The functional role of technology in cooperative work

In describing computer support for cooperative work, Weigand [1994] makes a distinction between enabling technology on the one side and systems that truely improve group performance on the other side. McGrath and Hollingshead [1994] refine this division.

Enabling technology

Computer support for cooperative work is often seen as merely enabling technology. Through computer networking and specialised software (groupware) people are able to work together. The system provides the necessary infrastructure and thus facilitates people to jointly perform a task. This has already lead to the upcoming of the virtual group. Co-workers in a virtual group interact without ever meeting in person (Meijer [1994], Kiesler and Sproull [1992]).

Also, expansion of work group sizes is possible without necessarily decreasing actual participation of other group members. Moreover, several services and options not available during face-to-face meetings, such as anonymity of group members and increased access to possibly widespread information are considered to be advantages of electronic technology (Hiltz and Turoff [1978]).

Improving group productivity

From a different point of view, CSCW systems can be conceived as software to actually improve group productivity and performance. In order to achieve this, groupware should stimulate group process gains and prevent process losses to occur (Nunamaker [1991], Weigand [1994]). Stimulating process gains is often accomplished by imposing a process-related structure on the work assignment in the form procedures (e.g., by defining state transitions, creating outlines, establishing deadlines, or by encouraging the group to adopt an agenda). Alas, introducing the computer in a group to improve process gains can be accompanied by some potentially troublesome issues.

The applied level of structuring is referred to by Fridael [1993] as control.

The functional role of CSCW systems refined

McGrath and Hollingshead [1994] refine Weigand's division. Based on the functional role that the technology plays in the work of the group, they state that each member of a cooperative work group is attached to four functionally distinct (though not necessarily physically separate), interactive (two way) communication systems:

1. Systems for intragroup communication. Electronic systems fulfilling this function include a variety of systems that are generally referred to as group communication support systems. Examples are video- and audiophones, computer conferences, and e-mail.
2. Systems for communication with information bases. Beside on-line communication within the group itself (as in 1) and on-line communication to individuals outside the group (as in 3, which follows), each member is connected to a number of databases. These extragroup databases may include both quantitative (e.g., production and cost data) and qualitative (e.g., on-line library collections) bodies of information. Systems serving this function may not only be used for accessing information but for processing and presenting that information as well.
3. Systems for external communication. Each member of a cooperative group can communicate with individuals or groups outside the current work group. Sometimes these contacts can be essential to the group's progress and success; for example, communications to get timely information about availability of resources vital to the group's progression. These systems exist in parallel to the varieties of systems used for internal group communication.
4. Systems for structuring group task performance. Each group member needs to be able to receive task information and perform group task activities. Thus, each member needs to be in two-way communication with relevant tasks. Systems serving this function include a variety of tools that structure both the form in which tasks are presented to the group as well as the group's task responses and products. Examples for this category of CSCW systems encompass group decision support systems to structure idea generation, idea evaluation, and agenda setting.

The COOPerator, a co-authoring tool which is the main focus of this thesis, could support virtual groups (Weigand [1994]). In imitation of Kiesler and Sproull [1992] and Kraut et. al. [1992], however, we think that many groups may be most effective if they make use of an appropriate blend of face-to-face and computer-mediated communication.

The COOPerator offers means for structuring group task performance (for example, outlining of the document and structuring of the group discussion) and intragroup communication. The infrastructure at Tilburg University ensures that groups can communicate with both world-wide (through Internet) and local information bases (e.g. the university's high-tech library) as well as with individuals or groups outside the current work group.