The Impact of Experience and Technology Change on Task-Technology Fit of a Collaborative Technology

This study continues a long running effort to examine collaborative writing and editing tools and the factors that impact Task-Technology Fit and Technology Acceptance. Previous studies found that MS Word/email performed better than technologies such as Twiki, Google Docs, and Office Live. The current study seeks to examine specifically the impact of experience on these outcomes. Fortuitously, during the course of the study, Office Live was redesigned and renamed as Office 365, thus also allowing the examination of tool characteristics. In contrast to previous studies, Google Docs and Office 365 now performed significantly better than MS Word/email on the outcome measures despite users having significantly more experience with the latter. We speculate that as users gain experience with tools that perform the collaborative writing and editing task differently than did past tools, they perceive that the old technology no longer fits the task as well and thus it performs lower on outcome measures. We also observed that even though the Word/email technology did not change during the time of the study, its scores went down, possibly due to users’ experience with newer technologies more suited to the task.


Introduction
This study continues an exploration by the authors of the factors that impact collaborative document creation and editing (Dishaw, Eierman, Iversen, & Philip, 2011, 2013).The study is important because on-line collaboration is becoming increasingly important to the function of organizations (Frost & Sullivan, 2006;Hertel, Geister, & Konradt, 2005) and is increasingly used in education (Brodahl, Hadjerrouit, & Hansen, 2011;Parker & Chao, 2007).Our previous studies used the TAM/TTF model (Dishaw & Strong, 1999) and a set of challenges for e-collaboration identified by Nosek & McManus (2008) as theoretical underpinnings to evaluate the studies' outcomes.
In the first study, we compared a collaborative task performed by virtual teams using Twiki (a version of a wiki) with the same task and virtual teams using a combination of Microsoft Word and email (Dishaw et al., 2011).Virtual teams consisted of undergraduate students working in groups of three completed the project.The results from 552 undergraduate students found that:

•
The perceived effort required to collaborate on the project was similar for the groups using Word/email and the groups using Twiki.

•
Task-Technology Fit was perceived to be better by the students using Word/email than the students using Twiki.

•
Students perceived Word/email to be more useful than Twiki.
• Students perceived Word/ email to be easier to use than Twiki.
Because the Twiki tool was designed to support collaborative work, while Word and email were adopted to support the collaborative task, it was somewhat surprising that the first three results showed that Word/email outperformed Twiki.It was not surprising to find that Word/email was easier to use.The Twiki tool had a relatively simple editing interface, typical of web editors of the time, whereas Word was a fully functional word • Task-Technology Fit: Word/email and Google Docs were perceived to have a better Task-Technology Fit than Twiki or Office Live with no perceived difference in fit between Word/email and Google Docs or between Twiki and Office Live.

•
Usefulness: Word/email was perceived to be more useful than any of the other technologies followed by Google Docs.We found no perceived difference in usefulness between Twiki and Office Live.

•
Ease of Use: Word/email was perceived to be easier to use than any of the other technologies followed by Google Docs.We found no perceived difference in perceived ease of use between Twiki and Office Live.

•
Effort to Collaborate: The effort to collaborate was perceived to be significantly higher with Office Live than with any of the other technologies.We found no difference in perceived effort to collaborate between Word/email, Google Docs, and Twiki.These results were evaluated using the TAM/TTF model and the e-collaboration challenges identified by Nosek & McManus (2008) to understand why they occurred.We proposed three possible explanations for these results.First, Office Live's poor showing is explained by Nosek & McManus (2008) e-collaboration challenge: conceptual (mental) model of performing the collaborative task.Office Live did not work as expected, and thus violated the user's mental model of the task.Second, MS Word/email performed better than the other technologies due to user experience, as predicted by the TAM/TTF model.User experience with MS Word/email is much higher than with the other technologies.Finally, to explain Google Docs' performance being close to that of MS Word/email, we postulated a "Compensatory Factor."Essentially, the explanation is that even though Word has a better editor, Docs has better support for collaboration; thus, they scored essentially the same on the TTF variables.However, because more time was spent writing and editing than collaborating, the outcome variables were impacted in favor of Word/email.
In the study at hand, we continue to explore these issues.This study was originally designed to specifically examine the role Tool Experience had on the outcomes of the second study.As luck would have it, during the three semesters that data was collected, Office Live had a complete renovation and became Office 365.This added the dimension of a change in Tool Functionality and enhanced the study's ability to gain insight into what was causing the results we were seeing.

TAM/TTF Model
This study uses the TAM/TTF model (Dishaw & Strong, 1999), the e-collaboration challenges identified by Nosek & McManus (2008), and our previous results as the theoretical basis for this examination.The TAM/TTF model (Figure 1) is a well-established extension to Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) (Davis, Bagozzi, & Warshaw, 1992;Venkatesh & Davis, 2000) and the Task-Technology Fit model (TTF) (Goodhue & Thompson, 1995) that has more explanatory power than either model alone (Dishaw & Strong, 1999) and has been used in over 100 studies to examine technology acceptance in a variety of settings.The TAM/TTF model suggests not only that ease of use and usefulness indirectly impact acceptance of a tool, but also that ease of use and usefulness acceptance tool on per

Challe
Previous r challenges process ch conceptual that limit continued examined collaborati  The origin other tools will never

Hypoth
In our tw Task-Tech both studie tools.The The first four hypotheses test whether or not there is a difference between the tools with respect to the dependent variables of Task-Technology Fit, Perceived Ease of Use, and Perceived Usefulness, and whether or not the tools differ in their perceived support of coordination and control.These hypotheses are the same as in the first two studies.
Hypothesis 1: There is no difference in Task-Technology Fit between the three tools.
Rejecting this hypothesis will suggest that one or more of the technologies is a better fit with the collaborative writing task than the others.A difference in fit by itself does not imply a "better fit."To examine the question of better fit, differences in the dependent variables Perceived Ease of Use and Perceived Usefulness need to be tested.If we determine there is a difference in these variables, a higher value will be interpreted to mean a "better fit." The second and third hypotheses tests whether there is a difference in ease of use and usefulness between the tools.
Hypothesis 2: There is no difference in Perceived Ease of Use between the three tools.
Hypothesis 3: There is no difference in Perceived Usefulness between the three tools.
The fourth hypothesis tests for differences between the tool's impact on perceived support for collaboration and control.If there is a significant difference, a higher value will be interpreted to mean that more support is perceived.A difference in the perceived support may be an explanation for differences in Task-Technology Fit and the other outcome variables.
Hypothesis 4: There is no difference in perceived tool support for coordination and control between the three tools.
The second set of hypotheses examines the relationship between the independent variables (Tool Functionality and Tool Experience) and the dependent variables.Hypotheses 6, 7, and 8 focus on Tool Experience.In the first two studies, Word/email scored better on Perceived Ease of Use and Perceived Usefulness than any of the other technologies.This held true in the second study even when Task-Technology Fit was the same for Word/email and Google Docs.Furthermore, the very poor showing by Office Live could be due to a significant lack of experience with technology rather than the "Uncanny Valley."Hypothesis 5: There are no differences in subjects' level of experience with the technology between the three tools.
Hypothesis 6: There is no correlation between tool experience and Perceived Ease of Use.
Hypothesis 7: There is no correlation between tool experience and Perceived Usefulness.
Hypothesis 8: There is no correlation between tool experience and Task-Technology Fit.
One of the explanations forwarded for the tie between Word/email and Google Docs in Task-Technology Fit but a difference in Perceived Ease of Use and Perceived Usefulness was that Google Docs provided better coordination support than Word/email, which compensated for its lower quality editing interface.Higher values on these measures is interpreted to mean strong support.A significant relationship along with higher values would substantiate this conclusion.
The following hypotheses (H9-H14) examine this relationship based on measurements of the tool's perceived support of coordination and control relative to Ease of Use, Usefulness, and Task-Technology Fit.
Hypothesis 9: There is no correlation between perceived support of Coordination and Task-Technology Fit.
Hypothesis 10: There is no correlation between perceived support of Coordination and Perceived Ease of Use.
Hypotheses 11: There is no correlation between perceived support of Coordination and Perceived Usefulness.
Hypothesis 12: There is no correlation between perceived support of Control and Task-Technology Fit.
Hypothesis 13: There is no correlation between perceived support of Control and Perceived Ease of Use.
Hypotheses 14: There is no correlation between perceived support of Control and Perceived Usefulness.

Research Design and Methodology
This study uses a field experiment to test the hypotheses.The study keeps the task constant and varies the technology by assigning a tool to each group of students.The subjects are students in different sections of the same course, all taught by the same instructor.All sections used the same task, and all subjects in a single section used the same tool.The tool was varied by section.Tools used were MS Word/email, Google Docs, and Office Live/Office 365.The unit of analysis is the individual subject participating in the task.Data is collected via survey at the end of the course.This research project is based on teaching the course "Essentials of IS," which is required for all business majors in the College of Business at a Midwestern US university where the study took place.Data was collected in the Fall 2013, Spring 2014, and Fall 2014 semesters, with a total of 162 students participating in the study.All sections were taught face-to-face to a mostly traditional undergraduate college population (18-22-year olds) of full-time students originating from the local area (very few international students).The population is roughly equal in terms of gender.Most students take the course as sophomores and juniors (second and third year of college).Table 1 shows how many surveys were completed for each technology.
Students in sections assigned to use word processing and email were shown how to use the Track Changes feature of MS Word to help identify changes made by different group members.They were not given specific instructions on how to collaborate; however, they were asked to use email for communication and exchange of documents.Because students are less familiar with Office Live/365 and Google Docs than with MS Word, detailed written instructions, as well as demonstrations, were given to students on the use of Office Live/365 and Google Docs.The instructions were given as part of the regular classroom teaching routine.All treatment groups were taught by the same instructor.
The collaboration project used for the research is the same as used in the previous studies.It is a group research paper where students in groups of three were asked to find and describe an emerging and/or disruptive information technology that would provide some competitive advantage to a fictitious company.The company varied by semester and included a small manufacturing firm (making wooden pallets), a regional hotel chain, and a small specialized retailer (selling snowboards and accessories).All students taking the course in one semester were given the same assignment regardless of the section or technology they were assigned.The core part of the assignment was for students to apply the value chain model as well as Porter's Five Forces Model to determine the technology's effects on the firm.Completed papers were typically 1,200 to 1,500 words in length.
Group membership was determined randomly by the instructor.Students were asked to avoid face-to-face meetings and were not given time in class to work on or coordinate the project.This was done to force students to experience how projects are conducted in organizations where participants may not see each other, and often live in different time zones, making real-time communication difficult.The varied schedules of students helped to make it naturally difficult for them to schedule real-time meetings.To ensure that students worked seriously on the assignment, the paper was a significant part of a student's overall course grade (approximately 20%).
After the paper was turned in at the end of the semester, students were asked to fill out a web-based survey about their experience with the project.Students were given a small number of extra credit points to complete the survey.This resulted in a very high response rate, but because students were given the extra credit only after the project was graded, and they were clearly instructed that the specific answers given would in no way affect their grade, this should not affect the specific answers to questions.To reinforce this, students were given clear guarantees that their instructor would not be able to see their answers to any of the questions.
The online survey asked detailed questions about the participants' experience with collaboration on the project.The survey was based on the instrument developed by Dishaw & Strong (1999) to integrate the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) with Task-Technology Fit (TTF) concepts.The wording in the survey was adapted to fit the technology used in this study and task at hand (Appendix A includes the entire survey).The bulk of the survey is the same as the previous studies.However, a new section on tool experience was added to capture this dimension of the study.The survey results were anonymous, but students were sent individual links, allowing the survey tool to keep track of which students had completed the survey in order to facilitate awarding extra credit points and sending reminders to complete the survey.
While analyzing the results, incomplete surveys were discarded.The survey was relatively quick to complete; the median time to take the survey was 17 minutes and 18 seconds for completed responses.

Construct Measurement and Validity
The research examines the impact of technology on fit with a collaborative writing and editing task.Three variables from the research model (Task-Technology Fit, Perceived Ease of Use, and Perceived Usefulness) are measured and statistically analyzed to understand this impact.Perceived Ease of Use and Perceived Usefulness are measured as single constructs.Task-Technology Fit is indirectly measured as interaction between task characteristics (Knowledge, Planning, and Work) and technology functionality (Dishaw & Strong, 1999), and are defined as follows: • Knowledge: Perceived effort in examining and evaluating the work that was done.
• Planning: Perceived effort in determining the work that needed to be done and how to do it.

• Work:
The actual completion of work on the project.
• Technology Functionality (Tech): Perceived support of the technology for tasks associated with creating and editing a paper.
The three first constructs were measured based on the subjects' responses to a set of questions on the survey used to collect data.The Technology Functionality construct was not measured independently as it is represented by the tool.The responses for each question that made up the construct were averaged by subject to provide a single construct measurement for the subject.To calculate Task-Technology Fit, the mean for the Technology construct was multiplied by the mean of each of the other three constructs that make up fit: Knowledge, Plan, and Work.The survey items that were used for each construct are included in Appendix A. Although the survey was previously validated, construct reliability was assessed in this research.Cronbach's Alpha is reported in Table 2, and shows that the construct measurements are reasonably reliable.

Evaluation of Hypotheses
As noted above, Office Live changed to Office 365 during one period of data collection.Because there is no way of telling which version the subjects used, that data was eliminated from the study for the hypothesis testing.However, this also provided an opportunity to examine the impact of these changes.This analysis is presented after the results for the hypothesis testing.The hypothesis testing results are examined by grouping hypotheses according to their focus on task-technology fit, experience with the technology, and technology support for coordination and control of the document creation and editing task.

Evaluation of Task-Technology Fit
The first set of hypotheses, which focused on the difference between the technologies with respect to the dependent variables, was tested via one-way ANOVA to test for significant differences in the variable means.
Descriptive statistics for the variables are presented in Figure 5 with the results for Work, Planning, and Knowledge normalized to a 7-point scale.Higher means indicate better fit, usefulness, ease of use, and effort of collaboration.The ANOVA results found statistically significant differences in all the variable means, suggesting that there is a difference in the three technologies tested in terms of Task-Technology Fit, perceived ease of use and usefulness, and perceived support for coordination and control.
Figure 5. Means for the Task-Technology Fit variables (Work, Planning, and Knowledge), as well as Perceived Ease of Use, Perceived Usefulness, Control, and Coordinate.Higher values (outer rings) indicate better fit, usefulness, ease of use, and effort of collaboration Hypotheses 1, 2, and 3 postulated that there was no difference between the three technologies with respect to Task-Technology Fit (made up of Work, Planning, and Knowledge), Perceived Ease of Use, and Perceived Usefulness.Our analysis found that Google Docs had a statistically significant higher mean than that of Office 365, and Office 365 had statistically significant higher means (p=0.000)than Word/email, on all these variables, except for the TTF variable Knowledge, where the difference wasn't significant.Thus, Hypothesis 1 is largely rejected, and Hypotheses 2 and 3 are completely rejected.
We found similar results with regards to Hypothesis 4, which postulated that there was no difference in the perceived support for coordination and control between the three technologies.Our analysis found a similar pattern with Google Docs scoring higher than Office 365, which scores higher than Word/email.The results are statistically significant (p=0.000) for all three technologies for Coordination.However, for Control, while Google Docs was found to better support control (p=0.020),we found no statistical difference in this variable between Office 365 and Word/email, indicating neither performed better than the other in perceived support of control of the task.Hypothesis 4 is partially rejected.
In sum, and as is clearly visible from Figure 5, Google Docs performed better than Office 365, which in turn performed better than Word on all variables.

Evaluation of the Impact of Tool Experience
The second set of hypotheses investigated whether or not there was a difference in user experience with the technologies and whether or not experience was correlated with perceptions of the technologies' ease of use and usefulness and Task-Technology Fit.First, the mean value for reported experience was tested to determine if there was a difference in experience (Table 3).The result shows that subjects had the most experience with Word, followed by Google Docs, and finally Office 365.The differences with regards to experience are statistically significant, and we can thus reject Hypothesis 5.In order to evaluate Hypotheses 6, 7, and 8, we calculated the Pearson Correlation (Table 4).There is a correlation between Tool Experience and Perceived Ease of Use for Word, but there is no correlation for Google Docs and Office Live/365.Hypothesis 6 is partially rejected.There is a correlation between Tool Experience and Perceived Usefulness for both Word and Google Docs, but there is no correlation for Office Live/365.Hypothesis 7 is partially rejected.There is a correlation between Tool Experience and Task-Technology Fit for Office Live/365, but there is no correlation for Word and Google Docs.Hypothesis 8 is partially rejected.However, although significant, these correlations are small.To further examine the impact of experience, we performed an ANOVA to determine if there was any difference in experience with the technology between the subjects assigned to different technologies (Figure 6).We determined that there was no significant difference in experience with Google Docs or MS Word for any of the subject groups.However, the subjects assigned to use Office 365 had more experience with Office 365 (p=0.000)than the subjects assigned to other groups.
Figure 6.Experience of each user group with each of the three technologies The following examine if there is a correlation between Perceived Ease of Use and Perceived Usefulness and Experience with a technology for each treatment.For subjects that used Word or Office 365, their experience with any of the technologies had no impact on their Perceived Ease of Use or Perceived Usefulness of the technology they actually used.However, for subjects that used Google Docs, experience with Word was significantly correlated with their ratings of Perceived Ease of Use and Perceived Usefulness of Google Docs (Table 5).In other words, it appears that if they were more experienced with Word, they found Google Docs easier to use and more useful.Taken together, the statistical analysis appears to suggest that experience with the technology is having some impact on the subject's evaluation of how easy to use and useful a technology is.However, this impact is not always as expected.In some cases, experience with a technology impacts the technology itself.In other cases, experience with a technology impacts the perception of another technology's usefulness and ease of use.

Evaluation of the Impact of Technology Support for Coordination and Control
The final set of hypotheses (H9-H14) focuses on the impact of the technologies' perceived support of coordination and control of the task on Perceived Usefulness, Ease of Use, and Task-Technology Fit.These hypotheses were tested with a Pearson Correlation (Table 6).The results show that there is significant correlation between support for Coordination and Control and Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and all the TTF variables.Hypotheses 9 through 14 are rejected.

Evaluation of the Impact of Change in Technology Function
During analysis, we noted that, over time, the values for the TTF variables and Perceived Ease of Use and Perceived Usefulness increased for Google Docs and Office Live/365, but decreased for Word/email.This was interesting because over the time period of the study, the Word functionality stayed relatively stable, Google Docs was continually enhanced with additional functionality, and Office Live was re-released as Office 365 in Fall 2013.This invalidated data collection for that semester because there was no way to determine if subjects used Live or Office 365.However, this presented a clear point in time where the technologies diverged.To examine if these changes made an impact, we tested each technology designating the technology before Fall 2013 as one version and after Fall 2013 as a second version.
Word/email got statistically significantly worse (p=0.000) over time on all outcome variables except control (Figure 7).In contrast, Google Docs became progressively better (p=0.000)over time for all outcome variables except Coordinate (Figure 8).Coordinate became better, but it's not statistically significant.Office Live/365 is mixed.It became better over time (p values ranging from 0.001 to 0.011) on all outcome measures except Coordinate and Control, which stayed relatively unchanged (Figure 9).In each of these three graphs, higher values indicate better performance-thus, the outer rings indicate that the technology performed better than the inner rings.

Discussion
In one sense, the results are not surprising.The TAM/TTF model predicts that Tool Experience and Task-Technology fit impact Perceived Ease of Use and Perceived Usefulness which is what we found.The model also predicts that Tool Functionality and Task Characteristics impact Task-Technology Fit.During the period of our studies, Task Characteristics have been held constant and the MS Word/email technology has been relatively stable.Therefore, the perception of Fit for this tool should have been relatively stable.However, it declined.It appears that the assessment of fit relies not only on these characteristics, but also on the fit of other tools.Still, Tool Functionality does have a significant impact, as evidenced by the difference in the evaluation of Fit for Office 365 after the Fall 2013 revision.One significant difference between the two versions is the elimination of the confusing Save/Refresh button, which eliminated the "Uncanny Valley" phenomenon that we identified in our previous study (Dishaw et al., 2013) and made the tool better match the mental model of the user.
The perception that a tool is less useful in contrast to other known available tools is not surprising.Prior to having experience with tools that fit the collaborative editing task better, MS Word/email was rated as relatively useful because subjects knew how to use it and it represented the best way to accomplish the task.However, as other tools such as Google Docs became better tools, and subjects got experience with them, they realize that exchanging documents via email is not the best way to perform the task.Thus, Task-Technology Fit falls and the Perceived Usefulness of the technology also falls.This suggests that suppliers of a technology must constantly assess the current state of their competitors to ensure that their tools currently match the task as well as other tools.Similarly, IT departments and others who adopt technologies on behalf of large groups of users must be aware of how non-adopted technologies change, and consider switching to new technologies, even if both the tasks and adopted technologies have stayed constant.
As a result of this study, we propose that experience with other tools be added to the TAM/TTF model.It appears that a users' experience with other tools designed to support the same task can impact their perception of the fit of a specific tool.Experience with the specific tool in question is not the only experiential factor that impacts TTF. Figure 10 shows the proposed research model based on the influence of experience with other tools to perform the same task.introducing a new tool for a task, care should be taken to train students adequately and emphasize how the new technology better matches the task than an older technology that they may have more experience with.Whereas in 2009 it was perfectly valid to ask groups of students to complete a collaborative editing task using Word and email, by 2013 the same project likely should be completed using Google Docs or Office 365.

Implications and Directions for Future Research
Although the findings of this study are intriguing, they are by no means definitive.Significant questions remain, such as does Task-Technology Fit really change?This study found that MS Word/email measures of fit significantly declined over the study period.Is this a measurement problem caused by the forced use of the technology?Or, is it due to a change in the mental model of the task held by the subjects of the study?If the mental model of the task changed, did new technology change it?To what extent?Does experience with a technology impact understanding of the technology's fit with a task?If so, how much training or experience with a technology is required to adequately assess fit?How should suppliers of a technology assess the fit of their product as well as those of their competitors?How should IT departments and educators continuously assess tools already adopted against new offerings on the market?

Limitations
Several limitations may impact the generalizability of this study.First, the use of small, three-person groups of students may favor one type of collaborative process over another which in turn favored the tool that best supported that process.Second, student subjects may have characteristics that differ markedly from business professionals thus limiting the applicability of the findings to the business world.Third, the task of document creation and editing may not be applicable to other types of collaborative work.A final confounding factor is the relative availability of Google Docs versus Office 365.Google Docs is used in the school districts surrounding our University and is available to all students at the University.This may mean that Office 365 is at a disadvantage.The participants in this study reported significantly less experience with Office 365 than the other two technologies.However, for those subjects forced to use it, their usefulness ranking of it increased, and their usefulness ranking of Google Docs decreased.This suggests that if participants had as much experience with Office 365 as they had with the other two technologies, it would have scored better on the TAM/TTF measures.

Conclusion
These results suggest that how, and how well, a collaborative technology implements certain functions may have a significant impact on the effectiveness of the tool in supporting the collaborative task.First, it appears that the tool must have an interface that is powerful with which the user has some experience.Second, the distinguishing factor can be the support for distributed collaboration provided.Finally, it is very important that the mechanics of how the tool enables the collaboration matches the user's mental model of how it is doing it.Our studies suggest that Google Docs outperforms Office 365, which in turn outperforms MS Word/email, which is likely due to tool experience in the case of Google Docs versus Office 365 and superior Task-Technology Fit for Google Docs and Office 365 to MS Word/email.The perception of a tool also is influenced by experience with other tools.During a period where the functionality of Word stayed constant, it came to be perceived as less useful for the task, while other tools improved their functionality and came to be perceived as more useful.This suggests that suppliers and adopters of a technology must constantly assess the capabilities supplied by competing products and the match between those capabilities and the task the technology is designed to support.I had a number of choices to make regarding which source of information to consult in order to solve a particular problem.
I frequently had alternative approaches to writing the document.

Work Construct Items
I frequently made changes to the document in order to get feedback from other group members.
I revised the document.I often evaluated other group members' changes to the document.I read the document and made additional changes as a result of my reading.

Coordination Construct Items
To what extent did the designated software tools supply the following functionality?
Track schedule information for the project.
Track time and resources expended on the project.
Maintain information about project status.
Send information or messages to other individuals.
Exchange information relating to the project with other individuals.
Maintain a record of who is responsible for each part of the project.

Control Construct Items
To what extent did the designated software tools supply the following functionality?I had to observe group conventions during this project.
The group established standards or norms that all group members were expected to follow.I followed a standard procedure in completing this project.
I fixed "problems" in the project.
I communicated with others so that my work would not negatively impact their work.
I made an effort to ensure that the changes I made in this project would not interfere with other work being done at the same time by others.
I was required/expected to submit my work for review to someone else.I had to keep another person informed of my work so as to keep my work consistent with another project.
Ease of Use Construct Items I found it easy to get the designated software to do what I wanted it to do.
My interaction with the designated software was clear and understandable.
I found the designated software to be flexible to interact with.I found the designated software easy to use.

Usefulness Construct Items
Using the designated software enabled me to accomplish my tasks more quickly.
Using the designated software enabled me to improve my performance on this project.
Using the designated software increased my productivity on this project.
Using the designated software enabled me to enhance my effectiveness on this project.
Using the designated software made it easier to complete this project.I found the designated software useful in this project.

Technology Construct Items
To what extent did the software environment available to you supply the following functions?Create and write text.

Table 1 .
Details of study

Table 2 .
Cronbach's Alpha results showing that the construct measurements are reasonably reliable

Table 3 .
One-sample statistics

Table 5 .
Experience and pearson correlation for google docs users

Table 6 .
Pearson correlation for coordination and control