The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Implementing Electronic Meeting Systems at IBM: Lessons Learned and Success Factors
Abstract
Businesses of the future will rely more than ever on the work of teams. Making better use of the time teams spend in meetings will be a high priority, as will being able to adapt rapidly to change. Electronic meeting systems (EMS), which apply information technology to support the meeting process, can help accomplish these goals. This paper describes and discusses the implementation of EMS at IBM in an alliance with the University of Arizona. During the past three years, the project has grown from initial support for a single site to 33 IBM sites, with more on the way. Over 15,000 people have used the everexpanding and evolving EMS tool kit. Use of EMS has improved group performance by an average of 55 percent, with even more dramatic reductions in project calendar time. The lessons learned and success factors at IBM can assist managers in effectively introducing EMS to their organizations.
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
van de Kar, E., & den Hengst, M. (2009) · Electronic Markets · doi:10.1007/s12525-008-0002-y · Cited by 19
Metadata
- Authors
- Grohowski, R., McGoff, C., Vogel, D., Martz, B., & Nunamaker, J.
- Venue
- MIS Quarterly
- Publisher
- MIS Quarterly
- Published
- 1990-12-01
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 369-383
- ISSN
- 0276-7783 (ISSN-L)
- 2162-9730
- OpenAlex
- W1540169431
- Cited by
- 263
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 17.65
- 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.
