Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparative study on the effects of groupware and conventional technologies on the efficiency of collaborative writing

  • Published:
Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper the concept of efficiency in collaborative writing is considered in detail and a definition of efficiency is proposed. The definition of efficiency leads to the development of a research framework that delineates five operational measures of efficiency: (a) writing activities efficiency, (b) coordination efficiency, (c) quality of output, (d) absence of breakdowns, and (e) satisfaction with group performance. A comparative study is subsequently presented on the effects that groupware and conventional technologies have on the effciency of collaborative writing. The hypothesis is advanced that groupware can improve the efficiency of collaborative writing over conventional technologies. The results seem to support the hypothesis and indicate that (a) the groupware system examined in this study (MUCH system) offers efficiency benefits in terms of coordination, (b) MUCH users tend to face communication breakdowns while users of conventional technologies tend to face task-related breakdowns, (c) the documents produced with MUCH are of higher content quality, more coherent, and of higher rhetorical effectiveness than the documents produced with conventional technologies, and (d) the comparison of MUCH with conventional technologies shows no significant difference in terms of their effects on group performance satisfaction.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abshire, Gary M. and Dan Culberson, (1985): A Team Approach to Producing Good Documentation.IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication PC, vol. 28 no. 4, pp. 38–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, Thomas H. and Bonnie B. Armbruster (1985): Studying Strategies and Their Implications for Textbook Design. InDesigning Usable Texts, eds. Thomas M. Duffy and Robert Waller. Academic Press, pp. 159–177.

  • Baecker, Ronald M. Dimitrios Nastos, Ilona R. Posner and Kelly L. Mawby, (1993): The User-Centred Iterative Design of Collaborative Writing Software. InProceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (INTERCHI' 93), Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 24–29 April, 1993. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley, pp. 399–405.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bødker, Susanne and Kaj Grønbæk (1991): Cooperative Prototyping: Users and Designers in Mutual Activity. InComputer-supported Cooperative Work and Groupware, ed. Saul Greenberg. Academic Press, pp. 331–356.

  • Burnett, Rebecca E. (1991): Substantive Conflict in a Cooperative Context: A Way to Improve the Collaborative Planning of Workplace Documents.Technical Communication, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 532–539.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charnock, Elizabeth, Roy Rada, Steve Stichler and Peter Weygant (1994): A Rule-Based. Task-Oriented Method of Creating Usable Hypertext for Commercial Audiences.Interacting with Computers, September 1994 Issue.

  • Daiute, Colette and Bridget Dalton (1988): “Let's Brighten It Up a Bit”: Collaboration and Cognition in Writing. InThe Social Construction of Written Communication, eds. Bennett A. Rafoth and Donald L. Rubin. Norwood, New Jersey Ablex Publishing Company, pp. 249–269.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delisle, Norman M. and Mayer D. Schwartz (1989): Collaborative Writing With Hypertext.IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 183–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillon, Andrew (1993): How Collaborative is Collaborative Writing? An Analysis of the Production of Two Technical Reports. InComputer Supported Collaborative Writing, ed. M. Sharples. Springer-Verlag, pp. 69–86.

  • Easterbrook, S. M., E. E. Beck, J. S. Goodlet, L. Plowman, M. Sharples and C. C. Wood (1992): A Survey of Empirical Studies of Conflict in Relation to CSCW.Technical Report CSRP 227, School of Cognitive and Computing Sciences, The University of Sussex.

  • Faigley, Lester and Thomas P. Miller (1982): What We Learn from Writing on the Job.College English, vol. 44, no. 6, pp. 557–569.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faigley, Lester (1985): Nonacademic Writing: The Social Perspective. InWriting in Nonacademic Settings, eds. Lee Odell and Dixie Goswami. The Guilford Press, pp. 231–248.

  • Farkas, David K. (1991): Collaborative Writing, Software Development, and the Universe of Collaborative Activity. InCollaborative Writing in Industry: Investigations in Theory and Practice, eds. Mary M. Lay and William M. Karis. Amityville, N.Y.: Baywood Publishing Company, Inc., pp. 13–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Fowler, Susan and David, Roeger (1986): Programmer and Writer Collaboration: Making User Manuals that Work.IEEE Transactions on Professional Communications PC, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 21–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galegher, J. and R. E. Kraut (1990): Computer-Mediated Communication for Intellectual Teamwork: A Field Experiment in Group Writing. InProceedings of the Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work CSCW '90, Los Angeles, CA, Oct. 7–10, 1990, ACM Press, pp. 65–78.

  • Galegher, J. and R. E. Kraut (1992): Computer-mediated Communication and Collaborative Writing: Media Influence and Adaptation to Communication Constraints. InProceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW'92), Toronto, Ontario. ACM Press, pp. 155–162.

  • Gere, Anne Ruggles (1980): Written Composition: Toward a Theory of Evaluation.College English vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 44–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gere, Anne Ruggles (1987):Writing Groups: History, Theory, and Implications. Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gifford, James and Donald Pattow (1991): Networks, Collaboration, and the Systems Documentation Classroom. InComputers and Writing IV Proceedings, pp. 60–65.

  • Goldstein, John Rymer (1984): Trends in Teaching Technical Writing.Technical Communication, pp. 25–34.

  • Haas, Christine (1989): Does the Medium Make a Difference? Two Studies of Writing With Pen and Paper and With Computers.Human-Computer Interaction, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 149–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halasz, F. G. and M. Schwartz (1990): The Dexter Hypertext Reference Model. InProc. NIST Hypertext Standardization Workshop, Gaithersburg, MD, 16–18 January, 1990, pp. 95–134.

  • Halliday, M. A. K. and Ruqaiya Hasan (1976):Cohesion in English. Longman.

  • Haness, Joel (1983): How to Critique a Document.IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication PC, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 15–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, Wilfred J. and Christina Haas (1988): Reading and Writing with Computers: A Framework for Explaining Differences in Performance.Communications of the ACM, vol. 31, no. 9, pp. 1080–1089.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartley, James (1984): The Role of Colleagues and Text-Editing Programs in Improving Text.IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication PC, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 42–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawisher, Gail E. (1992): Cross-disciplinary Perspectives: Computer-mediated Communication (CmC), Electronic Writing Classes, and Research.SIGCUE OUTLOOK vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 45–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hiltz, Starr Roxanne (1990): Evaluating the Virtual Classroom. InOnline Education: Perspectives on a New Environment, ed. L. Haras. New York: Praeger Press, pp. 133–183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hiltz, Starr Roxanne and Kenneth Johnson (1990): User Satisfaction with Computer-Mediated Communication Systems.Management Science, vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 739–763.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jarvenpaa, L. S., Rao, V. S. and Huber, P. G. (1988): Computer Support for Meetings, of Groups Working on Unstructured Problems: A Field Experiment.MIS Quarterly, pp. 645–666.

  • Kellog, Ronald T. (1989): Idea Processors: Computer Aids for Planning and Composing Text. InComputer Writing Environments: Theory, Research, & Design, eds. Bruce K. Britton and Shawn M. Glynn. LEA, pp. 57–92.

  • Kellog, Ronald T. and Suzanne Mueller (1993): Performance Amplification and Process Restructuring in Computer-Based Writing.International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, vol. 39, pp. 33–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kemp, Fred (1992): Emphasising Rhetorical Effectiveness Through Computer Networks.SIGCUE OUTLOOK vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 29–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehner, Franz (1993): Quality Control in Software Documentation Based on Measurement of Text Comprehension and Text Comprehensibility.Information Processing & Management, vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 551–568.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lutz, Jean A. (1987): A Study of Professional and Experienced Writers Revising and Editing at the Computer and with Pen and Paper.Research in the Teaching of English, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 398–422.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mackler, Tobi (1987): Group Produced Documents: An Exploratory Study of Collaborative Writing Processes.Ph. D. Thesis, Columbia University Teachers College.

  • Malone, T. and K. Crowston (1990): What is Coordination Theory and How Can It Help Design Cooperative Work Systems?. InProceedings of the Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work CSCW' 90, Los Angeles, CA, Oct. 7–10, 1990. ACM Press, pp. 357–370.

  • Marshall, Catherine C. and Peggy M. Irish (1989): Guided Tours and On-Line Presentations: How Authors Make Existing Hypertext Intelligible for Readers. InHypertext' 89 Proceedings, pp. 15–26.

  • McCarthy, John C., Victoria C. Miles, Andrew F. Monk, Michael D. Harrison, Alan J. Dix and Peter C. Wright (1993): Text-Based On-Line Conferencing: A Conceptual and Empirical Analysis Using a Minimal Prototype.Human-Computer Interaction, vol. 8, pp. 147–183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, Bonnie J. F. (1982): Signalling the Structure of Text. InThe Technology of Text, Volume Two, ed. David H. Jonassen. Educational Technology Publications, pp. 64–89.

  • Michailidis, Antonios, Roy Rada and Weigang Wang (1993): Matching Roles and Technology for Collaborative Work: An Empirical Assessment.Wirtschaftsinformatik, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 138–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michailidis, Antonios, Roy Rada and Pelagia-Irene Gouma (1994): A Study of Efficiency in Computer-Supported Collaborative Writing.Journal of Intelligent Systems, vol. 4, no. 1–2, pp. 133–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Min, Zheng and Roy Rada (1994): MUCH Electronic Publishing Environment-Principles and Practices.Journal of American Society of Information Science, vol. 45, no. 5, pp. 300–309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, Ronald J. (1990): Preparing to Write the Document: A Worksheet for Situational Analysis in the Workplace.IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 12–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman, Julian and Rhona Newman (1992): Three Modes of Collaborative Authoring. InComputers and Writing: Models and Tools, eds. N. Williams and P. Holt. Oxford: Intellect Books, pp. 20–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, J. (1990):Hypertext & Hypermedia. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Novick, David G. and Jonathan Walpole (1990): Enhancing the Efficiency of Multiparty Interaction through Computer Mediation.Interacting with Computers, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 227–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nylund, A. (1989): Aspects of Cooperation in a Distributed Problem Solving Environment. InProceedings of the First European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work-ECSCW' 89, London, UK, Sept. 13–15, 1989. pp. 247–260.

  • Odell, Lee and Charles R. Cooper (1980): Procedures for Evaluating Writing: Assumptions and Needed Research.College English, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 35–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olson, David R. (1985): On the Designing and Understanding of Written Texts. InDesigning Usable Texts, eds. Thomas M. Duffy and Robert Waller. Academic Press, pp. 3–15.

  • Olson, J. S., G. M. Olson, M. Storrøsten and M. Carter (1992): How a Group-editor Changes the Character of a Design Meeting as Well as its Outcome. InProceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW' 92), Toronto, Ontario. ACM Press, pp. 91–98.

  • Orna, Elizabeth (1985): The Author: Help or Stumbling Block on the Road to Designing Usable Texts? InDesigning Usable Texts, eds. Thomas M. Duffy and Robert Waller. Academic Press, pp. 19–41.

  • Poole, Marshall Scott, Michael Holmes and Gerardine DeSanctis (1988): Conflict Management and Group Decision Support Systems. InProceedings of the Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work CSCW88, Portland, Oregon, New York: ACM Press, pp. 227–243.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rada, Roy (1990): Hypertext Writing and Document Reuse: the Role of a Semantic Net.Electronic Publishing, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 3–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rada, Roy, Mahmoud Mhashi and Judith Barlow (1990): Hierarchical Semantic Nets Support Retrieving and Generating Hypertext.Information and Decision Technologies, vol. 16, pp. 117–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rada, Roy, Akmal Zeb, Geeng-Neng You, Antonios Michailidis and Mahmoud Mhashi (1991): Collaborative Hypertext and the MUCH System.Journal of Information Science: Principles & Practice, vol. 17, pp. 191–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rada, Roy (1991):Hypertext: From Text to Expertext. London: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schriver, Karen A. (1989): Evaluating Text Quality: The Continuum From Text-Focused to Reader-Focused Methods.IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 238–255.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumacher, Gary M. and Robert Waller (1985): Testing Design Alternatives: A Comparison of Procedures. InDesigning Usable Texts, eds. Thomas M. Duffy and Robert Waller. Academic Press, pp. 377–403.

  • Sharples, Mike (1993): Introduction. InComputer Supported Collaborative Writing, ed. M. Sharples. Springer-Verlag.

  • Silverman, Barry G. (1992): Human-Computer Collaboration.Human-Computer Interaction, vol. 7, pp. 165–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sternglass, Marilyn S. (1981): Assessing Reading, Writing, and Reasoning?.College English, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 269–275.

    Google Scholar 

  • Streitz, Norbert (1993): The Role of Hypermedia for CSCW Applications: H1 Tutorial Notes-The Role of Hypermedia for CSCW Applications. InThird European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work ECSCW' 93, 13–17 September 1993, Milano, Italy, New York: ACM Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thüring, Manfred, Jörg M. Haake and Jörg Hannemann (1991): What's Eliza doing in the Chinese Room? Incoherent hyperdocuments-and how to avoid them. InHypertext '91 Proceedings, pp. 161–177.

  • Trigg, Randal H. (1988): Guided Tours and Tabletops: Tools for Communicating in a Hypertext Environment. InProceedings of the Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work-CSCW88, Portland, Oregon pp. 216–226.

  • Urquijo, Silvia Ponguta, Stephen A. R. Scrivener and Hilary K. Palmén (1993): The Use of Breakdown Analysis in Synchronous CSCW System Design. InProceedings of the Third European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (ECSCW' 93), 13–17 September, Milan, Italy, pp. 281–293.

  • Williams, Noel (1991):The Computer, the Writer and the Learner. Springer-Verlag.

  • Williamson, Michael M. and Penny Pence (1989): Word Processing and Student Writers. InComputer Writing Environments: Theory, Research & Design, eds. Bruce K. Britton and Shawn M. Glynn. LEA, pp. 93–127.

  • Wilson, Patrick (1993): Communication Efficiency in Research and Development.Journal of the American Society for Information Science, vol. 44, no. 7, pp. 376–382.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winograd, T. and Flores, F. (1986):Understanding Computers and Cognition: A New Foundation for Design. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, Patricia (1982): Is Evaluation a Myth? Assessing Text Assessment Procedures. InThe Technology of Text, Volume Two, ed. David H. Jonassen. Educational Technology Publications, pp. 418–435.

  • Wright, Patricia (1985): Editing: Policies and Processes. InDesigning Usable Texts, eds. Thomas M. Duffy and Robert Waller. Academic Press, pp. 63–96.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, University of Liverpool, L69 3BX, Liverpool, UK

    Antonios Michailidis & Roy Rada

Authors
  1. Antonios Michailidis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Roy Rada
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Michailidis, A., Rada, R. Comparative study on the effects of groupware and conventional technologies on the efficiency of collaborative writing. Comput Supported Coop Work 3, 327–357 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00750745

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00750745

Key words

Search

Navigation