The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Theory of Task/Technology Fit and Group Support Systems Effectiveness1
Abstract
The characteristics of a group’s task have been shown to account for more than half the variation in group interaction. In the context of group support systems (GSS), the importance of task has been underscored by the recommendation that achieving a fit between task and technology should be a principle for effective GSS use. Although the body of group support systems research has grown in recent years, and experience with different tasks and technologies now exists, no generally accepted theory of task/technology fit has emerged. This paper develops a theory of task/technology fit in GSS environments based on attributes of task complexity and their relationship to relevant dimensions of GSS technology. Propositions to guide further research are developed from the theory.
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
Cites
Organizational Information Requirements, Media Richness and Structural Design
Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.32.5.554 · Cited by 9,868
The Duality of Technology: Rethinking the Concept of Technology in Organizations
Orlikowski, W. J. (1992) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.3.3.398 · Cited by 4,957
Barley, S. R. (1986) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2392767 · Cited by 2,315
Task complexity: Definition of the construct
Wood, R. E. (1986) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/0749-5978(86)90044-0 · Cited by 1,393 · cited 2×
“…number of non-linear sequences between components and task products), (2) component complexity (the number of distinct acts and the number of distinct information cues involved in the task), and (3) dynamic complexity (the stability of the relationships between inputs and the product) (Wood 1986).”
BackgroundMethod
Cited by
Media, Tasks, and Communication Processes: A Theory of Media Synchronicity1
Dennis, A. R., Fuller, R. M., & Valacich, J. S. (2008) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/25148857 · Cited by 1,511
Understanding User Responses to Information Technology: A Coping Model of User Adaptation1
Beaudry, A., & Pinsonneault, A. (2005) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/25148693 · Cited by 869
Health information systems: Failure, success and improvisation
HEEKS, R. (2006) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2005.07.024 · Cited by 654
Predicting collaboration technology use: integrating technology adoption and collaboration research
Brown, S. A., Dennis, A. R., & Venkatesh, V. (2010) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.2753/mis0742-1222270201 · Cited by 592
User acceptance of YouTube for procedural learning: An extension of the Technology Acceptance Model
Lee, D. Y., & Lehto, M. R. (2013) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.001 · Cited by 565
Metadata
- Authors
- Zigurs, I., & Buckland, B. K.
- Venue
- MIS Quarterly
- Publisher
- MIS Quarterly
- Published
- 1998-09-01
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 313-334
- ISSN
- 0276-7783 (ISSN-L)
- 2162-9730
- OpenAlex
- W1571750337
- Cited by
- 1,029
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 48.83
- Type
- journal article
- 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
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.
