The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Work group structures and computer support: a field experiment
Open accessAbstract
It is frequently suggested that work groups that have computer technology to support activities such as text editing, data manipulation, and communication develop systematically different structures and working processes from groups that rely on more conventional technologies such as memos, phone calls, and meetings. However, cross-sectional or retrospective research designs do not allow this hypothesis to be tested with much power. This field experiment created two task forces, each composed equally of recently retired employees and employees still at work but eligible to retire. They were given the identical tasks of preparing reports for their company on retirement planning issues, but they were randomly assigned to different technology conditions. One group had full conventional office support; the other had, in addition, networked microcomputers with electronic mail and routine office software. Structured interviews were conducted four times during the year-long project; in addition, electronic mail activity was logged in the on-line group. Although both groups produced effective reports, the two differed significantly in the kind of work they produced, the group structures that emerged, and evaluations of their own performance. Although the standard group was largely dominated by the employees through the extensive reliance on informal meetings, the electronic technology used by the other task force allowed the retirees to exercise primary leverage. We conclude that use of computer support for cooperative work results in both quantitative and qualitative changes but that effective participation in such electronically supported groups requires significant investments of time and energy on the part of its members to master the technology and a relatively high level of assistance during the learning process.
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.
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
Strong, Weak, and Latent Ties and the Impact of New Media
Haythornthwaite, C. (2002) · The Information Society · doi:10.1080/01972240290108195 · Cited by 747
The Spatial, Temporal, and Configurational Characteristics of Geographic Dispersion in Teams1
O’Leary, M. B., & Cummings, J. N. (2007) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/25148802 · Cited by 497
Markus, M. L. (1994) · ACM Transactions on Information Systems · doi:10.1145/196734.196738 · Cited by 310
An analysis of communication mode in group support systems research
Fjermestad, J. (2004) · Decision Support Systems · doi:10.1016/s0167-9236(03)00021-6 · Cited by 193
Development and Pilot Evaluation of a Computer-Based Support System for Women with Breast Cancer
Gustafson, D., Wise, M., McTavish, F., Taylor, J. O., Wolberg, W., Stewart, J., Smalley, R., & Bosworth, K. (1993) · Journal of Psychosocial Oncology · doi:10.1300/j077v11n04_05 · Cited by 156
Metadata
- Authors
- Eveland, J. D., & Bikson, T. K.
- Venue
- ACM Transactions on Information Systems
- Published
- 1988-10
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 354-379
- ISSN
- 1046-8188 (ISSN-L)
- 1558-2868
- OpenAlex
- W1966755847
- Cited by
- 174
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 13.95
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Work group structures and computer support: a field experiment. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/58566.58568
- The paper
- Eveland, J. D., & Bikson, T. K. (1988). Work group structures and computer support: a field experiment. ACM Transactions on Information Systems. https://doi.org/10.1145/58566.58568
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.