Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

One for all and all for one - towards a framework for collaboration support systems

  • Published:
Education and Information Technologies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To reach their goals, companies are on a never-ending search to find new methods for innovation. In order to tackle the complex problems, which cannot be solved by a single person, the implementation of teamwork is assumed to be applicable. With this paper, we propose a framework for Collaboration Support Systems, which aims to enhance team performance. We outline the differences between teams and groups and examine collective processes that on the one hand benefit from additional knowledge and mutual stimulation, but on the other hand are negatively influenced by various cognitive and social factors. With basic principles of collaboration, we seek to tackle the negative effects of team performance and try to further enhance the benefits of collective work. In this context, we analyzed group support systems and unified research and practice of various disciplines (like collaborative problem-solving, collaborative decision making, collaborative creativity and collaborative learning), in order to develop a framework for Collaboration Support Systems. Our paper addresses on-going topics (like anonymity in collaboration systems) and presents design principles for software engineers. Based on a comprehensive literature analysis, we introduce several principles and aspects for collaboration systems that can help to better understand collaboration in teams. However, to thoroughly understand the phenomenon of digital collaboration, further research is needed.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  • Alrushiedat, N., & Olfman, L. (2012). Anchored asynchronous online discussions: Facilitating participation and engagement in a blended environment. In: 2012 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Science (HICSS). Presented at the 2012 45th Hawaii international conference on system science (HICSS), January, pp. 11–20. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2012.113.

  • Axelrod, R., & Hamilton, W. D. (1981). The evolution of cooperation. Science, 211(4489), 1390–1396. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7466396.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Barczak, G., Lassk, F., & Mulki, J. (2010). Antecedents of team creativity: An examination of team emotional intelligence, team trust and collaborative culture. Creativity and Innovation Management, 19(4), 332–345. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8691.2010.00574.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barki, H., & Pinsonneault, A. (2001). Small group brainstorming and idea quality is electronic brainstorming the most effective approach? Small Group Research, 32(2), 158–205. https://doi.org/10.1177/104649640103200203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bawden, D. (1986). Information systems and the stimulation of creativity. Journal of Information Science, 12(5), 203–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/016555158601200501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, S. (2004). Supporting collaborative project teams using computer-based technologies. Online Collaborative Learning: Theory and Practice, 1–27.

  • Berge, Z. L., & Collins, M. P. (1995). Computer mediated communication and the online classroom: Distance learning. Cresskill: Hampton Press.

  • Bijlsma, K., & Koopman, P. (2003). Introduction: Trust within organisations. Personnel Review, 32(5), 543–555. https://doi.org/10.1108/00483480310488324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blau, P. (1977). Inequality and heterogeneity: A primitive theory of social structure. New York: Macmillan Co..

    Google Scholar 

  • Bligh, D. A. (1998). What’s the use of lectures? Eastbourne: Intellect Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bodemer, D., & Dehler, J. (2011). Group awareness in CSCL environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(3), 1043–1045. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.07.014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowers, C. A., Pharmer, J. A., & Salas, E. (2000). When member homogeneity is needed in work teams: A meta-analysis. Small Group Research, 31(3), 305–327. https://doi.org/10.1177/104649640003100303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradley, J. H., & Hebert, F. J. (1997). The effect of personality type on team performance. Journal of Management Development, 16(5), 337–353. https://doi.org/10.1108/02621719710174525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brewer, M. B. (1979). In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive-motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86(2), 307–324. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Briggs, R., Reinig, B., & de Vreede, G.-J. (2008). The yield shift theory of satisfaction and its application to the IS/IT domain. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 9(5), 267–293 Available at http://aisel.aisnet.org/jais/vol9/iss5/14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruffee, K. A. (1999). Collaborative learning: Higher education, interdependence, and the authority of knowledge. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

  • Bunderson, J. S., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2002). Comparing alternative conceptualizations of functional diversity in management teams: Process and performance effects. The Academy of Management Journal, 45(5), 875–893. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bunnin, N., & Yu, J. (2007). The Blackwell dictionary of western philosophy. Hoboken: Blackwell Publishing Inc.

  • Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Salas, E., & Converse, S. (1993). Shared mental models in expert team decision making. Individual and Group Decision Making: Current Issues, 221, 221–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chae, S. W., Seo, Y. W., & Lee, K. C. (2015). Task difficulty and team diversity on team creativity: Multi-agent simulation approach. Computers in Human Behavior, Digital creativity: New frontier for research and practice, 42, 83–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.032.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Reichenbacher, L. (2008). Effects of personality and threat of evaluation on divergent and convergent thinking. Journal of Research in Personality, 42(4), 1095–1101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2007.12.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, F., Zhang, L., & Latimer, J. (2014). How much has my co-worker contributed? The impact of anonymity and feedback on social loafing in asynchronous virtual collaboration. International Journal of Information Management, 34(5), 652–659. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2014.05.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chester, A., and Gwynne, G. 1998. Online teaching: Encouraging collaboration through anonymity. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 4(2), pp. 0. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.1998.tb00096.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23(3), 239–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639702300303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Connolly, T., Jessup, L. M., & Valacich, J. S. (1990). Effects of anonymity and evaluative tone on idea generation in computer-mediated groups. Management Science, 36(6), 689–703. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.36.6.689.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Connolly, T., Routhieaux, R. L., & Schneider, S. K. (1993). On the effectiveness of group brainstorming test of one underlying cognitive mechanism. Small Group Research, 24(4), 490–503. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496493244004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Vreede, T., Boughzala, I., de Vreede, G., & Reiter-Palmon, R. (2012). A model and exploratory field study on team creativity. In: 2012 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Science (HICSS) (pp. 227–236). Presented at the 2012 45th Hawaii international conference on system science (HICSS), January. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2012.66.

  • De Wit, F. R., Greer, L. L., & Jehn, K. A. (2012). The paradox of intragroup conflict: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(2), 360–390. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024844.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dennen, V. P. (2000). Task structuring for on-line problem based learning: A case study. Educational Technology & Society, 3(3), 329–336.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennis, A. R., Aronson, J. E., Heninger, W. G., & Walker II, E. D. (1999). Structuring time and task in electronic brainstorming. MIS Quarterly, 23(1), 95–108. https://doi.org/10.2307/249411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1987). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(3), 497–509. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.53.3.497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1991). Productivity loss in idea-generating groups: Tracking down the blocking effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(3), 392–403. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.61.3.392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillenbourg, P. 1999. What do you mean by collaborative learning. Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and computational approaches, 1, pp. 1–15.

  • Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M. J., Blaye, A., & O’Malley, C. (1995). The evolution of research on collaborative learning. Oxford: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Druskat, V. U., & Wolff, S. B. (2001). Group emotional intelligence and its influence on group effectiveness. In: The emotionally intelligent workplace: How to select for, measure, and improve emotional intelligence in individuals, groups and organizations (pp. 132–155).

  • Earley, P. C., & Mosakowski, E. (2000). Creating hybrid team cultures: An empirical test of transnational team functioning. The Academy of Management Journal, 43(1), 26–49. https://doi.org/10.2307/1556384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, C. R., & Dion, K. L. (2012). Group cohesion and performance: A meta-analysis. Small Group Research, 43(6), 690–701. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496412468074.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finke, R. A., Ward, T. B., & Smith, S. M. (1996). Creative cognition: Theory, research, and applications. Cambridge: A Bradford Book.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forés, B., & Camisón, C. (2016). Does incremental and radical innovation performance depend on different types of knowledge accumulation capabilities and organizational size? Journal of Business Research, 69(2), 831–848. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.07.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forsyth, D. R. (2014). Group dynamics (6th ed.). Wadsworth Cengage Learning: Belmont.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gabriel, A., Monticolo, D., Camargo, M., & Bourgault, M. (2016). Creativity support systems: A systematic mapping study. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 21, 109–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2016.05.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallupe, R. B., Dennis, A. R., Cooper, W. H., Valacich, J. S., Bastianutti, L. M., & Nunamaker, J. F. (1992). Electronic brainstorming and group size. Academy of Management Journal, 35(2), 350–369. https://doi.org/10.2307/256377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerosa, M. A., Pimentel, M., Fuks, H., & de Lucena, C. J. P. (2006). Development of groupware based on the 3C collaboration model and component technology. In Y. A. Dimitriadis, I. Zigurs, & E. Gómez-Sánchez (Eds.), Groupware: Design, implementation, and use, lecture notes in computer science (pp. 302–309). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/11853862_24.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Golbeck, J. (2009). Trust and Nuanced Profile Similarity in Online Social Networks. ACM Transactions on the Web, 3(4), 12:1–12:33. https://doi.org/10.1145/1594173.1594174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gross, T., Stary, C., & Totter, A. (2005). User-centered awareness in computer-supported cooperative work-systems: Structured embedding of findings from social sciences. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 18(3), 323–360. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327590ijhc1803_5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gulati, R., Wohlgezogen, F., & Zhelyazkov, P. (2012). The two facets of collaboration: Cooperation and coordination in strategic alliances. The Academy of Management Annals, 6(1), 531–583. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2012.691646.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In J. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hackman, J. R., & Morris, C. G. (1975). Group tasks, group interaction process, and group performance effectiveness: A review and proposed integration. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 8(C), 45–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60248-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., & Bell, M. P. (1998). Beyond relational demography: Time and the effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on work group cohesion. The Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 96–107. https://doi.org/10.2307/256901.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., Gavin, J. H., & Florey, A. T. (2002). Time, teams, and task performance: Changing effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on group functioning. The Academy of Management Journal, 45(5), 1029–1045. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayen, R. L., Swaby, S. A., & Huang, Z. (2007). Use of group support systems in today’s society. Issues in Information Systems, 8(2), 120–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helpman, E. (2010). The Mystery of Economic Growth. Cambridge; London: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T. M. (2010). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 61(1), 569–598. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hilliges, O., Terrenghi, L., Boring, S., Kim, D., Richter, H., & Butz, A. (2007). Designing for collaborative creative problem solving. In Proceedings of the 6th ACM SIGCHI conference on creativity & cognition (pp. 137–146). New York: ACM.

  • Hiltz, S. R. (1998). Collaborative learning in asynchronous learning networks: Building learning communities. In Proceedings of the WebNet 98 World Conference of the WWW. Orlando, USA.

  • Hoever, I. J., van Knippenberg, D., van Ginkel, W. P., & Barkema, H. G. (2012). Fostering team creativity: Perspective taking as key to unlocking diversity’s potential. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(5), 982–996. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hord, S. M. (1981). Working together: Cooperation or collaboration? Available at http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED226450.

  • Hosack, I. (2004). The effects of anonymous feedback on Japanese university students’ attitudes towards peer review. Language and its Universe, 3, 297–322.

  • Humphreys, P., & Jones, G. (2006). The evolution of group decision support systems to enable collaborative authoring of outcomes. World Futures, 62(3), 193–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/02604020500509546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huttner, J.-P., & Robra-Bissantz, S. (2016). A design science approach to high immersive mnemonic e-learning. MCIS 2016 proceedings. Available at http://aisel.aisnet.org/mcis2016/28.

  • Jehn, K. A., Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. (1999). Why differences make a difference: A field study of diversity, conflict and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(4), 741–763.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jessup, L. M., Connolly, T., & Galegher, J. (1990). The effects of anonymity on GDSS group process with an idea-generating task. MIS Quarterly, 14(3), 313–321. https://doi.org/10.2307/248893.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1985). Relationships between black and white students in intergroup cooperation and competition. The Journal of Social Psychology, 125(4), 421–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina: Interaction Book Company.

  • Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1998). Active learning: Cooperation in the college classroom. Edina: Interaction Book Company.

  • Johnson, T. E., Lee, Y., Lee, M., O’Connor, D. L., Khalil, M. K., & Huang, X. (2007). Measuring Sharedness of team-related knowledge: Design and validation of a shared mental model instrument. Human Resource Development International, 10(4), 437–454. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678860701723802.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kallookaran, M., & Robra-Bissantz, S. (2016). Using gamification to decrease anonymity in larger learning environments. AMCIS 2016 proceedings. Available at http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2016/ISEdu/Presentations/1.

  • Kallookaran, M., & Robra-Bissantz, S. (2017). Reaching beyond the classroom through the use of push notifications, January 4. Available at http://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/handle/10125/41167.

  • Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(4), 681–706. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.4.681.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1997). The effects of group cohesiveness on social loafing and social compensation. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 1(2), 156–168. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2699.1.2.156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (2001). Understanding individual motivation in groups: The collective effort model. Groups at Work: Theory and Research (pp. 113–14). London: Psychology Press.

  • Kasper-Fuehrera, E. C., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2001). Communicating trustworthiness and building trust in interorganizational virtual organizations. Journal of Management, 27(3), 235–254. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630102700302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, N. L. (1983). Motivation losses in small groups: A social dilemma analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(4), 819–828. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.4.819.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, N. L., & Bruun, S. E. (1982). Dispensability of member effort and group motivation losses: Free-rider effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 78–94. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kozlowski, S., & Bell, B. (2008). Team learning, development, and adaptation. Articles and chapters. Available at http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/articles/419.

  • Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A., & Jochems, W. (2003). Identifying the pitfalls for social interaction in computer-supported collaborative learning environments: A review of the research. Computers in Human Behavior, 19(3), 335–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0747-5632(02)00057-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kung, H., & Schmid, L. (2015). Innovation, growth, and asset prices. The Journal of Finance, 70(3), 1001–1037. https://doi.org/10.1111/jofi.12241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laal, M., & Ghodsi, S. M. (2012). Benefits of collaborative learning. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31, 486–490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lamprecht, J., Siemon, D., & Robra-Bissantz, S. (2016). Cooperation isn’t just about doing the same thing – Using personality for a cooperation-recommender-system in online social networks. In Collaboration and technology (pp. 131–138). Presented at the CYTED-RITOS international workshop on groupware, springer, Cham, September 14. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44799-5_10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawler, E. J., Thye, S. R., & Yoon, J. (2000). Emotion and group cohesion in productive exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 106(3), 616–657.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leana, C. R., & van Buren, H. J. (1999). Organizational social capital and employment practices. The Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 538–555. https://doi.org/10.2307/259141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lim, B.-C., & Klein, K. J. (2006). Team mental models and team performance: A field study of the effects of team mental model similarity and accuracy. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(4), 403–418. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Link, G. J., Siemon, D., de Vreede, G.-J., & Robra-Bissantz, S. (2016). Anchored discussion: Development of a tool for creativity in online collaboration. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 22(10), 1339–1359.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipnack, J., & Stamps, J. (1997). Virtual teams: Reaching across space, time, and organizations with technology. Hoboken: Jeffrey Stamps.

  • Mamykina, L., Candy, L., & Edmonds, E. (2002). Collaborative creativity. Communications of the ACM, 45(10), 96–99. https://doi.org/10.1145/570907.570940.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Massetti, B. (1996). An empirical examination of the value of creativity support systems on idea generation. MIS Quarterly, 20(1), 83–97. https://doi.org/10.2307/249543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mattessich, P. W., & Monsey, B. R. (1992). Collaboration: What makes it work. A review of research literature on factors influencing successful collaboration., Amherst H. Wilder Foundation, 919 Lafond, St. Paul, MN 55104. Available at http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED390758.

  • McComb, M. (1994). Benefits of computer-mediated communication in college courses. Communication Education, 43(2), 159–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634529409378973.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGrath, R. G. (2001). Exploratory learning, innovative capacity and managerial oversight. The Academy of Management Journal, 44(1), 118–131. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McInnerney, J. M., & Roberts, T. S. (2004). Collaborative or cooperative learning. Online Collaborative Learning: Theory and Practice ( pp. 203–214). Hershey: Idea Group Inc.

  • Milliken, F., & Martins, L. (1996). Searching for Common Threads: Understanding the Multiple Effects of Diversity in Organizational Groups. The Academy of Management Review, 21(2), 402-433.

  • Miyazoe, T. (2011). Anonymity in blended learning: Who would you like to be? Educational Technology & Society, 14(2), 175–187.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morschheuser, B., Hamari, J., Werder, K., & Abe, J. (2017). How to gamify? A method for designing gamification. In Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Kaua’i, USA.

  • Mullen, B., Johnson, C., & Salas, E. (1991). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: A meta-analytic integration. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 12(1), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp1201_1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Müller-Wienbergen, F., Müller, O., Seidel, S., & Becker, J. (2011). Leaving the beaten tracks in creative work – A design theory for systems that support convergent and divergent thinking. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 12(11), 2 Available at http://aisel.aisnet.org/jais/vol12/iss11/2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nakakoji, K. (2005). Seven issues for creativity support tool researchers. Creativity support tools. Available at http://www.cs.umd.edu/hcil/CST/creativitybook_final.pdf#page=74.

  • Nelson, K. M., & Cooprider, J. G. (1996). The contribution of shared knowledge to IS group performance. MIS Quarterly, 20(4), 409–432. https://doi.org/10.2307/249562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newell, S., Tansley, C., & Huang, J. (2004). Social capital and knowledge integration in an ERP project team: The importance of bridging AND bonding. British Journal of Management, 15(S1), S43–S57. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2004.00405.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nijstad, B. A., & Stroebe, W. (2006). How the group affects the mind: A cognitive model of idea generation in groups. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(3), 186–213. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nunamaker Jr., J. F., Applegate, L. M., & Konsynski, B. R. (1987). Facilitating group creativity: Experience with a group decision support system. Journal of Management Information Systems, 3(4), 5–19 Available at http://www.jstor.org/stable/41432876.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nunamaker, J. F., Dennis, A. R., Valacich, J. S., Vogel, D., & George, J. F. (1991). Electronic meeting systems. Communications of the ACM, 34(7), 40–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nunamaker Jr., J. F., Briggs, R. O., Mittleman, D. D., Vogel, D. R., & Balthazard, P. A. (1996). Lessons from a dozen years of group support systems research: A discussion of lab and field findings. Journal of Management Information Systems, 13(3), 163–207 Available at http://www.jstor.org/stable/40398233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olguín, C. J. M., Delgado, A. L. N., & Ricarte, I. L. M. (2000). An agent infrastructure to set collaborative environments. Educational Technology & Society, 3(3), 65–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Panitz, T. (1999). Benefits of cooperative learning in relation to student motivation. In: Motivationfrom within: Approaches for encouraging faculty and students to excel, New directions for teaching and learning. San Francisco, CA.

  • Panitz, T., & Panitz, P. (1999). Assessing students and yourself using the one minute paper and observing students working cooperatively.

  • Paulus, P. B. (1989). Psychology of group influence: Second edition. London: Psychology Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Paulus, P. (2000a). Groups, teams, and creativity: The creative potential of idea-generating groups. Applied Psychology, 49(2), 237–262. https://doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paulus, P. (2000b). Groups, teams, and creativity: The creative potential of idea-generating groups. Applied Psychology, 49(2), 237–262. https://doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paulus, P. B., & Nijstad, B. A. (2009). Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paulus, P. B., Dzindolet, M., & Kohn, N. W. (2012). Collaborative creativity - group creativity and team innovation. In Handbook of organizational creativity (pp. 327–357). San Diego: Academic Press Available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780123747143000148.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Xin, K. R. (1999). Exploring the black box: An analysis of work group diversity, conflict, and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.2307/2667029.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pirola-Merlo, A., & Mann, L. (2004). The relationship between individual creativity and team creativity: Aggregating across people and time. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(2), 235–257. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Proctor, R. A. (1993). A creative decision support system. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 14(2), 13–17. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437739310032674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Randrup, N., Druckenmiller, D., & Briggs, R. O. (2016). Philosophy of Collaboration. In: 2016 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS). Presented at the 2016 49th Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS), Kauai. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2016.115.

  • Redlich, B., Siemon, D., Lattemann, C., & Robra-Bissantz, S. (2017). Shared mental models in creative virtual teamwork. In Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Kaua’i, USA.

  • Resnick, M., Myers, B., Nakakoji, K., Shneiderman, B., Pausch, R., Selker, T., & Eisenberg, M. (2005). Design principles for tools to support creative thinking. Institute for Software Research. Available at http://repository.cmu.edu/isr/816.

  • Riconscente, M. M. (2013). Results from a controlled study of the iPad fractions game motion math. Games and Culture, 8(4), 186–214. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555412013496894.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riordan, C. M., & Shore, L. M. (1997). Demographic diversity and employee attitudes: An empirical examination of relational demography within work units. Journal of applied psychology, 82(3), 342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, T. S., & McInnerney, J. M. (2007). Seven problems of online group learning (and their solutions). Educational Technology & Society, 10(4), 257–268.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. D. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In Computer supported collaborative learning (pp. 69–97). Heidelberg: Spring.

  • Salzman, M. C., Dede, C., Loftin, R. B., & Chen, J. (1999). A model for understanding how virtual reality aids complex conceptual learning. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 8(3), 293–316 Available at http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/105474699566242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santanen, E. L., Briggs, R. O., & de Vreede, G. (2000). The cognitive network model of creativity: A new causal model of creativity and a new brainstorming technique. In: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2000. Presented at the proceedings of the 33rd annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences, 2000, January, p. 10 Pp. vol. 1. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2000.926895.

  • Santanen, E. L., Briggs, R. O., & Vreede, G.-J. D. (2004). Causal relationships in creative problem solving: Comparing facilitation interventions for ideation. Journal of Management Information Systems, 20(4), 167–198 Available at http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1277672.1277680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sawyer, R. K., & DeZutter, S. (2009). Distributed creativity: How collective creations emerge from collaboration. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 3(2), 81–92. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seidel, S., Müller-Wienbergen, F., & Becker, J. (2010). The concept of creativity in the information systems discipline: Past, present, and prospects. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 27(1) available at http://aisel.aisnet.org/cais/vol27/iss1/14.

  • Shen, S.-T., Prior, S. D., White, A. S., & Karamanoglu, M. (2007). Using personality type differences to form engineering design teams. Engineering Education, 2(2), 54–66 Available at http://www.engsc.ac.uk/journal/index.php/ee/article/view/63/99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shepherd, M. M., Briggs, R. O., Reinig, B. A., Yen, J., & Nunamaker Jr., J. F. (1995). Invoking social comparison to improve electronic brainstorming: Beyond anonymity. Journal of Management Information Systems, 12(3), 155–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.1995.11518095.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shneiderman, B. (2007). Creativity support tools: Accelerating discovery and innovation. Communications of the ACM, 50(12), 20–32. https://doi.org/10.1145/1323688.1323689.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simons, T., Pelled, L. H., & Smith, K. A. (1999). Making use of difference: Diversity, debate, and decision comprehensiveness in top management teams. The Academy of Management Journal, 42(6), 662–673. https://doi.org/10.2307/256987.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slavin, R. E. (1980). Cooperative learning. Review of Educational Research, 50(2), 315–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Somech, A., & Drach-Zahavy, A. (2013). Translating team creativity to innovation implementation the role of team composition and climate for innovation. Journal of Management, 39(3), 684–708. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310394187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stockleben, B., Thayne, M., Jäminki, S., Haukijärvi, I., Mavengere, N. B., Demirbilek, M., & Ruohonen, M. (2016). Towards a framework for creative online collaboration: A research on challenges and context. Education and Information Technologies, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-016-9483-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stumpf, S. A., & Dunbar, R. L. M. (1991). The effects of personality type on choices made in strategic decision situations*. Decision Sciences, 22(5), 1047–1072. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1991.tb01906.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tajfel, H. (1974). Social identity and intergroup behaviour. Information (International Social Science Council), 13(2), 65–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, A., & Greve, H. R. (2006). Superman or the fantastic four? Knowledge combination and experience in innovative teams. The Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 723–740. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159795.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, D. M., & Bostrom, R. P. (2007). The role of a shared mental model of collaboration technology in facilitating knowledge work in virtual teams, p. 37. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2007.552.

  • Tinto, V. (1997). Enhancing learning via community. Thought & Action, 13(1), 53–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tinzmann, M., Jones, B. F., Fennimore, T., Bakker, J., Fine, C., & Pierce, J. (1990). What is the collaborative classroom. In Proceedings of NCREL. Oak Brook, USA.

  • Tiwana, A., & McLean, E. R. (2005). Expertise integration and creativity in information systems development. Journal of Management Information Systems, 22(1), 13–43 Available at http://www.jstor.org/stable/40398757.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Townsend, A. M., DeMarie, S. M., & Hendrickson, A. R. (1998). Virtual teams: Technology and the workplace of the future. The Academy of Management Executive, 12(3), 17–29. https://doi.org/10.5465/AME.1998.1109047.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Hoboken: Basil Blackwell.

  • Valacich, J. S., Dennis, A. R., Jessup, L. M., & Nunamaker, J. J. F. (1992a). A conceptual framework of anonymity in group support systems. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 1992, (Vol. iv) (pp. 101–112). Presented at the Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 1992, January, vol. 4. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.1992.183415.

  • Valacich, J. S., Dennis, A. R., & Nunamaker, J. F. (1992b). Group size and anonymity effects on computer-mediated idea generation. Small Group Research, 23(1), 49–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496492231004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Homan, A. C. (2004). Work group diversity and group performance: An integrative model and research agenda. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 1008–1022. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.1008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voigt, M., & Bergener, K. (2013). Enhancing creativity in groups – proposition of an integrated framework for designing group creativity support systems. In: 2013 46th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) (pp. 225–234). Presented at the 2013 46th Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS), January. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2013.195.

  • Voigt, D.-W.-I. M., Bergener, K., & Becker, P. D. J. (2013). Comprehensive support for creativity-intensive processes. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 5(4), 227–242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-013-0272-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Volkema, R. J., Ronald, H., & Gorman, R. H. (1998). The influence of cognitive-based group composition on decision-making process and outcome. Journal of Management Studies, 35(1), 105–121. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00086.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walther, J. B. (1997). Group and interpersonal effects in international computer-mediated collaboration. Human Communication Research, 23(3), 342–369. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1997.tb00400.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webber, S. S., & Donahue, L. M. (2001). Impact of highly and less job-related diversity on work group cohesion and performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 27(2), 141–162. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630102700202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weerawardena, J., & Mavondo, F. T. (2011). Capabilities, innovation and competitive advantage. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(8), 1220–1223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2011.10.012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wheelan, S. A. (2009). Group size, group development, and group productivity. Small Group Research, 40(2), 247–262. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496408328703.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, K., & O’Reilly, C. (1998). Demography and diversity in organizations: A review of 40 years of research. Research in Organizational Behavior, 20, 77–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ziegler, C.-N., & Golbeck, J. (2007). Investigating interactions of trust and interest similarity. Decision Support Systems, Emerging Issues in Collaborative Commerce, 43(2), 460–475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2006.11.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zigurs, I., & Buckland, B. K. (1998). A theory of task/technology fit and group support systems effectiveness. MIS Quarterly, 22(3), 313–334. https://doi.org/10.2307/249668.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für Wirtschaftsinformatik, Lehrstuhl für Informations Management, Technische Universität Braunschweig, Mühlenpfordtstraße 23, 38106, Braunschweig, Germany

    Dominik Siemon, Felix Becker, Linda Eckardt & Susanne Robra-Bissantz

Authors
  1. Dominik Siemon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Felix Becker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Linda Eckardt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Susanne Robra-Bissantz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dominik Siemon.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Siemon, D., Becker, F., Eckardt, L. et al. One for all and all for one - towards a framework for collaboration support systems. Educ Inf Technol 24, 1837–1861 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-017-9651-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-017-9651-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation