The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Learning from Notes: organizational issues in groupware implementation
Abstract
Abstract This paper explores the introduction of a group‐ware technology—Lotus Corporation's Notes®—into one office of a large organization and attempts to understand the changes in work practices and social interaction facilitated by the technology. The results reveal that a number of organizational elements, such as mental models (which affect how people understand and appropriate groupware) and structural properties (reward systems and workplace norms), significantly influence how group‐ware technology is implemented and used. Specifically, the findings suggest that in the absence of mental models that appreciate the collaborative nature of groupware, such technologies will be interpreted in terms of more familiar personal and stand‐alone technologies, such as spreadsheets. Further, in competitive and individualistic organizational cultures—where there are few incentives or norms for cooperating or sharing expertise—groupware on its own is unlikely to engender collaboration. Such products will be inter...
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“In this study, Orlikowski [1992] found that there were surprising inconsistencies between the intended uses of the system and the actual incentives in the organization.”
From The interdisciplinary study of coordination (1994) · cites this paper as Orlikowski [1992]
In the citing paper
“For instance, Orlikowski observed that this organization (like many others) was one' in which people were rewarded for being the”
From The interdisciplinary study of coordination (1994) · cites this paper as Orlikowski [1992]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
The interdisciplinary study of coordination
Malone, T. W., & Crowston, K. (1994) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/174666.174668 · Cited by 3,504
Olson, G. M., & Olson, J. S. (2000) · Human–Computer Interaction · doi:10.1207/s15327051hci1523_4 · Cited by 1,983
Technological frames: making sense of information technology in organizations
Orlikowski, W. J., & Gash, D. C. (1994) · ACM Transactions on Information Systems · doi:10.1145/196734.196745 · Cited by 1,736
Self-citationDisrupted Routines: Team Learning and New Technology Implementation in Hospitals
Edmondson, A. C., Bohmer, R. M., & Pisano, G. P. (2001) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3094828 · Cited by 1,729
Coordinating Expertise in Software Development Teams
Faraj, S., & Sproull, L. (2000) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.46.12.1554.12072 · Cited by 1,689
Metadata
- Authors
- Orlikowski, W. J.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 1992 ACM conference on Computer-supported cooperative work - CSCW '92
- Publisher
- ACM Press
- Published
- 1992
- Pages
- 362-369
- OpenAlex
- W2141344980
- Cited by
- 754
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 78.54
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Learning from Notes: organizational issues in groupware implementation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/143457.143549
- The paper
- Orlikowski, W. J. (1992). Learning from Notes: organizational issues in groupware implementation. Proceedings of the 1992 ACM conference on Computer-supported cooperative work - CSCW '92. https://doi.org/10.1145/143457.143549
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.