Integrated Information System for Group Collaboration

Integrated Information System for Group Collaboration Chris Griffin 1, Dennis G. Watson 2, and Tony V. Harrison 3 1 Grambling State University, USA, griffinc@gram.edu 2 Southern Illinois University, USA, dwatson@siu.edu 3 JPT Integrated Solutions, Inc, USA, tonyh@fairpoint.net Abstract A group support system (GSS) was specified, implemented, and evaluated for usability and user satisfaction. An agricultural systems research team was seeking software solutions to improve accessibility of project information and provide a collaborative work space. Team members were initially interviewed to determine the desired features of the system. The GSS was primarily implemented using Microsoft products of Windows Server 2003, Windows SharePoint Services, and OneNote. SharePoint provided a web-based interface for discussion boards and file sharing and storage. OneNote was the client software used by team members to record project information and provided a means of sharing information via the SharePoint software. Team members were surveyed to evaluate system functionality, usability, and satisfaction. The majority of the group members responded positively to questions relating to use of the chosen system, indicating positive results in using GSS for the case study. Users were satisfied with GSS content over half the time, accuracy most of the time, and timeliness most of the time. Since this initial case study, 25 GSS have been implemented by the team co-leaders and other faculty. Keywords: collaboration, group collaboration, information systems, group support systems Introduction Project teams face challenges of effectively storing and sharing information among team members. Team projects often include division of project responsibilities while maintaining interdependence of the work of the team members. Without careful planning, information collected by a team member may be inaccessible to other team members at a critical time or even lost if an individual leaves the team. Group support system (GSS) is a term used to describe a collaborative workspace intended to maximize idea generation and information sharing within a group or team. As early as 1987, DeSanctis and Gallupe (1987) described the importance of GSS and group decision support systems, stating GSS combine communication, computer, and decision technologies to support problem formulation and solution in group meetings (p. 589). The researchers reported that these systems assisted in removing common barriers to information exchange, and could direct the pattern and content of discussions. In recent years, interest has increased in the function, importance and value of working in groups, of group decisionmaking and use of GSS (Gopal and Prasad, 2000). A decision-making group is described as a group where two or more people, who are jointly responsible for a problem or project, elaborate on the nature of the problem, generate possible solutions, and/or formulate strategies for implementing solutions. GSS are designed to assist in this process. Successful GSS reveal important information on the components that make GSS effective, both socially and technologically (DeSanctis and Gallupe, 1987; Gopal and Prasad, 2000; Dennis and Wixom, 2000). GSS teams may Vol(3) Journal of Information Technology in Agriculture 22

be hampered in situations where verbal communication is important. Groups in the decision-making stage need to communicate verbally to reach a shared understanding. In this stage, groups may take longer to make decisions when using GSS than when working in face-to-face groups. Some researchers have noted that video enabled collaboration tools allow GSS groups to have the advantages that decision-making, face-to-face groups experience. In contrast, GSS without video enabled collaboration, may be most useful when in the stage of generating ideas or engaging in brainstorming (Dennis and Wixom, 2000; Bose, 2003). The ability of members of a group to work well together and communicate successfully should be a consideration, perhaps before implementation of technology designed to promote GSS and project management (Gopal and Prasad, 2000). These researchers believed that GSS research may have become too technology-centered, when it is really social in nature. Dennis and Wixom (2000), DeSanctis and Gallupe (1987), and Bostrom et al. (1993) were in agreement with Gopal and Prasad (2000) and reported that one of the first and foremost factors of successful GSS use is the composition of the group itself and the ability to engage in effective social interaction. There are several considerations regarding the selection of tools for implementation of a GSS. One important consideration is the software s capabilities. Another consideration is whether a facilitator should be provided. Some GSS are best implemented with a facilitator, while some work well without monitoring. This may also be an effect of the stage of the group, the group members themselves or the function of the task or organization. It appeared that groups involved with the creation of ideas were most satisfied with the GSS format (Dennis and Wixom 2002; Fjermestad and Hiltz, 1999). The increasing capability of information systems has made it possible to design and build group support systems (GSS) for project management. GSS have been implemented using various software products. Bose (2003) described a GSS implemented using several Microsoft products that can be integrated to fulfill many collaborative needs. Bose discussed the positives and negatives of collaborative products and stated the disadvantage of this situation is that there are often overlapped capabilities and confusions in the product line, but the advantage is that many collaboration features are built into each product to catch all types of users (p. 652). Doll and Torkzadeh (1988) studied the satisfaction of users who had direct frequent interaction, through use of a particular computer application. They studied end-user computing satisfaction and conceptualized it as the affective attitude that a direct user has toward a specific computer application. They measured end-user computer satisfaction by examining satisfaction with content or features of the system, satisfaction with the accuracy of the system, and satisfaction with the format. The other constructs they examined were overall ease of use satisfaction and timeliness. They created a useful instrument, titled The Measurement of End-User Computing Satisfaction. The objectives of this case study were to determine the specific features desired for a GSS, implement the desired features, and evaluate the usability and user satisfaction of the GSS. The desired result was a GSS that supported and assisted project management, provided as many of the desired features as possible, promoted group cohesion, and resulted in high levels of group satisfaction. Although the GSS was implemented for a team of agricultural systems professors and graduate students collaborating on a research project, broader implications of this research include improving information management and decision-making for team projects of various groups. This study has implications for improving communication among group members and laying a foundation for improved efficiency of interdisciplinary and multi-institution projects. Procedures Implementation and evaluation of a GSS includes group selection, identification of desired features, software implementation and GSS evaluation. This section describes these procedures. Vol(3) Journal of Information Technology in Agriculture 23

The group primarily consisted of two professors and two graduate students. They were assisted by a part-time researcher and three undergraduate assistants. The two professors had a fourteen year history of working together in academia and industry. Their prior research included development of electronic information systems for large volumes of technical information. These professors were very experienced computer users and sought electronic storage and retrieval solutions for information and data. A key strength of this team was the successful collaborative working relationship of the two professors, who were the co-leaders of the group. The graduate students and other team members became part of this collaborative team and were able to observe the collaborative model provided by the group co-leaders. This group met Gopal and Prasad s (2000) criteria of group members that work well together and communicate successfully. The co-leaders had experience developing electronic information systems and were familiar with some software offerings suitable for implementing a GSS. They were interviewed to determine the desired features of a GSS to support their research projects. The group leaders were asked to describe features they desired in a GSS and then to rank the features for priority in implementation. The desired features were implemented using Microsoft products due to availability of existing licenses. The coleaders had a subscription to the Microsoft Developer Network Academic Alliance (MSDNAA, 2004). This subscription included licenses of all Microsoft server and developer products. In addition, their university had a site license for Microsoft Office 2003 applications. These software products were used to implement the GSS. The server for the GSS was equipped with a single Intel Pentium 4 2.66 GHz processor with 512 MB cache and 533 MHz front side bus, 1 GB RAM, and 280 GB of hard drive space. The GSS users computers were configured with Microsoft Windows XP Professional operating system and Microsoft Office 2003 (including OneNote). After initial GSS software configuration, the co-leaders conducted a brief test of the features and recommended some user interface changes. After the changes were made, a training session was held to introduce the group members to the features and use of the GSS. The group members immediately began using the GSS to manage a research project. GSS evaluation consisted of two parts: a case study evaluation and a satisfaction evaluation. The case study evaluation consisted of nine open-ended questions and was implemented using the survey feature of WSS. The satisfaction survey was modeled after Doll and Torkzadeh s (1988) satisfaction survey and consisted of twelve questions using a five point Likert scale. The evaluation was conducted after the GSS had been in use for over three months. Results and Discussion The group co-leaders were interviewed to determine the key features required of a GSS for their projects. The desired features (see Table 1) included discussion boards, task lists and status, shared repository for various project notes and details in a shared location, file and photo storage, links to e-mail messages, and remote access to GSS via the Internet. As mentioned in the introduction, user preferences are an important component of successful use and satisfaction. Vol(3) Journal of Information Technology in Agriculture 24

Table 1. Desired Features of GSS and Software Used for Implementation. Desired Features Implementation Software Discussion boards Task lists and status Repository for various project notes and details File and photo storage Link to e-mail messages Accessible via Internet SharePoint SharePoint SharePoint and OneNote SharePoint SharePoint and Outlook SharePoint The GSS server was configured with Microsoft Windows Server 2003, SQL Server 2000, and Windows SharePoint Services. Table 1 lists the software used to implement each feature. Each member of the team was added as a user at the contributor level and one of the co-leaders was added as an administrator. Windows SharePoint Services (WSS) provided the collaborative working environment to implement the GSS features. WSS integrated with Windows Server 2003 and Office 2003. Key features of WSS were discussion boards, task assignment and tracking, and a shared-documents section for storing and sharing files and photographs. E-mail messages could be copied from Outlook to the shared documents of WSS where they could be opened, replied to, and forwarded. Additional WSS features included a shared calendar that could be linked to Outlook, displaying of announcements, tracking contacts, administering of polls and surveys, and sending out notices. A collaborative site implemented with WSS could be accessed via a web page interface (see Figure 1). The default WSS template used a left-hand pane to serve as a directory to major site contents WSS allows site administrators to add document or picture libraries (essentially folders), lists of tasks and contacts, discussion groups, and surveys. WSS had its own file browsing interface (see Figure 2) or offered an Explorer view (see Figure 3). In addition, Windows Explorer could be used to browse the site hierarchy and files directly without opening a web browser (see Figure 4). Figure 1. Home page of SharePoint based GSS. Vol(3) Journal of Information Technology in Agriculture 25

Figure 2. SharePoint view of documents in lab engine tests library. Figure 3. Explorer view within SharePoint. Vol(3) Journal of Information Technology in Agriculture 26

Figure 4. View of project site via Windows Explorer software. GSS user s computers were configured with Microsoft OneNote 2003. Although the co-leaders originally specified discussion groups for the GSS, they were rarely used. OneNote 2003 had recently been released and was favored by the co-leaders as a tool for recording notes regarding their projects (see Figure 5). OneNote files were stored on the WSS web site. OneNote allowed users to read, add, and modify OneNote files directly from the web site, while providing notification and read-only access of files in use. A convenient feature of OneNote was the ability to drag and drop documents onto a OneNote page. OneNote copied the documents to the same folder as the OneNote file and created a link on the OneNote page (see Figure 5). Vol(3) Journal of Information Technology in Agriculture 27

Figure 5. OneNote page showing hierarchical outline and links to documents. Since the group worked out of the same suite of offices, it was convenient to hold face-to-face meetings and the discussion groups were not needed for discussion purposes. For groups separated by buildings or campuses, discussion groups may prove more useful. Case Study Evaluation After the GSS had been in use for over three months, five users responded to two survey instruments to provide an initial evaluation of the system. The first instrument was a case study evaluation consisting of nine questions. The first question asked whether the system helped in the formation of ideas. Sixty percent of the respondents said the system was helpful in idea generation, and forty percent believed it was not. Of those responding positively, members believed it had such qualities as assisting in forming cohesive thoughts and in helping store information efficiently. Those responding negatively did not believe it provided strong influence on idea formation, while some stated they were not involved in idea generation tasks. The second question asked whether the system was useful in the decision-making step. Again, sixty percent found it was somewhat useful in this step, and forty percent said it was not. The positive comments ranged from, "somewhat," to "absolutely." Some believed there were other means of making decisions. The negative responses were less about the system, and more about the student group members believing they were not involved in decision tasks. In one sense the GSS aided decision making by serving as a respository for information needed to make decisions. In another sense the group co-leaders had adjacent offices and found it more convenient to discuss project decisions. The third question asked whether the system helped with the organization of ideas and whether it easily allowed for changes and adaptations. One hundred percent of the respondents believed that it met these two criteria. Comments Vol(3) Journal of Information Technology in Agriculture 28

on this two part question included, the organizational aspects were good. The GSS was perceived as very convenient in organizing ideas and making changes, and members noted the ease with which files could be accessed. While WSS was perceived as a good method for sharing comments and files, some members thought it would be better if it would e-mail other users when something was updated. Actually this was a feature of WSS and was turned on for the member, but WSS sent an email every time a file was changed or added and the member soon requested that the feature be turned off. The fourth question inquired whether the respondents believed group members were able to complete tasks more efficiently than when not using a GSS. All respondents (100%) answered yes. Users believed it was easy to see what someone else had done and to make corrections. Members found it valuable to have data and OneNote files in one place. They noted the advantage of being able to share files. The fifth question asked whether the chosen software had the needed features. All answers (100%) were positive. One, however, was qualified with a somewhat, and wondered whether the features were actually responsible for accomplishing the tasks. Comments included how easy it was to use, how well it was laid out, how adaptable to changes, and how it had the advantage of storing information in OneNote files. One respondent mentioned a problem with knowing if Word or Excel files were open by another user. WSS allows additional users to open a file with read-only access if another user has it open, with the option to be notified when the first user has closed the file. When a user attempted to save a modified file, WSS would sometimes respond as if another user had the file open, when that was not the case. Users later learned that a document check-out feature should have been used to open documents for editing. The sixth question asked whether this was the first GSS system they had used, and if they had used another, was this one more or less useful. One hundred percent answered that they had never used another GSS system. The seventh question asked whether the participants believed they were able to stay on task more efficiently when using this system, when compared to doing the task without a GSS. Eighty percent believed they were, with twenty percent answering negatively. The negative comments included the belief that the focus to task could not be credited to the site, and that maybe if the whole system was used (message boards, etc.), the answer might be yes. Positive respondents believed that it was a very helpful to have all ideas, latest versions of files, vendor technical sheets, and quotes stored in the GSS for access by other group members. The eighth question asked whether the respondents believed they worked well with other members of the group. One hundred percent believed they did. The users believed successful GSS use depended on a user s willingness to use the system and ability to use the entire system to maximize its effectiveness. The ninth question asked group members to explain how important they believed working well together was to GSS success. All members believed it was very important. One mentioned that some balk at learning to use something they may not use regularly, but noted that such systems were being introduced more and more in the workplace. Users found it was important for members to have a good working relationship and mutual commitment, as primary communication was done via computer. They believed communication was a major component with any group project, and without communication, both the project and GSS would fail. The majority of the group members responded positively to questions relating to use of the chosen system. In this small study, there is indication of positive results in using GSS for the case study. Satisfaction Evaluation Even when a GSS meets the needs of the group or organization, if the system is to be effective, those using it should have the perception that it is easy to use. This will increase the likelihood that the system will be used voluntarily and without constraint, and should improve the level of end-user satisfaction (Doll and Torkzadeh, 1988). DeSanctis and Gallupe (1987) noted another factor that impacts satisfaction. They reported that the more changes a chosen technology imposes on the group, the greater the impact on perception, satisfaction, and outcomes. Vol(3) Journal of Information Technology in Agriculture 29

Doll and Torkzadeh (1988) created the The Measurement of End-User Computing Satisfaction instrument, which was used as a measure of satisfaction for this study. The questions are listed in table 2 with descriptive statistics. This instrument used a Likert-type scale which ranged from 1 (almost never) to 5 (almost always). This instrument indicated on three sections that respondents were satisfied with the GSS most of the time, and on two sections that they were satisfied about half the time. Table 2. Descriptive Statistics for End-user Computing Satisfaction Survey Question Mean Median 1. Does the system provide the precise information you need? 4.00 4.00 2. Does the information content meet your needs? 3.75 4.00 3. Does the system provide reports that seem to be just about 2.75 4.00 exactly what you need? 4. Does the system provide sufficient information? 3.50 4.00 5. Is the system accurate? 4.00 4.00 6. Are you satisfied with the accuracy of the system? 4.00 4.00 7. Do you think the output is presented in a useful format? 4.00 4.00 8. Is the information clear? 4.00 4.00 9. Is the system user friendly? 2.75 3.00 10. Is the system easy to use? 3.25 3.00 11. Do you get the information you need in time? 3.75 4.00 12. Does the system provide up-to-date information? 4.25 4.00 Standard Deviation 0.00 0.50 0.96 1.00 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 The mean for the questions relating to content was 3.5, indicating that it was between almost half the time and most of the time. The mean for the questions regarding both accuracy and format was 4.0. This indicated that respondents were satisfied regarding these factors most of the time. The mean on the section on ease of use was 3.0, which was almost half the time, and the mean on the last section on timeliness was 4.0, or most of the time. A better measure of success of a GSS system may be its continued use and future applications beyond the initial study period. Since this initial study, the group co-leaders have continued to use a GSS system for their projects. For each new project, the original GSS template is duplicated to start a new GSS application. Currently, the group coleaders have 10 GSS sites in operation for research projects and 3 GSS sites for special course projects. Other faculty within the College of Agricultural Sciences have also adopted a GSS based on WSS for at least 12 research projects or courses. All GSS systems required a username and password for access. Faculty using a GSS for a course website may primarily use the file sharing and discussion features of the GSS. In two cases, faculty used a GSS to coordinate development of course content with a graduate student. The file sharing, task list, and scheduling were primarly used. Students in a design course made more extensive use of the GSS, The students divided the design and implementation responsibilities and each stored all related material on the GSS. The students used OneNote to keep a record of their activities. During weekly meetings, the students accessed the GSS to make reports on their progress. At any time, a student could review the progress of another to learn from the other student s work or review any updates to interface requirements between parts of the project. One GSS serves as a research library. Faculty and graduate students reviewing literature, save summaries of the articles in the GSS grouped by subject matter. Students in graduate readings and research methods courses have added to the library content. The full-text search feature of the GSS is very convenient and the GSS has become a starting point for new graduate students as they begin their literature review. Vol(3) Journal of Information Technology in Agriculture 30

Researchers cooperating on an extensive data analysis and modeling project used a GSS to store all project plans, data, statistical analysis reports, modeling software reports, SQL code, monthly project reports, budgets, and presentations. As one researcher completed initial statistical analysis and transformation of data, another researcher could review the reports and begin modeling. Besides the researchers, primary contacts from the sponsoring agency were given access to the GSS so they could monitor progress and results. In practice, the contacts from the sponsoring agency rarely accessed the GSS, but appreciated knowing they could, if desired. Conclusions A GSS was successfully implemented, to meet the needs of a project team, using Microsoft Server 2003, Windows SharePoint Services, and OneNote. The team found the combination of WSS and OneNote sufficient to meet their needs. Five members of the team responded to the case study evaluation and satisfaction evaluation and the results were positive. The group leaders have since recommended a similar GSS for research and teaching groups. Currently, 25 GSS based on WSS have been implemented in the College of Agricultural Sciences at Southern Illinois University. References Bose, R. 2003. Group support systems: technologies and product selection. Industrial Management & Data Systems 103(9): 649-656 Bostrum, R. P., R. Anson, and V. K. Clawson. 1993. Group facilitation and group support systems. Jessup, L.M. & Valacich, J.S. (eds.) Group Support Systems: New Perspectives. New York: McMillan. Dennis, A. R., and B. H. Wixom. 2002. Investigating the Moderators of the Group Support System Use with Meta- Analysis. Journal of Management Information Systems 18(3): 235-257. DeSanctis, G., and Gallupe, R. B. 1987. A Foundation for the Study of Group Decision Support Systems. Management Science. 33(5): 589-609. Doll, W. J., and G. Torkzadeh. 1988. The Measurement of End-User Computing Satisfaction. MIS Quarterly 12(2): 258-274. Fjermestad, J., and S. R. Hiltz. 2000. Group Support Systems: A Descriptive Evaluation of Case and Field Studies. Journal of Management Information Systems 17(3): 115-159. MSDNAA. 2004. MSDN Academic Alliance Developer Center. Redmond, CA: Microsoft. Available at www.msdnaa.net. Accessed 5 Jan 2004. OneNote 2003. 2003. Office OneNote 2003. Redmond, CA: Microsoft. Windows SharePoint Services. 2003. SharePoint Portal Server 2003. Redmond, CA: Microsoft. Windows Server 2003. 2003. Windows Server 2003. Redmond, CA: Microsoft. Vol(3) Journal of Information Technology in Agriculture 31