Abstract
A geographically dispersed department at the MITRE Corporation participated in a field test of groupware tools. This paper documents the results of their use of a group scheduling tool, Meeting Maker Version 1.5. Research in the late 1980s showed that early group scheduling tools were not useful, in part because they only benefited some users and hence critical mass could not be attained. This study was undertaken to determine whether and how far the tools have evolved. Participants said that Meeting Maker made it easy to schedule meetings and maintain their calendars, and 90% wished to continue using it after the study was complete. Problems were noted when not everyone used or had access to the tool, and three generic solutions are discussed: capabilities that allow users to communicate with non-users, capabilities that allow users to stay connected, and lightweight methods of participation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bullen, C. V. and J. L. Bennett (1990): In CSCW'90, Proceedings of the Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, Los Angeles, CA, USA, October 7-10. New York: ACM Press, pp. 291–302.
Ehrlich, S. F. (1987a): Social and Psychological Factors Influencing the Design of Office Communication Systems. In Proceedings of CHI + GI '87 (Human Factors in Computing Systems), Toronto, Canada. New York: ACM Press, pp. 323–329.
Ehrlich, S. F. (1987b): Strategies for Encouraging Successful Adoption of Office Communication Systems. ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 340–357.
Grudin, J. (1988): Why CSCW Applications Fail: Problems in the Design and Evaluation of Organizational Interfaces. In CSCW'88. Proceedings of the Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work. New York: ACM Press, pp. 552–560.
Grudin, J. (1994): Groupware and Social Dynamics: Eight Challenges for Developers. Communications of the ACM, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 92–105.
Grudin, J. and L. Palen (1995): Why Groupware Succeeds: Discretion or Mandate? In H. Marmolin, Y. Sundblad, and K. Schmidt (eds.): ECSCW'95, Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, Stockholm Sweden, September 10-14, pp. 263–278.
Kincaid, C. M., P. D. Dupont, and A. R. Kaye (1985): Electronic Calendars in the Office: An Assessment of User Needs and Current Technology. ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 89–102.
Kraut, R. E., R. E. Rice, C. Cool, and R. S. Fish (1994): Life and Death of New Technology: Task, Utility and Social Influences on the Use of a Communication Medium. In CSCW'94. Proceedings of the Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, U.S.A., October 22-26. New York: ACM Press, pp. 13–22.
Lange, B. M. (1992): Electronic Group Calendaring: Experiences and Expectations. In Proceedings of Groupware '92. San Mateo: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, pp. 428–432.
McGrath, J. E. (1990): Time Matters in Groups. In Jolene Galegher, Robert E. Kraut, and Carmen Egido (eds.): Intellectual Teamwork: Social and Technological Foundations of Cooperative Work, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 23–62.
Rogers, E. M. (1983): Diffusion of Innovations. New York: The Free Press.
Tammaro, S. G., J. N. Mosier, N. C. Goodwin, and G. Spitz (1997): Collaborative Writing Is Hard to Support: A Field Study of Collaborative Writing. Computer Supported Cooperative Work: The Journal of Collaborative Computing, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 19–51.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mosier, J.N., Tammaro, S.G. When Are Group Scheduling Tools Useful?. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 6, 53–70 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008684204655
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008684204655