issues facing groupware developers

in three key areas: communication, collaboration, and

coordination.  Ellis et al. found that there are several

different groupware taxonomies and various perspectives from

which several collaborative systems were created.  The authors

concluded that a gap between synchronous and asynchronous work

must be bridged by integrating telecommunications and computer

technologies, creating shared environments with updated group

context and individual user action notification, and coordinating

the actions of multiple users to avoid conflicts or repetition.

    Englebart (1992) considers groupware as a means to an end

for creating high performance human organizations.  Engelbart

discussed the complexity of implementing groupware changes that

could play an evolutionary role in organizational development.

Englebart proposed four groupware architectural requirements:

global and individual vocabulary control;  multiple look and feel

interfaces; shared-window teleconferencing; and linkage between

Hypertext-based documents and other data systems.

    Forman (1991) identified and discussed basic groupware

issues for the 1990s and posed numerous questions to drive future

research.  Forman found that groupware research by social

psychologists and information systems specialists usually viewed

collaborative writing the same as other group work.  Forman

called for composition specialists to become more actively

engaged in groupware technology development through cross-

disciplinary research on computing and collaborative writing.

    Gagne (1996) surveyed 25 groupware users at Fortune 500

companies to measure the impact the proliferation of the Internet

has had on their groupware strategies.  Gagne found that many IS

managers emphatically support their groupware selection and have

no interest in switching products at this stage.  IS managers are

excited about Internet technology, but are also wary of it.

Gagne concluded that although the Internet can and will affect

groupware selection, groupware users are more interested in

smooth connections to the Internet, avoiding multiple groupware

solutions, and firm decisions that support the current and

planned infrastructure at their respective organizations.

    Galegher and Kraut (1992) compared the validity of

contingency theory and adaptive structuration theory through a

study of collaborative student writers who were given a choice of

communication media.  Galegher and Kraut found that students

preferred face-to-face communication over computer communication,

especially when integrating and planning their work.  The results

confirmed the general validity of contingency theory in that

matches between task and communication medium occur spontaneously

and contribute to the effectiveness of task performance.  The

study acknowledged some aspects of adaptive structuration theory

and suggested further research to study human behavioral

adaptation in specific technological environments.

    Gershman and Sato (1994) discussed a framework to help

define what group communication products are most useful and

productive.  Gershman and Sato proposed a framework that maps

communication systems against group business interactions.

    Gery (1991) surveyed currently available IS technology to

show how it could be used to improve productivity in an

organization.  Gery concluded that companies need to adopt and

stick with a technology, and not be driven by fear of

obsolescence -- as this fear represents an opportunity cost that

could be damaging to the corporation in the long run.

    Gilbert (1993) discussed CSCW and showed that it is now

possible using existing infrastructures.  The author described

case studies of good and bad experiences, and was surprised that

CSCW has been possible for over the past ten years.  Gilbert,

however, concluded that CSCW is rarely practiced today and

suggests that further investigative research be conducted to

found out why this is so.

    Gronbech, Kyng, and Morgensen (1992) investigated the CSCW

aspects of large-scale technical projects in a Danish engineering

company.  The authors found problems and bottlenecks in daily

work and collaboration activities, including tasks involving the

sharing of materials, issuance of tasks, and status tracking.

Gronbech et al. concluded the study by uncovering several

challenges for the implementation of a collaborative

organizational structure.

    Grudin has authored a number of articles on groupware and

CSCW.  Grudin discussed the perils and pitfalls of groupware

(1988), showing that group interactions are extremely complex,

and concluding that proper attention must be paid to subconscious

items in order to properly implement a CSCW system.  Grudin also

studied group collaboration (1991), observing that people

interact continually without much effort.  He found that computer

collaboration is difficult and requires a much better

understanding of the way groups and organizations function.

Grudin concluded that there must be a better understanding of

group processes for workgroup computing system to be successfully

implemented.  Finally, Grudin discussed the differences between

groupware and traditional computer support (1994), covering the

origins of groupware, identifying eight problem areas, and

examining groupware successes.

    Hahn (1994) examined how advances in e-mail and messaging

technology have affected groupware.  Hahn noted that messaging-

based groupware has two advantages: it can leverage the existing

infrastructure of transport, directory, security, and

administrative services; and groupware messages can potentially

reach anyone with e-mail access.  Hahn concluded that those

groupware applications that support e-mail agents and support the

store-and-forward metaphor will succeed -- and those that do not

will have a tough future ahead of them.

    Hammer and Stanton (1995), in their book entitled The

reengineering revolution: A handbook, discuss methods for re-

engineering business processes, and attempts to define exactly

what re-engineering means to corporations today and in the

future.  Hammer and Stanton note that groupware and communication

products like e-mail and the Internet can act as a vehicle for

change, but conclude that in order for change to be effective and

permanent, management and the employee base of a company must

work together to question common practices and redefine

established roles and procedures.

    Held (1992) examined how Lotus Notes, with several add-on

products, was used in a large banking organization to resolve

group collaboration problems.  The system has been successfully

expanded to over 100 users in multiple locations.  Held noted

that even senior management, who did not have computers before

this system was implemented, are now using the system.

    In his book entitled Future telecommunications: Information

applications, services, and infrastructure (1993), Heldman

provides background information on telecommunications trends.

Topics such as networking, services, and infrastructure are

covered.  Future implications for groupware products are also

discussed.

    The term "groupware" has been used to describe everything

from simple e-mail programs to complicated workflow software.

Higgins (1992) explained that groupware should be considered a

distinct category of software, and recognized applications that

fall into this distinction.  He discussed six categories of

groupware including messaging systems, database applications,

message filtering applications, work group application

development software, calendaring and scheduling products, and

document management systems.

    Hildebrand (1996) commented on being a member of a groupware

implementation team, and the lessons to be learned from the

activity.  Hildebrand found that discovering and managing the

behavioral and organizational factors that drive groupware

efforts is a challenging task, and requires emphasis on human

factors in order to avoid organizational chaos.  She concluded

that to encourage knowledge sharing, IS and other corporate

executives must align incentives and rewards with the

collaborative initiative.

    Hills (1997) reviewed the current product offerings in the

groupware market.  Hills notes that most of the leading products

(e.g., Lotus Notes, Novell's Groupwise, Microsoft's Exchange, and

Netscape's Collabra Share) were developed before the advent of

intranets, and rely on traditional client/server architecture.

Some, newer products, like Netscape's Communicator and Lotus

Domino, use intranets for its primary platform.  Hills concluded

that these newer products will gain market share over their

competitors, as IS managers use their existing intranet structure

to implement browser-accessible groupware applications in a cost

effective manner.

    With so much groupware technology and terminology about, it

is sometimes difficult to discern fact from fiction, and real

applications for "vapor" ware.  Holsapple, Rathman, and Winston

(1993) provide a concise description of groupware, and discuss

some possible applications.  Their straightforward article on

groupware serves as a good introductory work to the field.

    Holtham (1993) identified five workgroup drivers: change,

coordination, collaboration, control, and connectivity.  Holtham

argues that "bundles" of different groupware tools are required

to support different business situations, and provided a grid

that helps in classifying groupware tools and systems.

    Collaborative computing systems are environments that allow

people to share thoughts, ideas, and information.  Hsu and

Lockwood (1993) discussed the three fundamental aspects of

collaborative computing: common task, shared environment, and

time and space.  Hsu and Lockwood identified and discussed

problems with groupware, finding that groupware systems can meet

resistance when they are introduced because they challenge the

existing organizational culture.  Hsu and Lockwood concluded that

organizations must change the way they operate for collaborative

systems to be successful.

    Huber (1990) directly addressed the different forms of

communication and the effects these technologies can have on

changing the workplace.  He explained the nature of advanced

information technologies in terms of basic characteristics, such

as precision, rapidity, and access control.  Huber concluded that

use of advanced technologies will not usurp traditional

technologies unless organizational effectiveness can be

increased.

    Johansen, Sibbet, Benson, Martin, Mittman, and Saffo (1991),

in their book entitled Leading business teams: How teams can use

technology and group process tools to enhance performance,

describe the motivation behind using groupware, and cover

electronic groupware tools and systems used within corporate

infrastructures.  Johansen et al. also explored specific types of

groupware, focused on the social nature of groupware, and

presented a series of corporate examples to illustrate the uses

of groupware within business settings.

    Johnson-Lenz (1991) explored several different approaches to

groupware in order to find a middle ground.  The authors focused

on two main methods: making groups work through the use of

explicit forms and procedures; and allowing groups to self

organize.  The authors concluded that groupware must be capable

of being tailored to changing needs and evolving purposes, with

purposed-centered groupware having the potential to be applied to

any organizational group in order to help sustain their culture.

    Kaplan, Lauriston, and Fox (1992) reviewed twenty-eight

different groupware products, noting their strengths, weaknesses,

and applicability.  The authors concluded the review with some

guidelines concerning what to look for in personal computer

groupware products.

    Karan, Kerr, Murthy, and Vinze (1996) conducted several

studies in behavioral decision making via group decision support

systems (GDSS) and found that decisions made by interacting

groups tend to shift from the mean judgment for the same tasks

when performed individually.  The results indicate that people

interact differently through a GDSS than when they communicate

face-to-face, and suggest that GDSS-media communication is more

efficient.

    Khoshafian and Buckiewicz (1995), in their book entitled

Introduction to groupware, workflow, and workgroup computing,

reviewed the concepts and framework involved with collaborative

computing technology.  The authors examined the existing

collaborative technologies available, and commented on their

applications in workflow and workgroup environments.  Citing

several corporate success and failure stories, the authors

concluded that groupware, unlike standard transaction-based

information systems, has a special set of social characteristics

involved that must be accounted for during the implementation and

maintenance phases of the groupware application.

    CSCW implementation progress during the last few years has

been slow, with notably few success (i.e., e-mail and computer

conferencing).  Kling (1991) studied the work aspects of CSCW,

finding that CSCW may be seen as a conjunction of certain kinds

of technologies, certain kinds of users, and a view that

emphasizes sociable work relations.  He differentiated CSCW from

other forms of computerization and felt that CSCW is a social

movement rather than a group of technologies.  Kling concluded

that it may be difficult to implement CSCW because the dynamics

of group social processes are not well understood.

    Kundargi and Subramaniam (1992) described the experiences in

designing and implementing a computer based environment to

improve business collaborations in residential real estate

transactions.  The resulting system was a server-based network of

personal computers complete with a graphical user interface

specifically designed for real estate transactions instead of off-

the-shelf groupware products.  The authors concluded that

groupware systems that can be tailored to the specific work

environment involved will be more successful than standard, no-

flexible "canned" applications.

    Kyng (1991) paid close attention to the collaborative

aspects of work a computerized setting.  Kyng discussed

cooperation as a factor that must be integrated into computer

support efforts, and perceived that some of the aspects of

cooperation have been ignored by the more traditional computer

support areas.  Kyng concluded that this lack of cooperation has

hindered the introduction of groupware into organizations.

    Lang (1992) discussed the essential elements for the

successful introduction of a groupware product in an

organization.  Studying the implementation, Lang found that there

were two highly related sets of factors for the use of groupware:

the product (electronic calendaring) had to have well defined

expected uses and clear guidelines for usage; and the

organization had to revise procedures as the product was

introduced to encourage and stimulate usage by the employees.

    Transfer of information can be a motivating force in the

business environment.  Larson and Zimney (1990), in their book

entitled The white collar shuffle: Who does what in today's

computerized workplace, discussed this subject and other factors.

Larson and Zimney also looked at the negative effects of

computerization, including the loss of face-to-face

communications and depersonalization.  The authors showed how

technology can be intimidating to workers and how there must be

an appropriate distribution of work to encourage success.

    Malone, Lai, and Fry (1992) studied an experiment conducted

with Oval: a tailorable tool for cooperative work.  Malone et al.

found that Oval was used to create applications by combining

objects, views, agents, and links in a building block approach.

Oval functioned much like Coordinator, Lotus Notes, and

Information Lens.  The authors concluded that Oval established

primitives that were used as a tailoring language for application

construction.

    Manasco (1995) looked at how companies are adapting their

work environments and are harnessing "intellectual capital"

through the use of groupware technology.  The author found that

many problems with information sharing in a group setting are due

to organizational arrangements and the human tendency to hoard

knowledge.  These problems, however, can be overcome by linking

bonuses, promotability, and other incentives to the sharing of

knowledge.  Manasco concluded that the true promise of groupware

lies not in its ability to disseminate existing information, but

rather, its potential to facilitate the creation of new knowledge

in a collaborative context and help companies better manage their

intellectual assets.

    McGrath and Hollingshead (1993) studied group theory in

detail and examined how technological advancements affect dynamic

processes within groups.  The authors attempted to provide a

balance to the technological implementation of group support

systems, and concluded that focusing on group requirements,

rather than individual needs, lead to a smoother integration of

groupware systems within organizations.

    Medford (1993) discussed trends in groupware, analyzing

products such as e-mail, calendaring, and group scheduling

products.  Medford concentrated on Lotus Notes, and how it

provided a top-down environment for work groups.  Medford

concluded that based on its market strength, Notes is setting the

defacto standard for various types of workgroup products.

    Olsen (1989) provided articles on the relationship between

computer systems and social systems.  The articles described

approaches to using computers to support teamwork, defined

collaborative computer systems, and described management

information systems that support collaborative work.  Olsen

concluded that: knowledge is social constructed; current

collaborative computer tools are inadequate to satisfy the needs

to integrate data from a variety of sources; and that because we

do not yet understand the true nature of collaboration, we are

unable to provide the tools to enhance cooperative work.

    User needs and capabilities should be used as the focus when

designing groupware.  Olson and Olson (1991), through the use of

extensive studies, presented user-centered system design concepts

that consisted of observation and analysis of users at work,

assistance in design from relevant theory, and iterative testing

with users.  The studies helped to develop the beginnings of a

theory of distributed cognition that formed the basis for the

first stages of iterative testing and redesign of a prototype

editor to support shared design work.

    Opper (1992) studied the impact and benefits a groupware

product can have on an organization, finding that clear benefits

must be identified in order to promote future interest.  Opper

suggests that when groupware solutions are implemented in an

organization, base-line interviews should be conducted to

determine who will use the products and to design applications

once groupware has been established.

    Opper (1993) continued her work in groupware, reviewing and

commenting on factors that are critical to choosing and

implementing a groupware system.  Opper noted that the process

begins with input from business and systems, and is supported by

an on-going team of business and technical experts.  Opper found

that groupware implementation is an iterative process requiring a

series of structured pilots to build a solid foundation for

enterprise-wide groupware.  Opper concluded that effective

training and skilled support, when combined with vision and

organizational restructuring, will allow groupware to be an

enabling technology for a transformed organization.

    Opper and Fersko-Weiss (1992), in their book entitled

Technology for teams: Enhancing productivity in networked

organizations, explored the uses and development of groupware

that integrates computer technology and team processes.  The

authors placed groupware in a business context, describing the

groupware currently available, and examining the benefits of

groupware.  Opper and Fersko-Weiss provided guidelines and

strategies for thinking about and using groupware by asking and

answering a series of questions about who should use groupware,

how it should be implemented, what changes it will make in how

people work, and how these changes should be managed.

    Orlikowski (1992) undertook an exploratory field study to

determine the impact of groupware on organizational

effectiveness.  A Lotus Notes implementation in a large office

organization was observed to determine the changes the

collaborative process had on social interaction.  The results

suggested that groupware caused an interaction between cognitive

and structural aspects of the environment, causing employees to

assess and think about the value of the new technology.

Orlikowski concluded that people generally act towards a

technology based on their understanding of it, and that

implementing Notes does not in of itself change the way people

work in an office environment.

    Groupware is affected by the bandwidth of the communication

paths it uses.  The amount of groupware data that can be

exchanged in a unit of time is a central issue in groupware

support.  Orr (1992) discussed the goals of groupware that

included a medium for communication, metacommunication, audit

trails, and security.  Orr surmised that the addition of graphics

to group communication will increase the intimacy of

communications and help reach acceptance of groupware by larger

portions of the user community.

    Pastor and Jager (1992) describe an architectural framework

for cooperative support.  The authors show that groupware

implementation need to be addressed in a building-block fashion -

- starting with the proper computing and network infrastructure

and ending with unit testing, maintenance, training, and support.

    Post (1992) discussed issues concerning the implementation

of group support systems relative to group performance and return

on investment.  Post reported that business case variables such

as efficiency, quality, effectiveness, customer satisfaction, and

decision-making are useful for measuring the potential

contribution of group support systems.  Post's framework is

useful to researchers and implementors attempting to deploy

groupware technologies in complex business environments.

    Many multi-user applications lack the ability to "undo" an

action.  Prakash and Knister (1992) proposed a general framework

for undo that allows for conflict between various users within a

group-support system.  Undo selections are proposed for actions

depending on who performed them, where they originated, or other

appropriate criteria.  The authors concluded that additional

research is required to determine appropriate interfaces for

supporting the undo action in a workgroup environment.

    Radosevich (1996) cautioned into rushing into a groupware

selection right away.  In reviewing the current groupware market,

Radosevich found that today's hot groupware picks may be outdated

in 2 or 3 years -- thanks to the Internet, intranets, and the

continuing race among software vendors.  While Lotus Notes,

Microsoft Exchange, and Novell Groupwise are all solid products,

none have emerged as the clear winner.  Ultimately, Radosevich

concludes, the groupware selection could boil down to a choice of

hardware platforms.

    Approaches for cooperative work vary greatly.  Reinhard,

Schweitzer, and Volksen (1994) developed a taxonomy that could be

used to evaluate groupware tools and how they relate to the

workgroup computing process.  Reihard et al. defined application

and functional criteria requirements.  Their results described

two implementation approaches: multi-user access to shared single-

user applications; and a network of shared data objects.

    Riggs, Bellinger, and Krieger (1996) argue that there are

two conceptually different functions for groupware -- those

bringing workflow automation and those that capture

organizational learning.  The authors found that in its early

stages, groupware implementation focuses primarily on workflow

automation.  Riggs et al. concluded that organizational learning

via groupware is a long-term process expected to be found in more

mature applications.

    Robinson (1991) studied first generation CSCW applications,

covering group authoring, calendar management, meeting

scheduling, action coordination, informal conversations, and

large meetings in organizations.  Robinson outlined ten concepts

for CSCW that account for past work in the field, forming an

agenda for research, design, and implementation of future CSCW

systems and applications.

    Rodden (1993) reviewed computer technology necessary to

support CSCW, finding that two CSCW approaches exist.  One

supports the exchange of information between users, and the other

develops systems that allow the cooperative sharing of

information.  Rodden also discussed iterative meeting systems

that allow information sharing and group communication.

    Networks can provide for improved transmission of

information and the sharing of resources.  A measure of

effectiveness for distributed systems is how well the users of a

network can coordinate their activities with respect to one

another.  Rogers (1992) examined the interactive processes that

take place when there is a breakdown in the network, finding that

cognitive issues of shared understanding, the transmission of

knowledge, and a distribution of problem solving methods are

adversely affected by any network downtime.  Rogers concluded

that replication is a required process for shared support, and

can avoid problems raised when networks do not function properly.

    Without proper policies, employees cannot take advantage of

company-provided software such as groupware, or products that

enable two or more users to communicate, collaborate and

coordinate their activities via computer.  Romano (1997) proposed

a five-part framework for implementation including socialization,

commitment, reward, feedback, and legitimacy.

    Sarin, Abbott, and McCarthy (1991) presented a model for

collaborative work that breaks down the process into units of

work.  The model includes flexible routing of work to the

"doers," who work on the presentation and manipulation of

documents.  The model, which was implemented as an object

oriented network service, is important because it is one view of

the collaborative process that can help to explain the group

dynamics in a CSCW environment.

    Scalia and Sackmary (1996) examined a classroom application

of groupware for CSCW, consisting of problem solving, decision

making, and development of group reports.  The study found that

student groupware users are generally satisfied with member

contributions and group output but are less satisfied with

software-supported, decision-making processes.  Scalia and

Sackmary concluded that groupware is a powerful communication

tool for support of work groups but that it may not solve the

basic problems of getting people to work effectively and

productively.

    Lotus Notes has certainly been a major player in the

groupware market, and has helped to bring definition to this new

class of cooperative applications.  Schulman (1994), in his book

entitled Using Lotus Notes, provides an introduction to the basic

features of Lotus Notes.  Schulman points out that Notes has

become a leading groupware products because of its ability to

share databases and electronic information over local and remote

corporate networks.

    As workgroup computing matures, a major area of discussion

will be how data is stored, maintained, and accessed in workgroup

settings.  Schwartz (1992) addressed the wide range of issues

surrounding this subject, noting that close attention should be

paid to the underlying technologies and the data delivery models.

This concentration should ensure that a close fit with the data

needs of an organization are supported.

    Schwartz (1996) analyzed how several insurance companies

have implemented groupware systems, and found that in some cases,

the technology has doubled or tripled productivity.  The benefits

have come through collaborative applications designed to

significantly reduce support costs.  One company, Swiss Re,

reduced its contract processing time from 3 weeks to a matter of

days.  The company used Lotus Notes for its application

development platform.

    Smith (1994), in his book entitled Collective intelligence

in computer-based collaboration, proposed a new approach for CSCW

and a research agenda for developing and testing the approach.

Smith's main emphasis is on parallel processing of user tasks.

He also considers a group to be a distributed information

processing system that can have a particular level of awareness

and control.

    Stevenson (1993) reviewed leaders of the PC groupware pack.

He found that since groupware was not well defined, selection of

the competing programs was difficult.  Products reviewed include

Beyond Mail, CM/I, Keyfile, Lotus Notes, Office IQ, and Futurus

Team.  The products address different areas with some overlap:

however, no single product addresses all aspects of workgroup

computing.  Stevenson concluded that selection of a final product

depends on the type of workgroup situation and knowledge of what

problems must be solved.

    Turoff (1991) presented a historical perspective of computer-

mediated communication and its relationship to designing for

group support.  Turoff provided design feature examples that

support specific tasks, and discussed the advantages of

asynchronous communication process support.

    Varney (1996) examined the pervasive influence of Internet

technologies on groupware, noting what used to be a choice among

various groupware products has now broadened to include a slew of

Web-based alternatives that use the open standards of the

Internet to provide groupware functions.  Longtime groupware

vendors have seen the threat from rivals such as Netscape and are

moving quickly to incorporate support for Internet standards.

Varney concluded that smarter corporate customers will be looking

for groupware that supports open interfaces for an enterprise

directory infrastructure.

    Wacker (1992) progressed through the perils and pitfalls of

implementing a set of groupware tools in a law office setting.

After several years of use, Wacker found that the rudimentary

tools for groupware are in place, however, e-mail is still the

most popular functioned being used.  Wacker concluded that the

biggest challenge is to keep out minds open to the possibilities

of groupware.

    Wastell and White (1993) described a form of technology

known as Process Support Technology.  This process provides a set

of techniques to allow modeling cooperative work.  Wastell and

White also provided case studies that illustrate this technique,

and discussed issues arising from field studies.

    Wheatley (1996) observed that the market for groupware

software, which for long has been synonymous with Lotus Notes,

now seems disturbingly wide open, with as many new definitions of

groupware abounding as new providers.  Groupware vendors have

been challenged by the explosion of corporate intranets -- which

offer businesses most of the same functions at a lower price, and

in an "open" environment.  Wheatley concluded that the

traditional groupware market will continue to be challenged by

intranets, and groupware products will have to adapt themselves

by opening their architecture while also lowering prices.

    As organizations continue to network, business decision

times are being reduced.  Whittier (1992) analyzed just-in-time

(JIT) processing for business decisions, finding that data must

move quickly to the right people as well as give them access to

it.  He concluded that CSCW enables JIT business decisions

through inter-personal communications, information sharing, inter-

office communication, and real-time conferencing.

    Wreden (1993) addressed potential benefits and problems

implementing groupware in organizations.  Each groupware

implementation has its own special problems depending on the type

of installed equipment base and the computer "maturity" of the

organization.  Wreden concluded that successful groupware

implementation depends on a shared collaborative vision that is

actively supported by everyone in the organization.

    The Yankee Group (1995) discussed the three dynamics in

workgroups: communication, collaboration, and coordination.  In

their review, The Yankee Group presented a common framework for

customers and vendors to use in planning their own

implementations of workgroup solutions.  The authors concluded

that by understanding the three dynamics, users can gain the most

benefit from groupware products and align business requirements

with emerging groupware technologies.

Methodology

    The literature reviewed in this paper was derived from a

variety of sources, including academic and trade journals,

technical publications and magazines, and on-line discussion

groups and Internet locations.  The first location used to garner

sources was Nova Southeastern University's Electronic Library.

Using Nova's on-line search databases (e.g., First Search and ABI

Inform), when keyed on the term "groupware," yielded many

interesting articles and journal publications.

    A second major source for groupware references was the

computing and technology section in the Snell Library at

Northeastern University in Boston, Massachusetts.  Northeastern's

stacks are quite extensive, and their on-line library catalog

made the search for books and journals on groupware-related

subjects a fairly easy task.

    By far the richest source of groupware references was the

Internet.  The Usenet newsgroup comp.groupware had a series of

interesting discussions in progress on a variety of groupware

topics, as well as available FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions) on

the subject of groupware in general.  Searching on the keyword

"groupware," using the Internet Web search engine Alta Vista from

Digital Equipment Corporation, also yielded a number of Web page

"hits" that were rich in sources on groupware.  All of the major

vendors had Web pages describing their products, as well as a

number of studies available on-line in support of their products

and groupware systems.  Netscape's Collabra Share page

(http://www.collabra.com) listed a number of groupware white

papers, as well as an on-line bibliography of CSCW writings

compiled by Lee Honeycutt of the Rensselaer Polytechnic

Institute, and Deborah Bosley of the University of North Carolina

at Charlotte.

Results

    It is clear from the literature review that the term

"groupware" is still being defined, and its impact hotly debated

amongst corporations, IS personnel, and researchers in the field.

Groupware itself is evolving, and holds much promise for those

corporations that master the technology and adapt their workplace

to become a more collaborative environment.

    In summary, a number of interesting points emerged from the

literature review, including:

*    Corporate intranets are evolving and pose a challenge to

    traditional groupware products.

*    Time and space constraints, and emerging multimedia

    capabilities must be accounted for in groupware design.

*    Groupware applications must be tailored to the organization

    and matched to group requirements.

*    Groupware must be championed and supported by management.

    Reward mechanisms need to be in place to encourage the sharing,

    rather than the hoarding of, corporate information.

*    Social dynamics of groups and groupwork must be better

    understood.

*    Groupware is fairly inexpensive, and intranets will continue

    to lower the cost.

*    It's best to stick with one groupware system rather than mix

    and match different groupware technologies.

*    Groupware designers need to pay attention to group dynamics,

    rather than individual mechanics, when designing applications.

*    Groupware is enabling technology; It can help transform an

    organization when it is combined with proper re-engineering

    techniques.

*    Lotus Notes is currently leading the market, but competitors

    such as Novell, Netscape, and Microsoft are all catching up

    quickly.

*    Information based in a groupware system must be actively

    managed in order to avoid becoming stale and useless.

*    Groupware, like any other computerized system, needs to have

    a support and maintenance structure in place in order for it to

    flourish within an organization.

*    Not all groupware features are being used.  Proper training

    and follow-up is needed to ensure employees use the system as it

    was intended.

*    Implementation of groupware systems spawn network and

    bandwidth issues that must be actively addressed.

*    Issues in how to reconcile information, and how to replicate

    information within groupware exist and need to be addressed.

Conclusions

    Groupware will continue to have a large impact on how

corporations do business, how people communicate, and how

processes are defined.  However, with out a clear strategy in

mind, groupware will not live up to its promises of enhanced

productivity, improved group communications, and more structured

decision making.

    It is evident that corporations need guidance when choosing

and implementing a groupware system.  Merely buying a groupware

application and placing it front of a user population it not

enough.  The corporation must first look within itself to examine

how existing processes and procedures can be improved, and how

groupware can act an enabling technology, or a vehicle for

change, to motivate employees to share ideas and improve workflow-

based practices.

    Employees must then be encouraged to share information.

This is a tricky proposition, especially within the current

business atmosphere of corporate consolidations and downsizing.

Management must champion the cause, and reward people for showing

initiative, sharing ideas and knowledge, and recording this

valuable "intellectual capital" onto a system that will keep the

information available for people to use.

    Once the information is within the groupware system, it must

be actively structured and managed so the it is grouped into

meaningful subsets, and can be retrieved and referenced with

little effort.  The groupware system must be able to store

objects that are "foreign" to it, such a spreadsheet and work

processing files, so that the complete process or workflow can be

captured.

    Finally, the groupware system must fit within a

corporation's existing infrastructure, and be able to adapt to

new information systems that need to interface or exchange

information with it.  The emergence of the Internet, and

corporate intranets, pose a challenge to traditional groupware

systems and methodologies.  Those groupware applications that can

adapt to this new, dynamic, and open environment will be those

that last into the next century, and those that become a critical

part of a corporation's infrastructure.  Networks and networking

systems will need to provide the bandwidth and connectivity

needed for groupware systems to operate sufficiently within

corporations, and link corporate networks on a global basis.

    Much like the client/server computing paradigm, a groupware

application should follow a framework: a series of steps to

ensure that the technology will fit the infrastructure, and the

technology will be accepted, adapted, and used by the

corporation.  A framework will help to make sense of all the

factors in consideration for a groupware implementation, and

serve as a roadmap for corporations to follow as they seek to

empower employees and remain competitive in the future.

                  References

    Adhikari, R. (1996). A new twist on groupware. Information

Week, No. 606, 75-80.

    Ahuja, S. (1992). Multimedia communications: An

infrastructure for remote collaborations.  In D. Coleman (Ed.),

Groupware 92 (pp. 413-414). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufman.

    Allison, D. (1992). Groupware: Systems support and glueware.

In D. Coleman (Ed.), Groupware 92 (pp. 231-233). San Mateo, CA:

Morgan Kaufman.

    Anderson, W. (1991). Group relations psychology and computer

supported work: Some new directions for research and development.

In P. deJong (Ed.), Conference on Organizational Computing

Systems (pp. 117-122). Atlanta, GA: ACM Press.

    Bannon, L., Bjorn-Anderson, N., & Due-Thomsen, B. (1988).

Computer support for cooperative work: An appraisal and critique.

In H. Bullinger (Ed.), Eurinfo '88: Information Systems for

Organizational Effectiveness. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Bannon, L. & Schmidt, K. (1991). CSCW: Four characters in

search of a context. In J. Bowers & S. Benford (Eds.),

Proceedings of the First European Conference on Computer

Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 3-16). North Holland: Elsevier

Science.

    Benest, I. & Dukic, D. (1993). Computer supported teamwork.

In D. Diaper and C. Sanger (Eds.), CSCW in Practice: An

Introduction and Case Studies (pp. 127-150). New York: Springer-

Verlag.

    Benton, P. & Devlin, J. (1991). Workgroup automation and

hypertext. In E. Berk & J. Devlin (Eds.), Hypertext/Hypermedia

Handbook (pp. 415-434). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Bidgoli, H. (1996). A new productivity tool for the 90's:

Group support systems. Journal of Systems Management, Vol. 47,

No. 4, 56-62.

    Blum, D. (1996). When groupware visions come true. Network

World, Vol. 13, No. 50, p. 32.

    Bock, G. & Marca, D. (1995). Designing Groupware. New York:

McGraw-Hill.

    Bock, G. & Marshak, R. (1994). The conferencing metaphor. In

Workgroup Computing Report. Boston: Patricia Seybold Group.

    Booker, E. (1996). Site picks Collabra over Notes. Web Week,

Vol. 2, Issue 2.

    Borg, K. (1996). Lonely at the top? Not with groupware.

Computer Technology Review, Vol. 16, No. 11, 1-6.

    Bostrom, R., Watson, R., & Kinney, S. (1992). Computer

augmented teamwork: A guided tour. New York: Van Nostrand

Reinhold.

    Bullin, C. & Bennet, J. (1991). Groupware in practice: An

interpretation of work experiences. In C. Dunlop & R. King

(Eds.), Computerization and Controversy: Value Conflicts and

Social Choices. New York: Academic Press.

    Burns, N. (1996). Groupware: Myths and realities. Palo Alto,

CA: Creative Networks, Inc.

    Butterfield, J., Rathnam, S., & Whinston, A. (1992).

Groupware: A survey of perceptions and practice. SIGOIS Bulletin,

pp. 6-7.

    Chawla, S. & Renesch, J. (1995). Learning organizations:

Developing cultures for tomorrow's workplace. Portland, OR:

Productivity Press.

    Cole, B. (1996). Groupware not reaching its potential yet.

Network World, Vol. 13, No. 41, 37-48.

    Coleman, D. (1992). Integrating groupware into corporate

cultures. In D. Coleman (Ed.), Groupware 92 (pp. 113-116). San

Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Coleman, D. (1995). Groupware: Technology and applications.

New York: Prentice Hall.

    Cook, S., Birch, G, Murphy, A., & Woolsey, J. (1991).

Modeling groupware in the electronic office. In S. Greenberg

(Ed.), Computer-supported Cooperative Work and Groupware (pp. 243-

267). London: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

    Dale, T. (1993). Groupware, the Macintosh, and collaborative

environments.  In D. Coleman (Ed.), Groupware 93 (pp. 316-332).

San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Dallas, A. (1995). Making your team more productive. In

Special Edition Using Collabra Share. Indianapolis, IN: Que

Corporation.

    Davenport, T. (1993). Process innovation: Re-engineering

work through information technology. Boston: Harvard Business

School Press.

    Dix, A., Finlay, J., Abowd, G., & Beale, R. (1993). Human-

computer interaction.  New York: Prentice-Hall.

    Dourish, P. & Bellotti, V. (1992). Awareness and

coordination in shared workspaces. In J. Turner & R. Kraut

(Eds.), CSCW '92: Proceedings of the Conference on Computer-

Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 107-114). Toronto, Canada: ACM

Press.

    Dragoon, A. (1996). Open to debate, CIO, Vol. 9, No. 10, 42-

52.

    Dressler, F. (1992). Delivering groupware in the 90s. In D.

Coleman (Ed.), Groupware 92 (pp. 375-377). San Mateo, CA: Morgan

Kaufmann.

    Dyson, E. (1992). A framework for groupware. In D. Coleman

(Ed.), Groupware 92 (pp. 10-20). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Ellis, C, Gibbs, S., & Rein, G. (1991). Groupware: Some

issues and experiences. Communications of the ACM, Vol. 34, No.

1, 38-58.

    Englebart D. (1992). Toward high-performance organizations:

A strategic role for groupware. In D. Coleman (Ed.), Groupware 92

(pp. 77-100). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Forman, J. (1991). Computing and collaborative writing. In

G. Hawisher & C. Selfe (Eds.), Evolving Perspectives on Computers

and Composition Studies (pp. 65-83). Urbana, IL: NCTE.

    Gagne. C. (1996). Grappling with groupware? Computerworld,

Vol. 30, No. 40, 82-88.

    Galegher, J. & Kraut, R. (1992). Computer-mediated

communication and collaborative writing: Media influence and

adaptation to communication constraints. In J. Turner & R. Kraut

(Eds.), CSCW `92: Proceedings of the Conference on Computer-

Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 155-162). Toronto, Canada: ACM

Press.

    Gershman, A. & Sato, S. (1994). Multimedia and groupware: A

proposed situational approach to selecting communication systems

for collaboration. In D. Coleman (Ed.), Groupware 94 (pp. 599-

604). Scottsdale, AZ: The Conference Group.

    Gery, G. (1991). Electronic performance support systems: How

and why to remake the workplace through the strategic application

of technology.  Boston: Weingarten.

    Gilbert, G. (1993). CSCW for real: Reflections on

experience. In D. Diaper & C. Sanger (Eds.), CSCW in Practice: An

Introduction and Case Studies (pp. 39-50). New York: Springer-

Verlag.

    Gronbech, K., Kyng, M., & Morgensen, P. (1992).  CSCW

challenges on large-scale technical projects -- A case study. In

J. Turner & R. Kraut (Eds.), CSCW `92: Proceedings of the

Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 338-345).

Toronto, Canada: ACM Press.

    Grudin, J. (1988, December). Perils and pitfalls. Byte, 261-

264.

    Grudin, J. (1991). CSCW introduction. Communications of the

ACM, Vol. 34, No. 12, 31-34.

    Grudin, J. (1994). Groupware and social dynamics: Eight

challenges for developers. Communications of the ACM, Vol. 37,

No. 1, 90-106.

    Hahn, E. (1994). Groupware comes of age. Network Computing,

November 15, 1994.

    Hammer, M. & Stanton, S. (1995). The reengineering

revolution: A handbook. New York: Harper Business.

    Held, J. (1992). Groupware in investment banking: Improving

revenue and deal flow. In D. Coleman (Ed.), Groupware 92 (pp. 461-

464). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Heldman, R. (1993). Future telecommunications: Information

applications, services, and infrastructure. New York: McGraw-

Hill.

    Higgins, S. (1992). Groupware: Getting a grip on work-group

computing. PCWeek Special Report, 1-14.

    Hildebrand, C. (1996). A little of that human touch. CIO,

Vol. 9, No. 10, 64-70.

    Hills, M. (1997). The newest in group wares. Network World,

Vol. 14, No. 3, 26-29.

    Holsapple, C., Rathnam, S., & Whinston, A. (1993).

Groupware. In A. Ralston & E. Reilly (Eds.), Encyclopedia of

Computer Science (3rd Ed.) (pp. 588-589). New York: Van Nostrand

Reinhold.

    Holtham, C. (1993). Group communications, management

processes and groupware tools. In D. Coleman (Ed.), Groupware 93

(pp. 292-303). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Hsu, J. & Lockwood, T. (1993, March). Collaborative

computing: Computer aided teamwork will change your office

culture forever. Byte, 113-120.

    Huber, G. (1990). A theory of the effects of advanced

information technologies on organizational design, intelligence,

and decision making. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 15, No.

1, 47-71.

    Johansen, R., Sibbet, D., Benson, S., Martin, A., Mittman,

R., & Saffo, P. (1991). Leading business teams: How teams can use

technology and group process tools to enhance performance. New

York: Addison-Wesley.

    Johnson-Lenz, P. & Johnson-Lenz, T. (1991). Post-mechanistic

groupware primitives: Rhythms, boundaries and containers. In S.

Greenberg (Ed.), Computer-supported Cooperative Work and

Groupware (pp. 11-28). London: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

    Kaplan, A., Lauriston, R., & Fox, S. (1992, March).

Groupware. PC World, 209-214.

    Karan, V., Kerr, D., Murthy, U., & Vinze, A. (1996).

Information technology support for collaborative decision making

in auditing: An experimental investigation. Decision Support

Systems, Vol. 16, No. 3, 181-194.

    Kling, R. (1991). Cooperation, coordination, and control in

computer supported cooperative work. Communications of the ACM,

Vol. 34, No. 12, 83-84.

    Khoshafian, S. & Buckiewicz, M. (1995). Introduction to

groupware, workflow, and workgroup computing. New York: John

Wiley & Sons.

    Kundargi, K. & Subramaniam, R. (1992). Practical aspects of

implementing computer supported collaboration vertical solution:

Residential real estate transactions. In D. Coleman (Ed.),

Groupware 92 (pp. 533-536). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Kyng, M. (1991). Designing for cooperation: Cooperating in

design. Communications of the ACM, Vol. 34, No. 12, 65-73.

    Lang, B. (1992). Electronic group calendaring: Experiences

and expectations. In D. Coleman (Ed.), Groupware 92 (pp. 428-

432). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Larson, R. & Zimney, D. (1990). The white collar shuffle:

Who does what in today's computerized workplace. New York:

AMACOM.

    Malone, T., Lai, K., & Fry, C. (1992). Experiment with Oval:

A radically tailorable tool for cooperative work. In J. Turner &

R. Kraut (Eds.), CSCW `92: Proceedings of the Conference on

Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 289-297). Toronto,

Canada: ACM Press.

    Manasco, B. (1995). How groupware accelerates organizational

learning. The Learning Enterprise, February 1995.

    McGrath, J. & Hollingshead, A. (1993). Putting the "group"

back in group support systems: Some theoretical issues about

dynamic processes in groups with technological enhancements. In

L. Jessup & J. Valacich (Eds.), Group Support Systems: New

Perspectives (pp. 78-111). New York: Macmillan.

    Medford, C. (1993, May). Groupware: Growing and dividing.

Varbusiness, 85-89.

    Olsen, M. (Ed.). (1989). Technological support for work

group collaboration. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Olson, G. & Olson, J. (1991). User-centered design of

collaboration technology. In D. Marca & G. Bock (Eds.),

Groupware: Software for Computer-supported Cooperative Work (pp.

119-141). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press.

    Opper, S. (1992). Can groupware enhance productivity and

offer competitive advantage? In D. Coleman (Ed.), Groupware 92

(pp. 21-24). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Opper, S. (1993). Choosing and implementing a groupware

system. In Datapro Workgroup Computing Series: Strategies & LAN

services, November, 1993. Delran, NJ: McGraw Hill.

    Opper, S., & Fersko-Weiss, H. (1992). Technology for teams:

Enhancing productivity in networked organizations. New York: Van

Nostrand Reinhold.

    Orlikowski, W. (1992). Learning from Notes: Organizational

issues in groupware implementation. In J. Turner & R. Kraut

(Eds.), CSCW `92: Proceedings of the Conference on Computer-

Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 362-369). Toronto, Canada: ACM

Press.

    Orr, J. (1992). Graphics and groupware: Increasing intimacy

through broadening bandwidth. In D. Coleman (Ed.), Groupware 92

(pp. 73-76). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Pastor, E. & Jager, J. (1992). Architectural framework for

CSCW. In J. Power (Ed.), Cooperation Among Organizations: The

Potential of Computer (pp. 103-118). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

    Post, B. (1992). Building the business case for group

support technology. In Proceeding of the Twenty-Fifth

International Conference on the System Sciences, Vol. IV (pp. 34-

45). Hawaii: IEEE Computer Society Press.

    Prakash, A. & Knister, M. (1992). Undoing actions in

collaborative work. In J. Turner & R. Kraut (Eds.), CSCW `92:

Proceedings of the Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative

Work (pp. 273-280). Toronto, Canada: ACM Press.

    Radosevich, L. (1996). Keep your groupware options open.

Datamation, Vol. 42, No. 17, 110-116.

    Reinhard, W., Schweitzer, J., & Volksen, G. (1994, May).

CSCW tools: Concepts and architectures. IEEE Computer, 28-36.

    Riggs, W., Bellinger, W., & Krieger, D. (1996). The impact

of groupware: Work process automation and organizational

learning. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, Vol. 8, No.

3, 271-282.

    Robinson, M. (1991). Computer supported cooperative work:

Cases and concepts. In P. Hendricks (Ed.), Groupware 1991: The

Potential of Team and Organizational Computing (pp. 59-75).

Utrecht, The Netherlands: Software Engineering Research Centre.

    Rodden, T. (1993). Technological support for cooperation. In

D. Diaper & C. Sanger (Eds.), CSCW in Practice: An Introduction

and Case Studies (pp. 1-22). New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Rogers, E. (1992). Ghosts in the network: Distributed

troubleshooting in a shared working environment. In J. Turner &

R. Kraut (Eds.), CSCW `92: Proceedings of the Conference on

Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 346-355). Toronto,

Canada: ACM Press.

    Romano, C. (1997). The power of collaboration. Management

Review, Vol. 86, No. 1, p. 7.

    Sarin, S., Abbott, K., & McCarthy, D. (1991). A process

model and system for supporting collaborative work. In P. de Jong

(Ed.), Conference on Organizational Computing Systems (pp. 213-

224). Atlanta, GA: ACM Press.

    Scalia, M. & Sackmary, B. (1996). Groupware and computer-

supported cooperative work in the college classroom. Business

Communication Quarterly, Vol 59, No. 4, 98-110.

    Schulman, M. (1994). Using Lotus Notes. Indianapolis, IN:

Que Publishing.

    Schwartz, R. (1992). Data access in workgroup environments.

In D. Coleman (Ed.), Groupware 92 (pp. 237-240). San Mateo, CA:

Morgan Kaufmann.

    Schwartz, S. (1996). Making sense of groupware. Insurance &

Technology, Vol. 21, No. 5, 30-36.

    Smith, J. (1994). Collective intelligence in computer-based

collaboration. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Stevenson, T, (1993, June). Groupware: Are we ready? PC

Magazine, 267-299.

    Turoff, M. (1991). Computer-mediated communication

requirements for group support, Journal of Organizational

Computing, Vol. 1, 85-113.

    Varney, S. (1996). Will intranets lay waste to groupware?

Datamation, Vol. 42, No. 18, 72-80.

    Wacker, S. (1992). Groupware in a law office: A user's

experiences. In D. Coleman (Ed.), Groupware 92 (pp. 425-427). San

Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Wastell, D. & White, P. (1993). Using process technology to

support cooperative work: Prospects and design issues. In D.

Diaper & C. Sanger (Eds.), CSCW in Practice: An Introduction and

Case Studies (pp. 105-126). New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Wheatley, M. (1996, May). Groupware's uncertain future.

Management Today, 90-94.

    Whittier, R. (1992). Supplying the right stuff for

groupware. In D. Coleman (Ed.), Groupware 92 (pp. 34-42). San

Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Wreden, N. (1993, March). Regrouping for groupware. Beyond

Computing, 52-55.

    Yankee Group (1995). Communication, collaboration,

coordination: The "Three C's" of workgroup computing. Yankee

Watch, Vol. 3, No. 3.