How to increase GSS transition? A case study at a Dutch Police Force

Transcription

1 How to increase GSS transition? A case study at a Dutch Police Force Mariëlle den Hengst Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research Delft University of Technology marielle.denhengst@tno.nl Lis Weimar & Stephan O. den Hengst Amsterdam-Amstelland Police Force lis.weimar@amsterdam.politie.nl stephan.den.hengst@amsterdam.politie.nl Abstract Despite the potential of GSS, GSS has not diffused widely in organizations. The diffusion of technology can be explained by the Technology Transition Model (TTM). TTM explains what causes a group of technology users to become self-sustaining. This paper uses TTM as a starting point and presents actionable items to increase the success of GSS diffusion. A case study at a Dutch Police Force is presented. Following TTM, the paper explores what actions were carried out by the police and how these actions influenced the frequency, the magnitude and the certainty with which users perceived net value from using the system. The findings suggest that TTM may be a useful model to identify actionable items an organization can execute to increase the success of GSS transition. 1. Introduction Group Support Systems (GSS) are designed to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of (distributed) group work by offering a variety of tools to assist the group in the structuring of activities, generating ideas and improving group communication [11]. GSS can reduce the time required for projects. Previous studies on GSS in general have reported labour cost reductions averaging 50 percent and reductions of project calendar days averaging 90 percent [6, 7, 12]. Despite the potential GSS has to provide great benefit to groups, GSS has not diffused widely in organizations [3]. Diffusion of technological innovations is widely discussed in literature. Process models exist that prescribe the steps that should be taken, for example, the innovation decision process of Rogers [13] or Nord and Tucker [10]. Causal models are present that explain why a technological innovation is successful, for example, the technology acceptance model of Davis [5]. And yet, many organizations adopt innovations with disappointing results. It is suggested that the reason is not innovation failure, but implementation failure [9]. Many process and causal models focus on the period of time that starts when some person in the organization shows interest in using a new technology and ends with innovation adoption. Innovation adoption refers to an organization s decision to install an innovation. Adoption is a decision point which is followed by implementation. Innovation implementation is the transition period during which targeted organizational members ideally become increasingly skilful, consistent and committed in their use of an innovation [8], or as Briggs et al. [2] state: the transition period during which a community of users has become self-sustaining. Unfortunately, research on innovation implementation is limited [9], but ever so important given that many organizations fail to fully implement the innovations they adopt. Since innovation is key to organizations in order to survive and thrive in today s global marketplace, it is very important to increase the success of the transition. Thus, it seems useful to address the question how to increase the success of the transition of technological innovations? To begin to answer this question, we studied the transition of GSS in the Amsterdam-Amstelland Police Force to extract actionable items to improve the GSS transition. The remaining of this paper is structured as follows. In the next section we describe the Technology Transition Model, the theory we used to guide the investigation. The third section describes the research methodology. Section four presents background information on the case with the Amsterdam-Amstelland Police Force and describes the actionable items we identified in the case study. The fifth section discusses the findings. The sixth section presents the conclusions, limitations, and directions for further research. 2. Background Diffusion of innovations was the subject of research already a century ago: the S-shaped diffusion curve was plotted as early as 1903 by the French sociologist Gabriel Tarde. Most innovations have an S-shaped rate of adoption [13]. The variance lies in the slope of the S. Rapidly diffusing innovations create a steep S-curve, slowly diffusing innovations create a more gradual slope. The diffusion rate has become an important research area, but mostly stops at the moment of innovation adoption. The Technology Transition Model (TTM) stretches the period in which innovations become a success or a failure /07 $ IEEE 1

2 beyond the adoption decision and focus on the period in which the users become self-sustaining. TTM explains what technology characteristics cause a group of users to become self-sustaining. Technology Transition Model TTM posits that system use is a positive function of behavioural intentions [3], see also figure 1. TTM posits that intention-to-use is a multiplicative function of the perceived magnitude of the net value that might be obtained after a switch to the new technology, and the perceived frequency with which said value might be obtained. TTM, furthermore, posits that as people consider using a new system, they perceive value along a number of dimensions, see enumeration below. This value can be both cost and benefit, both negative and positive. Affective. The extent to which the technology will evoke positive or negative emotional response in the user. Economic. The extent to which the technology will increase or decrease the user s cash, assets, marketability, and so on. Physical. The extent to which the technology will increase or decrease the user s health or comfort. Political. The extent to which the technology will increase or decrease the user s power or influence within or across organizations. Social. The extent to which the technology will enhance or detract from the user s personal relationships with other people, such as colleagues, friends, and family. Cognitive. The extent to which the technology will increase or decrease the user s amount of mental effort expended to complete tasks the technology supports. This dimension has at least three components: o Perceptual load. User friendliness the amount of mental effort required to find and control the features and functions of the technology required to accomplish the task at hand. o Access load. Availability the amount of mental effort required to gain permission and access to use the components of the technology needed for the task at hand. o Conceptual load. Understanding the amount of effort required to understand what the technology is supposed to do for the user. Finally, TTM posits two factors that moderate the direct relationship between behavioural intentions and the perceived frequency and magnitude of net value. The first is the degree of certainty about perceptions of magnitude and frequency of value. The model assumes that the more exposure one has to a new system, the more certain one feels about ones perceptions of that system. Briggs et al. [3] identified three kinds of exposure: testimony, observation, and experience. Testimony may be as informal as a conversation at a water cooler or as formal as a refereed academic article. Observation may range from a glimpse of a video clip to several days of watching over people s shoulders as they use the technology. Experience may range from a few minutes of hands-on playing to days of intensive use. The second moderator focuses on perceptions of switching costs and benefits. TTM posits that users also attend to the perceived net value of transition when choosing whether to accept a new technology. The perceived net value of transition represents the value derived from the transition activity itself, apart from the value the new system will deliver. perceived frequency of net value perceived magnitude of net value certainty perceived net value of transition behavioral intentions system use Figure 1: Technology Transition Model (Brigss et al. 2003) TTM guided our investigation of actionable items in a GSS transition case. TTM served as a framework to link all kinds of actions in the case study to a construct in the Technology Transition Model. 3. Research method Action research This paper reports about actionable items that can be executed to increase the GSS transition in organizations. The Technology Transition Model served as a framework for guiding the observations and actions in the case study. We followed an action research approach for the case study. Action research was employed for several reasons. First, the phenomena at hand were considered too complex to be studied in a constructed setting: transition is hard to address in a constructed setting. Second, action research is especially appropriate to address how to questions. In this research we focus on how to increase the success of transition. Although our action research includes a single case only, we believe that studying GSS transition in a single organization could yield insights that would allow for lower-risks transitions elsewhere. 2

3 Role of the researcher The role of the researchers was that of observer and participant at the same time. A dual role as participant and observer enables researchers to study unique situations, but also creates the potential for bias because the researchers can become advocates for the groups or phenomena under study. Interventions by the researchers during the project were only aimed at supporting the organization in achieving its goals: transition GSS to the organization. This is in line with the scientific, professional interest of the researchers: use TTM to increase the success of GSS transition. The researchers had no personal stake in any of the GSS meetings carried out. One of the researchers was the GSS project leader for the Amsterdam-Amstelland Police Force and was responsible for the facilitation of almost all group sessions. This researcher was supported with advice and guidance by the other researchers. Data collection During the case, we collected data from qualitative sources.the researchers participated as facilitators for the sessions held with the GSS and observed the different phases of the case study. As observers, they kept notes of incidents, remarks, and events that conveyed critical information. Interventions The heart of action research is gathering information in a situation of interest by intervening in the situation. As participants, the researchers intervened in several ways. The most important intervention in this case is the facilitation of GSS meetings. Smaller interventions include the search for recurring processes, the training, and the technical support. These interventions were extracted from TTM and applied to the case for evaluating their effect. All interventions applied were intended to increase the success of GSS transition. 4. Amsterdam-Amstelland Police Force The Dutch Police is organized in 26 regional police forces. The Amsterdam-Amstelland Police Force (AAPF) is the largest of these 26 police forces. The AAPF comprises the municipalities of Aalsmeer, Amsterdam, Amstelveen, Diemen, Uithoorn and Ouder-Amstel. This region covers 375 km 2 and has a population of The force consists of 5800 officers and has an annual budget of some 394 million euros. Figure 2: The region of AAPF The AAPF has been using GSS for more than a decade. In the early nineties, AAPF started using GSS for different situations throughout the organization on an ad hoc basis. This led to a decision moment in 2002 by the AAPF management to adopt GSS in the police force. The AAPF management provided sufficient financial resources for the implementation of GSS. With the knowledge that adoption is followed by the critical phase of implementation, a project was started in 2003 to shape and guide the transition of GSS in the organization. The project ran till the end of During the project about 15 GSS sessions have been carried out. In each session a version of the software GroupSystems was used. The sessions were carried out at different locations of the AAPF. The hardware on which GroupSystems was running was a set of laptops, provided by Delft University of Technology and set up at the location provided by the AAPF. In each session between 10 and 20 people participated. The actions carried out for the transition of GSS in the AAPF during this project are presented below by addressing each of the constructs of TTM. An overview of the actionable items and the constructs they relate to is given in table 1. Some actionable items apply to more than one construct and, therefore, are mentioned more than once. When applicable we distinguish between the net value for the organization, the net value for the GSS project leader and the net value for the GSS meeting participants. Perceived frequency of net value AAPF acknowledged the advantages GSS can bring to the organization. AAPF started using GSS a decade ago on an ad hoc basis. Benefits were drawn randomly, only when the need for the use of the system arose. To better predict the added value of GSS, the project leader started to search for recurring processes that could benefit from 3

4 the use of GSS [1]. Within the two years of the project, four recurring processes were identified for which a repeatable collaboration process was designed: (1) evaluation of police education programs, (2) policy analysis on different subjects with partners in the safety chain, (3) evaluation of the implementation of Abrioproducts consisting of new working processes, and (4) crime analysis. Despite the identification of recurring processes, the perceived frequency of net value is not high. Two reasons can be given for this. First, the recurring nature of the processes is mainly visible to the GSS project leader, but not for the GSS users. The collaboration process is recurring but in most cases for different groups of users. The same process is applied by the GSS project leader to different groups of users. A single group of users, therefore, does not recognize the recurring nature. This also causes each recurring process to be slightly different from the previous recurrence since the specifics of each group requires adjustments to the GSS meetings. The GSS project leader judges that about 20% of the repeating process is custom made, while 80% of the GSS meeting stays the same. And second, even if a process is recurring through the eyes of the users, the frequency is very low, like maybe yearly. The recurring processes identified do Perc. freq. of net value not occur frequently within the same group, they are not daily, weekly or even monthly recurring processes. Affective (perceived magnitude of net value) During the project slight efforts were put in to influence the emotional response of the users. Given the fact that the participants of the GSS meetings participated as it being Identify recurring process part of their job, less attention was given to the affective impact of the GSS. One way used to influence the Ask for feedback at the end of a GSS meeting affective value during the project was that at the end of Bring in variation in activities during a GSS meeting each session the participants were asked, either in a group Address the costs discussion or through a questionnaire, to give feedback. Address the benefits This gave A the GSS users a way to unburden themselves. Offer training to facilitator Another way used was that A the GSS meetings were Actively involve problem owner in GSS meeting carefully designed to be diverse in activities and by this Use a technical assistant prevent the participants to become bored. Activities using Have the facilities set up nearby the GSS were alternated with activities in which Offer professional facilitation support to facilitator subgroups collaborated in more traditional forms. Have people experience GSS meetings Outsource the hard- and software Economic (perceived magnitude of net value) Testimony A The overall economic A value for using GSS is addressed A Have one or more GSS champions from a cost perspective and is perceived positively by A the Have incentives for the GSS champions AAPF. Given A the annual A budget of the AAPF, the costs of The facilitator is process leader not content expert using GSS are minor. A The economic value has not been addressed yet Table from 1: Actionable the viewpoint items of for possible the AAPF benefits, for example, the = time applied that is (see saved section by working 4) with GSS. The economic value for each individual session, or A = recommended (see section 5) recurring process, is hard to quantify. Most processes that were supported with GSS during the project were relatively new. Without any prior experience on how the processes would have been carried out in the past, it is very difficult to estimate the economic value. Without reference material, the participants of the GSS meetings cannot experience a decrease in time, nor an increase in time. The economic value for the GSS project leader who has to design and facilitate each GSS session is quite low. It takes quite some time to prepare and execute a meeting. Furthermore, after two years of experience, the GSS project leader continues to call on professional facilitators for advice and guidance. Although training for designing and executing GSS meetings has taken place, apparently the frequency of applying this knowledge and skills is too low to become truly skilled and independent. Affective Economic Physical Political Social Cognitive: perceptual load Cognitive: access load Cognitive: conceptual load Certainty Perc. value of transition Physical (perceived magnitude of net value) Physical value is not considered a main trigger for the success of GSS transition. Therefore, no actions were undertaken to influence the physical value. Political (perceived magnitude of net value) The political value for the participants of GSS meetings is not addressed explicitly in the project. The political value could be that the participants are now able to be part of the decision making process which would usually be 4

5 out of their reach. In general, the participants did not perceive this: the final decisions were made outside the group meetings and the group meetings were organized mainly to gather information to prepare the decision making process. Although the political value is not perceived high by the participants in general, we do see a difference in those sessions in which the problem owner is actively involved and those sessions in which the problem owner is hardly involved during the GSS meeting. Participants perceived being more valued in those sessions with the problem owner actively involved. The political value for the GSS project leader could be high. The GSS project leader received training in the use of GSS and the facilitation of group meetings. With this knowledge and skills and with the control over the GSS system the person s power and influence in the organization increase, for example by being able to facilitate sessions throughout the entire organization. Despite the potential political value of the GSS, this is not perceived this high by the GSS project leader, mainly due to the high cognitive value. Another reason for the low perceived political value by the GSS project leader is that it is difficult to stay away from the content as being a colleague of the participants. During a GSS meeting, the participants do not only look at her as the process leader, but also as the content expert. Social (perceived magnitude of net value) The social value was explicitly addressed during the project by paying attention to the diverse nature of activities participants have to carry out. To prevent that the social interaction is restricted to computer-mediated interaction only, other, more traditional, work forms were alternated with electronic collaboration. As a result of the group meetings, social cohesion among the group of participants was created, but this was not made explicit to the AAPF organization or the participants. Cognitive: perceptual load (perceived magnitude of net value) The amount of mental effort required to use the system is not an issue for either the participants nor the facilitator, i.e. the GSS project leader. The GSS software used is relatively simple to be operated by the participants. The GSS software is more complicated for the facilitator: many choices have to be made in the software to set up a GSS meeting. To counterbalance for this, each session was supported by a technical assistant from Delft University of Technology. In this way, the GSS project leader was not burdened with using the GSS software and the perceptual load was not perceived high. The negative side, however, is that the GSS project leader lacks an opportunity to become more skilled in facilitating GSS meetings, by understanding the technology and the tools used. This is one of the key functions a facilitator should be a able to perform [4]. Another disadvantage of using technical assistants is that the facilitator and the technical assistant have to get acquainted to form a good team. With changing technical assistants, the GSS project leader had to put in extra effort each time a new person is assisting her. Cognitive: access load (perceived magnitude of net value) The access load for the users is relatively low. GSS facilities were set up at a location nearby their working places. The users have to move to the GSS location set up, but they would have moved to a meeting place anyway to collaborate. Thus, it took little additional effort to access the technology. The access load for the GSS project leader is higher than for the users. The GSS project leader has to make reservations for a location as well as for the hardware and software to be used. Although this takes time, the communication channels are well-organized. It, thus, costs not that much mental effort. Cognitive: conceptual load (perceived magnitude of net value) To influence the conceptual load, the GSS project leader was offered a training in group facilitation with GSS. Given the low frequency of GSS meetings to occur the GSS project leader had too little opportunities to keep this knowledge and skills updated and active. Furthermore, despite the recurring nature of the processes, each session addressed a slightly different kind of problem with a different group of users. So each session required a different set of tools, in different configurations and in different order and with different guidance to the group for each step in the process. This makes it difficult to understand which tools and configurations might be the most useful in a given situation. Therefore, a professional facilitator was consulted for each meeting to give advice and guidance on the meeting design. This is a good way to decrease the conceptual load. Given the low frequency it, however, does not add much to the learning process of the GSS project leader. Certainty Exposure to GSS gives rise to certainty about expectations of value and frequency. Exposure in the AAPF case was realized mainly through experience in one or more recurring GSS meetings. Although experience is often seen as the best way to learn new things, it is not sufficient by itself for successful GSS transition. Three reasons are given. First, good experiences tend to fade away after a period of time. Experience, therefore, only tends to last when exposure is repeated frequently enough. This might be through repeated experience or through observation or testimony. Second, when people have a lot 5

6 of things on their mind, they will learn less from the experience given to them. And third, people don t always notice the benefits they derive. By nature, many people like to complain about the things that go wrong and forget about the things that went very well. To counterbalance for this, testimony by telling the advantages gained through GSS use is a necessary prerequisite. Perceived value of transition The value of the transition itself consists of training on the one hand and hardware and software installation on the other. The GSS project leader took a training program. Although this costs a little time and money from the AAPF, it pays itself back by influencing most of the other constructs of the TTM model, for example, the political value, the economic value, and the cognitive value. Installation of hardware and software is not an issue for the AAPF. The AAPF has a contract with Delft University of Technology to make use of the facilities of the University. Whenever needed, the Delft University of Technology makes sure the hardware and software is up and running for a GSS meeting. 5. Discussion The case of the Amsterdam-Amstelland Police Force presents a transition process that started with good preconditions: sufficient management support and ample financial resources. It, however, is not yet finished in the two years the project has been running. Many good steps have been undertaken, such as the search for recurring processes, but many more steps should be executed to cover all TTM constructs in sufficient detail to create a self-sustaining community of users. The use of GSS throughout the organization is in the hands of the GSS project leader. There is insufficient knowledge and experience throughout the organization to have the decision to use the system to be made by someone else than the GSS project leader. GSS use is more of a coincidence than a structured part of the organization. It is a matter of having the right people talk with each other to trigger the use of GSS in stead of a standard service used throughout the organization. Given the fact that the GSS project leader does not have infinite time available to advocate the use of GSS, improvements in the transition are apparently necessary. Some of the recommendations for AAPF to increase the success of GSS transition are summarized below and follow directly from one of the constructs of TTM. These actions are based on the theory of TTM- assumed to lead to the creation of a self-sustaining community of users. Continue the search for recurring processes. Focus on recurring processes with a high frequency and focus on processes that are recurring from the viewpoint of the GSS users and less from the viewpoint of the facilitator/gss project leader. Furthermore, focus on processes that are already in place instead of on new evolving processes. Increase the certainty by testimony, by spreading the news. Exposure through experience only will not be enough. Make serious work of influencing the affective value through evaluation at the end and by making working with GSS fun. Evaluate the benefits next to the costs. Have one or more GSS champions in the organization that actively search for opportunities to use the GSS, at least until a substantial self-sustaining community of users is created. Have incentives in place for GSS champions to really get to know the GSS system in order to become fully skilled in designing a group process, dealing with group dynamics and understanding the technology and tools used. Use a professional facilitator to design the ad-hoc and infrequent sessions from the beginning to the end. Use a professional facilitator as guidance and advisor for the GSS champions for the frequently recurring group meetings until a self-sustaining community of users is created for this recurring meeting. Have the problem owner play an active and visible role during the GSS meeting. This increases the perceived importance of the meeting and makes it easier for the facilitator to stay away of the content. 6. Conclusion Despite the potential of GSS, GSS have not diffused widely in organizations. Slow transition into the workplace after the GSS adoption decision has often resulted in a failure in the end. We have argued that TTM may be a useful framework to extract actionable items to increase the success of the transition process. Support for this was offered through the findings in a case study carried out over a period of two years with the Amsterdam-Amstelland Police Force in the Netherlands. It appeared that TTM contains a strong set of concepts that allow you to place different actions in a framework. Furthermore, it allows us to advice actions to the AAPF to further increase the successful transition of GSS in the organization. Further research is required to evaluate whether this truly results in a more successful GSS transition. A key limitation has to be considered when interpreting the results of our study. Like many other action research studies, the findings in our study are based on a single case. Therefore, caution is required when attempting to 6

7 generalize the experiences beyond the context in which they were collected. More empirical support is needed to extract actionable items that influence the TTM constructs. With enough empirical support, it might be possible at some point in the future to extract a process from this that an organization should perform to increase the success of transition of the GSS system. We started this paper with saying that innovation implementation is not straightforward. TTM presents some relevant issues that have to be addressed with technology transition. The case in this paper complements on this by showing possible actions to address the TTM constructs. Any organization willing to implement GSS should control the TTM constructs by (1) measuring the perceptions of the net value of the users, (2) identifying a set of actions to influence the perceived net value, and (3) monitoring the effects of the actions on the perceived net value. TTM provides handles for the first and third phase of a transition process. These handles are not yet validated measurement systems but rely on observations of the researcher. A more robust measurement system, such as a questionnaire is required and should be designed. The case described in this paper presents possible handles for the second phase. As said before, further empirical research is required to support these. TTM gives us insight into those constructs that influence the transition. In this paper we identified actionable items to influence the TTM constructs. Literature offers a detailed description of organizational practices that may influence the implementation of innovation [9]. Many actionable items can thus be identified from literature, such as the provision of training, the provision of technical assistance, the provision of rewards for using the technology, the provision of time for users to experiment with the technology, top management showing support, and effective communication on the reasons for using the technology. Further research should be carried out to identify which TTM constructs are influenced by which actionable items from literature, which actionable items from literature do not address one of the TTM constructs, and which TTM constructs are not addressed by the actionable items in literature. TTM focus on the individual level. GSS technology is not a technology used at an individual level, but by a group of sometimes different- stakeholders. In this paper, we addressed three levels of stakeholders: organization, GSS project leader and meeting participant. The research described in this paper does not answer the question how different stakeholders influence each other and which one is more important to determine the success of the GSS transition. Further research into this is required. Many important questions remain. To survive and thrive in the 21 st century, organizations must innovate their production processes, products, and services with increasing frequency and increasing speed. Is the implementation of non-technological innovations, such as self-managing teams, more or less difficult than the implementation of technological innovations? Can TTM be used for work practices as well or does it only apply to technological transition? Furthermore, innovation implementation is not so much an issue of a process at individual level, but an organizational process. Many models, like the technology acceptance model of Davis (1989), focus on the individual acceptance of technology. TTM takes into account the organizational level: political and social considerations only emerge in multiple-person environments. But even with TTM, organization acceptance remains an aggregate of individual acceptance. Is TTM sufficiently incorporating the organizational level to help organizations overcome the challenges they face with innovation implementation? References [1] A. B. Agres, G. J. d. Vreede, and R. O. Briggs, "A tale of two cities: case studies of group support systems transition," Group Decision and Negotiation, pp. 1-18, [2] R. O. Briggs, M. Adkins, D. D. Mittleman, J. Kruse, S. Miller, and J. F. jr. Nunamaker, "A technology transition model derived from qualitative field investigation of GSS use aboard the U.S.S. CORONADO," Journal of Management Information Systems, vol. 15, no. 3, pp , [3] R. O. Briggs, G. J. de Vreede, and J. F. jr. Nunamaker, "Collaboration Engineering with ThinkLets to Pursue Sustained Success with Group Support Systems," Journal of Management Information Systems, vol. 19, no. 4, pp , [4] V. K. Clawson, R. P. Bostrom, and R. Anson, "The Role of the Facilitator in Computer-Supported Meetings," Small Group Research, vol. 24, no. 4, pp , [5] F. D. Davis, "Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology," Management Information Systems Quarterly, vol. 1989, no. September, pp , [6] G. J. de Vreede, D. R. Vogel, G. L. Kolfschoten, and J. S. Wien, "Fifteen years of in-situ GSS use: A comparison across time and national boundaries,". J. F. jr. Nunamaker and R. H. Sprague, Eds. Hawaii: IEEE Computer Society Press, [7] R. Grohowski, C. McGoff, D. R. Vogel, B. Martz, and J. F. jr. Nunamaker, "Implementing electronic meeting systems at IBM: Lessons learned and success factors," Management Information Systems Quarterly, vol. 14, no. 4, pp , [8] K. J. Klein and J. S. Sorra, "The challenge of innovation implementation," Academy of Management Review, vol. 21, pp , [9] K. J. Klein, A. B. Conn, and J. S. Sorra, "Implementing Computerized Technology: An Organizational Analysis," Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 2001, no. 5, pp ,

8 [10] W. R. Nord and S. Tucker, Implementing routine and radical innovations. Lexington MA: Lexington Books, [11] J. F. jr. Nunamaker, A. Dennis, J. Valacich, D. Vogel, and J. F. George, "Electronic Meeting Systems to Support Group Work," Communications of the ACM, vol. 34, no. 7, pp , [12] B. Q. Post, "A Business Case Framework for Group Support Technology," Journal of Management Information Systems, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 7-26, [13] E. M. Rogers, Diffusion of innovations. New York: The Free Press,