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.

Diffusion and technology transfer must be understood as essentially phenomenological issues. Technology is information, and exists only to the degree that people can put it into practice and use it to achieve values. This article outlines a series of issues that complicate this perspective: defining the content of technology, coping with the embedding of technology in organizational contexts, assessing the effects of politics and culture on technology use, dealing with dynamics of implementation, and assessing effects. It is suggested that organizations need to emphasize creative processes for coping with change, and that research on technology transfer should stress context over content and process over prescription.

Understanding electronic communication and the patterns that characterize its development are critical to realizing full benefits from computer‐supported work. Cooperative work depends on effective communication and on the ability of organizations to manage the technology of communication appropriately. Organizations that do not understand the political and social dimensions of their communications system will inevitably fail to achieve their purposes.

The lack of comparative evaluation research on organizational-effixtivcness models is the primary focus of this discussion. Problems in conceptually and operationally defining evaluation models, such as those in the goal and system model classes, are the proposed reason for this lack of comparative research.In this paper, goal and system models are formally defined in terms of their historical origins, underlying criteria and differing methods of application. A goal and system model classification continuum is also presented. Five comparative evaluation research questions are proposed and their implications for research are discussed. From a theoretical perspective this paper attempts to go beyond the sound foundation laid by Campbell (1977) in his discussion of these two schools of thought on organizational effectiveness.

No abstract