There is a long history of study to understand why work groups do or do not adopt new collaboration technologies. However, research has focused on only one technology. The underlying assumption is that work groups can adopt or not adopt that one technology based on that technology alone. In making this assumption, many researchers have failed to realize the importance of alternative technologies in the adoption process or the fact that groups can adopt more than one technology. To address this issue, we examined an attempt by a scientific research organization to have its work groups adopt a particular group-collaboration technology. Although the target technology was more than appropriate for the task and the organization provided all the resources needed for work groups to adopt the technology, it largely failed. This was in large part because of two alternative collaboration technologies that acted as substitutes.

There is a long history of study to understand of why work groups do or do not adopt new collaboration technologies. However, research has focused on only one technology. The underlying assumption is that work groups can adopt or not adopt that one technology based on that technology alone. In making this assumption, researchers may have failed to realize the importance of alternative technologies in the adoption process or the fact that groups can adopt more than one technology. To address this issue, we examined an attempt by a scientific research organization to have its work groups adopt a particular group-collaboration technology. Although the target technology was more than appropriate for the task and the organization provided all the resources needed for work groups to adopt the technology, it largely failed. This was in large part due to the incorporation of two alternative collaboration technologies that acted as substitutes.