Suchergebnisse

PurposeThis paper aims to examine the development of trust during online collaboration. The purpose of the inquiry is to improve the understanding of individual trust development in longitudinal online collaboration teams.Design/methodology/approachThe paper reveals the conclusion of a longitudinal online collaboration case study of two student cohorts over a two‐year period, where each cohort is in their first year, based on a previous trust research model. However, the study is conducted in a new context through the implementation of online collaboration tools. Data is collected using longitudinal surveys and in‐depth interviews.FindingsThe paper demonstrates that trust development in different online collaboration groups does not follow a particular pattern in this case study. This development is characterised by fluctuation and complexity. Trust development does not attain the ideal state discussed in previous research and trust development is different within each team. The paper provides insight into the complexities of trust development in an online collaboration environment and information system understanding.Research limitations/implicationsThe paper demonstrates the findings regarding development features are context‐specific and have not been subjected to testing for replication within other settings. The authors intend this for future research.Practical implicationsThe observations will help team leaders to understand changes in trust. It will also aid system developers and designers to consider trust development features in future system design for online collaboration environment and tools.Originality/valueThe paper builds upon a previous trust development model but applies it to the context of online collaboration using student groups to analyse the findings over time.

PurposeThis paper seeks to examine the notion of trust as an enabler or restrictor to online engagement. The purpose of the inquiry is to improve knowledge acquisition within small businesses (SMEs) through engagement in an online network.Design/methodology/approachThe paper explains the outcomes from a three‐year long Action Research (AR) study into online participation utilising a purpose built Information and Communication Technology (ICT) based networking tool.FindingsThe paper finds that the overall notion of trust is deconstructed into component conditions, which are shown to represent conflicting priorities for individuals. These components are reconstructed to form a model that illustrates how trust needs to develop at the level of the individual for an online community to be formed. The paper provides an insight into the complexities of socio‐technological engagements in an online environment.Research limitations/implicationsThe paper shows that the proposed model is context‐specific and has not been subjected to testing for replicability within other settings.Practical implicationsThe model proposed in this paper is of use to Information System (IS) developers, helping to identify the reasons for participation or non‐participation in online networks/communities.Originality/valueThe paper builds upon existing theories, by applying an extended notion of trust incorporating interrelated individual factors, such as risk, interest, power and information utility, to the development of online communities.

The digital divide and exclusion from the knowledge society have become important subjects of government policy. This article compares online communities located in two UK housing estates. Both have relatively high levels of computer literacy but also significant numbers of novices and non-users. It is argued that one estate is achieving a higher level of inclusion because it combines teamwork with optimal levels of organizational slack. Further, this article discusses the optimal conditions for creating an information and communication technology (ICT) learning community and hence contribute to the debate on how best to overcome the digital divide. The possible implications of the findings are explored in terms of policy initiatives.