Journal of Education for Business

ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20

Evaluating the usage of cloud-based collaboration

services through teamwork

Li Qin, Jeffrey Hsu & Mel Stern

To cite this article: Li Qin, Jeffrey Hsu & Mel Stern (2016) Evaluating the usage of cloud-based
collaboration services through teamwork, Journal of Education for Business, 91:4, 227-235,
DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2016.1170656

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2016.1170656

Published online: 25 Apr 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 25

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20

Download by: [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] Date: 30 May 2016, At: 14:49
 JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS
2016, VOL. 91, NO. 4, 227–235
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2016.1170656

Evaluating the usage of cloud-based collaboration services through teamwork

Li Qin, Jeffrey Hsu, and Mel Stern
Fairleigh Dickinson University, Teaneck, New Jersey, USA

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
With the proliferation of cloud computing for both organizational and educational use, cloud-based Cloud-based collaboration
collaboration services are transforming how people work in teams. The authors investigated the services; collaboration;
determinants of the usage of cloud-based collaboration services including teamwork quality, teamwork quality; team
computer self-efficacy, and prior experience, as well as its impact on team performance. The performance
research model was empirically evaluated by applying structural equation modeling to survey data
collected from 217 participants. The results reveal that teamwork quality and computer self-efficacy
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 14:49 30 May 2016

significantly and positively affect the usage of cloud-based collaboration services, which
significantly and positively affects team performance.

Cloud computing refers to hardware or software provided
as services over the Internet by a third party (Gallaugher,
2014). Simply speaking, it is a form of computing where
the processing and applications mainly reside not on the
user’s computer or network, but rather on a remote server
connected through an Internet connection (where the
term cloud refers to where the remote computer hardware
and software are physically located). This represents a fun-
damental change, when compared with personal and net-
worked computing where most of the computing
resources are found on the user’s computer or workstation
itself. The entire business of cloud computing is predicted
to continue to grow tremendously from an estimated
$40.7 billion in 2011 to $241 billion in 2020 (Dignan,
2011). There are numerous cloud computing providers
and services that are available, including Apple’s iCloud,
Google’s Drive, Microsoft’s OneDrive, Amazon’s Cloud
Drive, and so on, which typically provide users with access
to office applications and storage space.
Cloud computing comprises a broad umbrella of
related services, and are offered in various forms. For
instance, it is referred to as Software as a Service (SaaS)
when software is delivered online. SaaS can mean a cost
savings of 25–60% to its adopters as estimated by Forrester
Research (Quittner, 2008), as well as lower financial risks,
higher scalability, and service levels. A popular form of
SaaS is cloud-based collaboration services, where a soft-
ware application is hosted from the cloud, supporting
both synchronous collaboration in which team members
can simultaneously interact with a document or
spreadsheet and asynchronous collaboration in which any
team member can edit the file and the editing is immedi-
ately visible to the other members who may work on the
file later. With users’ documents stored in the cloud, these
services usually support a means for recording changes
and allowing for communication among team members.
Unlike earlier systems which require specialized settings
of locations and equipment, cloud-based collaboration
services require users only for an Internet connection and
some basic hardware to collaborate in teams. As a result,
cloud-based collaboration services have naturally found
their application and market in organizations. As shown
by an in-depth survey of 631 senior information technol-
ogy (IT) decision makers across eight countries by Forres-
ter Consulting (2012), companies will increasingly
leverage the cloud to access collaboration services.
Collaboration in teams is a critical success factor for
many organizations (Hoegl & Gemuenden, 2001) and
collaborative systems such as group communication sup-
port system or engineering design collaboration system
can support teamwork (Easley, Devaraj, & Crant, 2003;
Majchrzak, Rice, Malhotra, King, & Ba, 2000). Different
from the collaboration systems used in previous studies,
the usage of cloud-based collaboration services deserves
studies of its own, considering they are in the form of
common office applications that are familiar to users,
accessible to users via a web browser, generally available
24 hr/day 7 days/week at little or no cost, as well as offer-
ing synchronous and asynchronous collaboration in sup-
port of business applications.

CONTACT Li Qin liqin@fdu.edu Fairleigh Dickinson University, Department of Information Systems and Decision Sciences, 1000 River Road, Teaneck, NJ
07666, USA.
© 2016 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
 228 L. QIN ET AL.
Studies such as Bhattacherjee and Park (2013) and
Park and Ryoo (2013) focused on the factors which affect
users’ switching intention and behavior from traditional
IT to cloud-based services. There have also been a num-
ber of studies that use these services to support collabo-
ration in educational settings. Some studies investigated
the potential and usefulness of these services for educa-
tional and working group needs in general (Alshuwaier,
Alshwaier, & Areshey, 2012; Alshwaier, Youssef, &
Emam, 2012; Chu & Kennedy, 2011; Chu, Kennedy, &
Mak, 2009; Denton, 2012; Ercan, 2010; Rienzo & Han,
2009; Spaeth & Black, 2012; Thomas, 2011), others
examined specific application areas such as collaborative
writing (Blau & Caspi, 2009; Brodahl, Hadjerrouit, &
Hansen, 2011; Suwantarathip & Wichadee, 2014; Zhou,
Simpson, & Domizi, 2012) as well as science, engineer-
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 14:49 30 May 2016
ing, and laboratory groups (Bennett & Pence, 2011;
Bonham, 2011; Bora & Ahmed, 2013; Jou & Wang, 2013;
Silverstein, 2008; Sinex & Chambers, 2013). Some studies
found positive effects of using cloud-based collaboration
services such as higher perceived quality of work (Blau &
Caspi, 2009), improved collaborative and learning expe-
rience (Zhou et al., 2012), greater collaboration and indi-
vidual contributions, improved motivation and better
group performance (Suwantarathip & Wichadee, 2014),
increased engagement (Bonham, 2011), better sharing
and interaction (Bennett & Pence, 2011), and improved
satisfaction (Silverstein, 2008). Still, some questions
remain for further investigation. For instance, do team-
work characteristics affect the usage of cloud-based col-
laboration services? Do user characteristics such as their
computer self-efficacy or prior experience with the serv-
ices affect their usage? Are these teamwork and individ-
ual characteristics as well as the usage of such services
related to team performance?
Our objective in the present study is to examine the
impact of teamwork characteristics and individual char-
acteristics upon the usage of cloud-based collaboration
services and team performance. Regarding teamwork
characteristics, teamwork quality has been developed as
a measure of collaboration in teams (Hoegl & Gemuen-
den, 2001). Meanwhile, technology usage was influenced
by individual characteristics such as users’ experience
(Compeau & Higgins, 1995) and their perceived
computer self-efficacy (Harrison & Rainer, 1992; Levin
& Gordon, 1989). By drawing from prior studies, this
study develops and empirically validates a research
model incorporating the constructs of teamwork quality,
computer self-efficacy, prior experience with the service,
team performance, and their relationships with the usage
of cloud-based collaboration services. In addition to pro-
viding insights for researchers and practitioners of
cloud-based services, the results of this study can have
impacts on the area of technology-supported education
as well (Hargis & Wilcox, 2008).
The remainder of the article is organized as follows: in
the following section we present the research framework
and prior empirical studies, from which our research
model and associated hypotheses are developed. Then
we describe the research method used to empirically test
our hypotheses, followed by the analysis of and discus-
sion of the results and implications on research and prac-
tice. We conclude with a discussion of the limitations of
our research and suggestions for future research.
Research framework
Teamwork quality and usage
Hoegl and Gemuenden (2001) developed a measure of
collaboration and internal interaction in teams as team-
work quality, which includes six facets:
 Communication: the exchange of information
among team members (i.e., Is there sufficiently fre-
quent, informal, direct, and open communication?);
 Coordination: the harmonization and synchroniza-
tion of individual contributions (i.e., Are individual
efforts well-structured and synchronized within the
team?);
 Balance of member contributions: contributions to
the team task are balanced with respect to each
member’s specific knowledge and experience (i.e.,
Are all team members able to bring in their exper-
tise to their full potential?);
 Mutual support: team members working on a com-
mon goal should display mutual respect, grant assis-
tance when needed, and develop other team
members’ ideas and contributions rather than trying
to compete each other (i.e., Do team members help
and support each other in carrying out their tasks?);
 Effort: workload sharing and prioritizing of the
team’s task over other obligations (i.e., Do team
members exert all efforts to the team’s tasks?); and
 Cohesion: the degree to which team members desire
to remain on the team (i.e., Are team members
motivated to maintain the team?)
Prior studies provided evidence for the positive influence
of each facet of teamwork quality upon the success of team
projects, such as communication (Griffin & Hauser, 1992),
coordination (Gupta, Raj, & Wilemon, 1987), balance of
member contributions (Seers, 1989), mutual support
(Cooke & Szumal, 1994), effort (Hackman, 1987), and cohe-
sion (Gully, Devine, & Whitney, 1995). This study focused
on five facets of teamwork quality including communica-
tion, coordination, balance of member contributions,

mutual support, and effort, considering cohesion influences
performance through communication and coordination
(Gully et al., 1995). Easley et al. (2003) further empirically
showed that teamwork quality affects the usage of a collabo-
rative system. Therefore, the following hypothesis has been
formulated for the context of cloud-based collaboration
services:
Hypothesis 1 (H1): Teamwork quality has a significant
and positive influence on the usage of cloud-based
collaboration services.
Computer self-efficacy and usage
Based on social cognitive theory, self-efficacy is an indi-
vidual’s the belief that he or she has the capability to
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 14:49 30 May 2016
perform a particular behavior (Bandura, 1986) and is an
important construct in social psychology. Research
(Burkhardt & Brass, 1990; Gist, Schwoerer, & Rosen,
1989; Hill, Smith, & Mann, 1987; Webster & Martocchio,
1992, 1993) confirmed that self-efficacy has an important
impact upon individual reactions to computer technology.
Compeau and Higgins (1995) further defined computer
self-efficacy as an individual’s perceptions of his or her
ability to use computers in the accomplishment of a task
and their empirical study demonstrated that computer
self-efficacy influences computer usage directly and indi-
rectly through outcome expectations, affect and anxiety.
Yang and Lin (2015) also showed that cloud storage self-
efficacy of users positively influences their perceived use-
fulness, which further influences their intention to use
cloud storage service. Drawing from prior research, we
propose the following hypothesis:
H2: Computer self-efficacy has a significant and posi-
tive influence on the usage of cloud-based collabo-
ration services.
Prior experience and usage
It should be noted that computer self-efficacy is a judg-
ment of what can be done in the future rather than what
one has done in the past. Prior research (Harrison &
Rainer, 1992; Levin & Gordon, 1989) demonstrated a
positive influence between experience with computer
technology and outcomes such as affect toward com-
puters and computing skills. Following the law of proac-
tive inhibition or interference (McGeoch & Irion, 1952),
Agarwal and Prasad (1999) showed that the extent of
individuals’ prior experience with similar technologies is
positively associated with their ease of use belief about
the technology, which ultimately affects their use of the
technology. Yang, Sun, Zhang, and Wang (2015) also
JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS 229
showed that experienceability contributes positively to
the users’ technological readiness and their intention to
use SaaS. Drawing from the research results of prior
studies, we test the following hypothesis:
H3: Prior experience with the cloud-based collabora-
tion services has a significant and positive influ-
ence on the usage of the services.
Usage and team performance
A number of studies examined the association between
the use of group support systems and better decision
quality (Fjermestad & Hiltz, 1998/1999; Gallupe &
DeSanctis, 1988; Pinsonneault & Kraemer, 1990), or
between collaborative system use and higher levels of
team performance (Easley et al., 2003; McLeod & Liker,
1992). Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H4: Usage of cloud-based collaboration services has a
significant and positive influence on the team per-
formance in supported tasks.
In this research model, teamwork quality, computer self-
efficacy, and prior experience have positive impact on
usage of cloud-based collaboration services, which has
positive impact on team performance. See Figure 1 for a
summary of the research model and hypotheses.
Methods
Google Drive (http://drive.google.com) is a cloud-based
collaboration service by Google that provides a suite of
services that allow users to create, edit, and share a vari-
ety of files, including documents, spreadsheets, and pre-
sentations. By storing and sharing files in the cloud,
multiple users can edit the same files synchronously or
asynchronously. In this study, Google Drive has been
employed to evaluate the usage of cloud-based collabora-
tion services.
A team project was developed where participants were
instructed to use Google Drive to collaborate on com-
pleting an imported Excel spreadsheet with five work-
sheets in which each team member was required to
complete at least one worksheet, and contribute to the
accuracy of the assignment as a whole by reviewing the
work done by other team members. The project was
given to 250 students who were enrolled in undergradu-
ate management information systems classes in a univer-
sity located in the northeastern United States and were
randomly assigned to 84 groups. The Google Drive file
was shared among the team members and the instructor.
Before assigning the project, a training session was given
 230 L. QIN ET AL.
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 14:49 30 May 2016

Figure 1. Research model and hypotheses.

to all the participants consisting of an interactive session (2001) and Easley et al. (2003), items to measure com-
explaining how to perform the following tasks such as puter self-efficacy were developed based on the work by
accessing Google Drive from their university email Compeau and Higgins (1995), and items to measure the
account, opening an existing Excel file for the project in usage of cloud-based collaboration services were devel-
Google Drive, and sharing Google Drive files with other oped based on the work by Davis (1989). The list of
students and collaborating together on a project. During items is included in the Appendix. Items for constructs
the project, the instructor provided only general guid- including TWQ, CS, PE, USG were measured on a 7-
ance and clarification of requirements but no help with point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree)
the implementation of formulas, functions, and other to 7 (strongly agree). Items for prior experience were
problem solving for the project. When a team member measured on a 2-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 6
encountered a problem, he or she was encouraged to dis- (disagree) to 7 (agree).
cuss and solve it through cooperation and collaboration After excluding incomplete responses, 217 usable
within the team. Teams were given one week to complete responses were retained for data analysis. The demo-
the project, and then all the projects were evaluated and graphic data were summarized in Table 1: 94% of the
scored by the same instructor by applying the same scor- participants were in the age group of 18–23 years old,
ing rubrics to ensure scoring consistency. The scores for and 70% of them were freshman students. Among the
the project are used to measure team performance. participants, 43% were women and 57% were men.
The survey method has been widely used for testing In summary, two types of data were used to evaluate
models in information systems research (Galliers, 1992; our research model: (a) self-reported survey data describ-
Pinsonneault & Kraemer, 1993), especially for explana- ing teamwork characteristics, individual differences
tory models in which the phenomena under study occur
in natural settings and in the recent past. Therefore, a Table 1. Profile of survey respondents.
survey questionnaire was given to the participants fol-
Measure Item Frequency Percentage
lowing completion of the group task and submission of
the completed spreadsheet assignment, for collecting Age (years) 18–23 203 93.5
24–29 6 2.8
data on participants’ demographics, their perceptions of 30–39 4 1.8
team work quality, computer self-efficacy, prior experi- 40C 3 1.4
Undisclosed 1 0.5
ence with the services, and usage of the services. To Gender Female 93 42.9
develop questionnaire items to measure the constructs in Male 124 57.1
our research model, measurement items from prior stud- Class standing Freshman 151 69.6
Sophomore 32 14.7
ies were adapted and reworded for our research context. Junior 27 12.4
For instance, items to measure teamwork quality were Senior 5 2.3
Undisclosed 2 0.9
developed based on the work by Hoegl and Gemuenden
 JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS 231

Table 2. Descriptive statistics of items for constructs. Table 3. Confirmatory factor analysis, internal consistency, and
reliability.
Minimum Maximum M SD
TWQ CS PE USG
TWQ-COMM1 1.0 7.0 5.756 1.361
TWQ-COMM2 1.0 7.0 5.793 1.261 Cronbach’s a .964 .798 .695 .610
TWQ-COMM3 1.0 7.0 6.023 1.180 TWQ-COMM1 0.788 0.089 ¡0.001 0.094
TWQ-COMM4 1.0 7.0 5.249 1.594 TWQ-COMM2 0.776 ¡0.016 0.035 0.156
TWQ-BMC2 1.0 7.0 5.687 1.470 TWQ-COMM3 0.817 0.067 ¡0.004 0.260
TWQ-BMC3 1.0 7.0 5.760 1.468 TWQ-COMM4 0.696 ¡0.075 0.077 0.084
TWQ-COD1 1.0 7.0 5.820 1.316 TWQ-BMC2 0.864 0.035 0.014 ¡0.022
TWQ-COD2 1.0 7.0 6.051 1.266 TWQ-BMC3 0.864 0.056 0.067 ¡0.102
TWQ-MS1 1.0 7.0 5.774 1.411 TWQ-COD1 0.915 0.102 0.000 0.015
TWQ-MS2 1.0 7.0 5.608 1.377 TWQ-COD2 0.884 0.069 ¡0.034 ¡0.026
TWQ-MS3 1.0 7.0 5.885 1.233 TWQ-EFT1 0.896 0.006 0.009 ¡0.052
TWQ-EFT1 1.0 7.0 5.599 1.475 TWQ-EFT2 0.837 0.045 0.000 0.076
TWQ-EFT2 1.0 7.0 5.972 1.198 TWQ-MS1 0.863 0.004 0.066 0.086
CS1 1.0 7.0 5.917 1.203 TWQ-MS2 0.794 ¡0.043 0.008 0.188
CS2 1.0 7.0 5.871 1.115 TWQ-MS3 0.862 0.056 0.057 0.169
CS3 1.0 7.0 5.424 1.196 CS1 0.011 0.846 ¡0.058 0.125
CS4 1.0 7.0 5.876 1.101 CS2 0.122 0.793 0.117 0.225
PE1 6.0 7.0 6.226 0.419 CS3 ¡0.027 0.716 0.135 ¡0.033
PE2 6.0 7.0 6.088 0.283 CS4 0.042 0.775 ¡0.043 0.001
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 14:49 30 May 2016

USG1 1.0 7.0 5.115 1.522 PE1 0.065 0.067 0.879 0.040
USG2 1.0 7.0 5.926 1.128 PE2 0.022 0.054 0.880 0.005
USG1 0.036 0.145 ¡0.031 0.848
Note. BMC D balance of member contributions; COD D coordination; COMM D USG2 0.228 0.092 0.080 0.783
communication; CS D computer self-efficacy; EFT D effort; MS D mutual
support; PE D prior experience; TWQ D teamwork quality; USG D usage. Note. BMC D balance of member contributions; COD D coordination;
COMM D communication; CS D computer self-efficacy; EFT D effort; MS D
mutual support; PE D prior experience; TWQ D teamwork quality;
including computer self-efficacy, prior experience with USG D usage.
similar services, and usage of cloud-based collaboration
services and (b) data of scores on the team project to above the cited minimum of .60 (Nunnally, 1967). For
measure team performance. discriminant validity, each item had a higher loading on
Structural equation modeling (SEM) has advantages its assigned construct than on any other construct. The
over multiple regressions (Gefen, Straub, & Boudreau, results of our confirmatory factor analysis confirmed
2000) and SEM can simultaneously tests the structural that items measured the constructs which they were
and measurement models (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988), thus intended to measure (convergent validity) and the con-
SEM was used for data analysis. To test our research struct were distinct from one another (discriminant
model, SPSS (version 17) was used to generate descrip- validity).
tive statistics and test the reliability and validity of the
measurement. EQS (version 6.1, Multivariate Software,
Test of the structural model
Inc., Encino, CA) was used to conduct the SEM analysis.
The structural model and hypotheses were tested by
examining the path coefficients. The values of R2 for
Results dependent constructs were also produced. Figure 2
Descriptive statistics shows the results of the structural model. All but one of
the paths provided support for our hypotheses. The rela-
Table 2 presents descriptive statistics for the items tionship between prior experience and usage, though in
including the minimum value, the maximum value, the the same direction as indicated by the model, was not
mean value, and the standard deviation for each item. significant. Therefore, H1, H2, and H4 are supported,
All the averages are in the range of 5.1–6.2 (of 7). whereas H3 is not.
As indicated by R2 values, the model explains 19% of
the variance in the usage of cloud-based collaboration
Instrument validity and reliability
services, which explains 89% of the variance in team
To assess the measurement model, individual item load- performance.
ings and internal consistency reliabilities were examined.
As indicated in Table 3, the factor loadings for the
Discussion
remaining items ranged from 0.70 to 0.92, which
exceeded the acceptable value of 0.50 (Hair, Anderson, The findings of this study provide support for our
Tatham, & Black, 1992). For internal consistency reliabil- research model. Both teamwork quality and computer
ities, Cronbach’s alpha values for the constructs were self-efficacy significantly and positively affect the usage
 232 L. QIN ET AL.
Figure 2. Results of the structural model with path coefficients and R2 values (p < .05).
of cloud-based collaboration services, which in turn sig-
nificantly and positively affects team performance. Spe-
cifically, individuals who perceived higher teamwork
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 14:49 30 May 2016
quality reported they used the collaboration services
more, individuals who perceived higher computer self-
efficacy also reported a higher level of usage of the col-
laboration services, and a higher level of reported usage
of cloud-based collaboration services further led to better
performance on the team project. As indicated by R2
(.89), the usage of cloud-based collaboration services can
explain the team performance well.
In other words, the factors that significantly influence
the usage of collaboration services include the quality of
the teamwork that participants experience, as well as
their perception of their own skills and expertise in terms
of using the services. The right combination of these
factors, together with the appropriate kind of task, results
in greater usage and also better team performance on the
task.
Our research results contribute to the theories of
cloud-based collaboration services adoption and team-
work. This study develops and empirically validates a
research model that teamwork characteristics (measured
by teamwork quality) and individual characteristics
(measured by computer self-efficacy and prior experi-
ence) influence the usage of cloud-based collaboration
services, which further influences team performance.
This model is useful and important since the usage of
cloud-based collaboration services are becoming widely
accepted in businesses and organizations, and could
bring about further employment of collaboration in all
levels and contexts for education.
In addition to theoretical contributions, our research
results also have important managerial implications. The
positive relationship between the usage of cloud-based
collaboration services and team performance provides
justification for managers and adopters of collaboration
services to provide information workers with incentives
to use these services in order to improve team perfor-
mance, when there is a fit between collaboration service
and team task. Clearly, there are advantages to using col-
laboration services in the workplace, to help manage
tasks and also improve the potential for working together
with various members of working groups, teams, and
departments.
To encourage the use of such collaboration services,
managers should consider strategies for improving team
characteristics in terms of their communication, coordi-
nation, balance of member contributions, mutual sup-
port, and effort. The combination of improving the team
characteristics mentioned, together with the employment
of technology, would help promote the usage and
improve the performance of groups and teams in the
workplace.
In addition, the influence of computer self-efficacy on
the usage of collaboration services indicates that increas-
ing employees’ confidence about using computer technol-
ogy will also help promote the usage of the collaboration
services. It may be helpful to find ways to improve
employees’ affect for technology, so that their perfor-
mance can be enhanced, both in general and in terms of
those involving collaborative projects and teamwork.
In addition to the implications for adopters of collab-
oration services, our findings also offer providers of these
services with evidence to show the positive impacts of
using such services as they relate to teamwork and per-
formance, as well as providing a means for promoting
the usefulness and utility of these services. The fact that
collaboration using the collaboration services contributes
to improved performance can be effective for marketing
campaigns where the usefulness of these services are pre-
sented to potential users.
In terms of educational implications, the results con-
firm that collaboration services, when used with group
participants who have some fair level of computer skills,
and also a good level of teamwork, would bring about
improved performance on the team project. This may
help confirm the positive effects that computer-sup-
ported collaboration can have on the group learning pro-
cess (Hadjileontiadou, Dias, Diniz, & Hadjileontiadis,

2015; Stahl, Koschmann, & Suthers, 2006). Much of edu-
cation, especially undergraduate education, is focused on
individual work and performance, rather than work by
groups and teams. The availability of these collaboration
services can help to expand and promote collaboration
for undergraduate education, and also help support team
projects in graduate courses. The type of work to which
these services can be applied is broad, ranging from busi-
ness documents to creative writing, case study analyses
and peer reviews and critiques. There are many opportu-
nities and advantages that can be had from the employ-
ment of these collaboration services that are available on
every computer and desktop with simply an Internet
connection and browser.
Our findings did not indicate any significant relation-
ship between prior experience with collaboration services
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 14:49 30 May 2016
and usage of collaboration services. This may be because
all the subjects in the study were given training on using
the collaboration service right before starting the project.
Also, similar to other software tools or services, it is likely
that someone having experience with one may not result
in one’s need to use it more than the first-time users, or
experienced users may take less time to do the same task
compared with a novice.
Conclusions, limitations, and future research
Due to the proliferation of cloud-based collaboration
services and the importance of teamwork for businesses
and education, this study was conducted to investigate
the determinants of the usage of cloud-based collabora-
tion services and its relationship with team performance.
Drawing from prior studies, a research model was devel-
oped by incorporating the constructs of teamwork qual-
ity, computer self-efficacy, prior experience with the
services, usage of cloud-based collaboration services, and
team performance. The model was empirically evaluated
by applying SEM to data collected from 217 subjects
who participated in a team project involving the use of a
cloud-based collaboration service by Google. The results
revealed that teamwork quality and computer self-effi-
cacy positively and significantly influence the usage of
cloud-based collaboration services, which positively and
significantly influence team performance. These findings
have implications upon both theories and practice.
This study supports the notion that collaboration serv-
ices, which are readily available for use over the Internet,
are a viable means for supporting group work. The avail-
ability of these services implies that it may not be necessary
to set up specialized labs with costly equipment to support
collaboration by groups. This brings about countless
opportunities for exploring group interaction when work-
ing on a task, and also makes it easy to readily support
JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS 233
interactive group preparation of documents and files. It
should be noted that the collaborative application in this
study is somewhat unique in that they are not only accessi-
ble and available at little cost, but also that they bundle
together both office application functionality and synchro-
nous collaboration capabilities. While there have been a
number of studies using the cloud-based collaborative
word processing tool, fewer have employed the spreadsheet
application. Therefore, this research furthers the study of
collaboration using cloud-based services with a spreadsheet
application, considering the importance of spreadsheet
programs both in business use and for business education.
It should be noted that our research setting requires
all participants to use the collaboration services for com-
pleting the teamwork task. Though this study provides
insights complementary to other studies where system
use is optional, our research results must be considered
in light of this limitation. In addition, our research
respondents are young college students, who may not
represent the general population in the workplace of
businesses and organizations. Future research may be
conducted for other age groups and also for other tasks
using cloud-based collaboration services.
References
Agarwal, R., & Prasad, J. (1999). Are individual differences ger-
mane to the acceptance of new information technologies?
Decision Sciences, 30, 361–391.
Alshuwaier, F. A., Alshwaier, A. A., & Areshey, A. M. (2012,
August). Applications of cloud computing in education.
Paper presented at the 8th International Conference on
Computing and Networking Technology (ICCNT),
Gueongju, South Korea.
Alshwaier, A., Youssef, A., & Emam, A. (2012). A new trend in
e-learning in ksa using educational clouds. Advanced Com-
puting: An International Journal, 3, 81–97.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural
equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Sci-
ence 16, 74–94.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bennett, J., & Pence, H. E. (2011). Managing laboratory data
using cloud computing as an organizational tool. Journal of
Chemical Education, 88, 761–763.
Bhattacherjee, A., & Park, S. C. (2013). Why end-users move to
the cloud: A migration-theoretic analysis. European Journal
of Information Systems, 23, 357–372.
Blau, I., & Caspi, A. (2009). What type of collaboration helps?
Psychological ownership, perceived learning and outcome
quality of collaboration using Google Docs. In Y. Eshet-
Alkalai, A. Caspi, S. Eden, N. Geri, & Y. Yair (Eds.), Pro-
ceedings of the Chais conference on instructional technologies
research 2009: Learning in the technological era (pp. 48–55).
Raanana, Israel: The Open University of Israel.
Bonham, S. (2011). Whole class laboratories with Google Docs.
Physics Teacher, 49, 22–23.
 234 L. QIN ET AL.
Bora, U. J., & Ahmed, M. (2013). E-learning using cloud com-
puting. International Journal of Science and Modern Engi-
neering, 1(2), 9–13.
Brodahl, C., Hadjerrouit, S., & Hansen, N. K. (2011). Collabo-
rative writing with web 2.0 technologies: Education stu-
dents’ perceptions. Journal of Information Technology
Education, 10, 73–103.
Burkhardt, M. E., & Brass, D. J. (1990). Changing patterns or
patterns of change: The effects of a change in technology on
social network structure and power. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 35, 104–127.
Chu, S. K. W., & Kennedy, D. M. (2011). Using online collabo-
rative tools for groups to co-construct knowledge. Online
Information Review, 35, 581–597.
Chu, S. K. W., Kennedy, D., & Mak, Y. K. (2009, December).
MediaWiki and Google Docs as online collaboration tools
for group project co-construction. Proceedings of the 6th
Paper presented at the International Conference on Knowl-
edge Management, Hong Kong.
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 14:49 30 May 2016
Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer self-effi-
cacy: Development of a measure and initial test. MIS Quar-
terly, 19, 189–211.
Cooke, R. A., & Szumal, J. L. (1994). The impact of group
interaction styles on problem-solving effectiveness. Applied
Behavioral Science, 30, 415–437.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use,
and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quar-
terly, 13, 319–339.
Denton, D. (2012). Enhancing instruction through constructiv-
ism, cooperative learning, and cloud computing. Tech-
Trends, 56(4), 34–41.
Dignan, L. (2011, April 22). Cloud computing market: $241
billion in 2020. ZDNet. Retrieved from http://www.zdnet.
com/article/cloud-computing-market-241-billion-in-2020/
Easley, R. F., Devaraj, S., & Crant, J. M. (2003). Relating collab-
orative technology use to teamwork quality and perfor-
mance: An empirical analysis. Journal of Management
Information Systems, 19, 247–268.
Ercan, T. (2010). Effective use of cloud computing in educa-
tional institutions. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Scien-
ces, 2, 938–942.
Fjermestad, J., & Hiltz. S. R. (1998/1999). An assessment of
group support systems experimental research: Methodology
and results. Journal of Management Information Systems,
15(3), 7–149.
Forrester Consulting. (2012). Collaboration services: Deploy-
ment options for the enterprise. White Paper Commissioned
by Cisco Systems. Cambridge, MA: Author.
Galliers, R. (1992). Information systems research: Issues, meth-
ods & practical guidelines. Boston, MA: Blackwell Scientific.
Gallaugher, J. (2014). Information systems: A Manager’s guide
to harnessing technology. Washington, DC: Flat World
Knowledge.
Gallupe, R. B., DeSanctis, G., & Dickson, G. (1988). Computer-
based support for group problem-finding: An experimental
investigation. MIS Quarterly, 12, 277–296.
Gefen, D., Straub, D. W., & Boudreau, M. C. (2000). Structural
equation modeling and regression: Guidelines for research
practice. Communications of the Association for Informa-
tion Systems, 4(7), 1–79.
Gist, M. E., Schwoerer, C. E., & Rosen, B. (1989). Effects
of alternative training methods on self-efficacy and
performance in computer software training. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 74, 884–891.
Griffin, A., & Hauser, J. R. (1992). Patterns of communication
among marketing engineering and manufacturing: A com-
parison between two new product development teams.
Management Science, 38, 360–373.
Gully, S. M., Devine, D. J., & Whitney, D. J. (1995). A meta-
analysis of cohesion and performance: Effects of level of
analysis and task interdependence. Small Group Research,
26, 497–520.
Gupta, A. K., Raj, S. P., & Wilemon, D. (1987). Managing the
R&D marketing interface. Research Management, 30, 38–43.
Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In J. W.
Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 67–
102). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hadjileontiadou, S. J., Dias, S. B., Diniz, J. A., & Hadjileontia-
dis, L. J. (2015). Computer-supported collaborative learn-
ing: A holistic perspective. In L. A. Tomei (Ed.), Fuzzy
logic-based modeling in collaborative and blended learning,
advances in educational technologies and instructional
design (pp. 51–88). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R., & Black, W. (1992). Multivari-
ate data analysis with readings. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Hargis, J., & Wilcox, S. (2008). Ubiquitous, free, and efficient
online collaboration tools for teaching and learning. Turk-
ish Online Journal of Distance Education, 9(4), 9–17.
Harrison, A. W., & Rainer, R. K. Jr. (1992). The influence of
individual differences on skill in end-user computing. Jour-
nal of Management Information Systems, 9, 93–111.
Hill, T., Smith, N. D., & Mann, M. F. (1987). Role of efficacy
expectations in predicting the decision to use advanced
technologies: The case of computers. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 72, 307–313.
Hoegl, M., & Gemuenden, H. G. (2001). Teamwork quality and
the success of innovative projects: A theoretical concept and
empirical evidence. Organization Science, 12, 435–449.
Jou, M., & Wang, J. (2013). Observations of achievement and
motivation in using cloud computing driven CAD: Com-
parison of college students with high school and vocational
high school backgrounds. Computers in Human Behavior,
29, 364–369.
Levin, T., & Gordon, C. (1989). Effect of gender and computer
experience on attitudes toward computers. Journal of Edu-
cational Computing Research, 5, 69–88.
Majchrzak, A., Rice, R. E., Malhotra, A., King, N., & Ba, S.
(2000). Technology adaptation: The case of a computer-
supported inter-organizational virtual team. MIS Quarterly,
24, 569–600.
McGeoch, J. A., & Irion, A. L. (1952). The psychology of human
learning. New York, NY: Longmans.
McLeod, P. L., & Liker, J. K. (1992). Electronic meeting sys-
tems: Evidence from a low structure environment. Informa-
tion Systems Research, 3, 195–223.
Nunnally, J. C. (1967). Psychometric theory. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Park, S. C., & Ryoo, S. Y. (2013). An empirical investigation of end-
users switching toward cloud computing: A two factor theory
perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 160–170.
Pinsonneault, A., & Kraemer, K. L. (1990). The effects of elec-
tronic meetings on group processes and outcomes: An
assessment of the empirical research. European Journal of
Operational Research, 46, 143–161.

Pinsonneault, A., & Kraemer, K. L. (1993). Survey research
methodology in management information systems: An
assessment. Journal of Management Information Systems,
10, 75–106.
Quittner, J. (2008, December 5). How SaaS helps cut small
business costs. Bloomberg BusinessWeek. Retrieved from
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2008-12-04/how-
saas-helps-cut-small-business-costs
Rienzo, T., & Han, B. (2009). Microsoft or Google Web 2.0
tools for course management. Journal of Information Sys-
tems Education, 20, 123–127.
Seers, A. (1989). Team-member exchange quality: A new con-
struct for role-making research. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 43, 118–135.
Silverstein, D. L. (2008, November). Concurrently collaborative
spreadsheets in the chemical engineering classroom. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Institute
of Chemical Engineers, Philadelphia, PA.
Sinex, S., & Chambers, T. L. (2013). Developing online collabo-
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 14:49 30 May 2016
ration skills in the general chemistry laboratory. Journal of
Chemical Education, 90, 1244–1246.
Spaeth, A. D., & Black, R. S. (2012). Google docs as a form
of collaborative learning, Chemical Education, 89, 1078–
1079.
Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2006). Computer-sup-
ported collaborative learning: An historical perspective. In R. K.
Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences
Appendix
Measurement Scales for Principle Constructs
(a) Teamwork Quality (TWQ)
(COMM1) I was happy with the timeliness in which I
received information from other team members.
(COMM2) I was happy with the usefulness of the
information received from other team members.
(COMM3) Information relevant to the project was
shared openly by all team members.
(COMM4) There was frequent communication within
the team.
(BMC2) The efforts and contributions to the project
were balanced among the team members.
(BMC3) Each team member made fair contributions
to complete the project.
(COD1) There were clear and coordinated efforts
within my team to complete the project.
(COD2) The team members were able to agree on
how to complete the project.
(EFT1) Every team member was fully engaged with
the project.
(EFT2) My team put much effort into the project.
(MS1) The team members helped and supported each
other as best they could.
(MS2) Suggestions and contributions by team mem-
bers were discussed and further developed.
JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS 235
(pp. 409–426). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.
Suwantarathip, O., & Wichadee, S. (2014). The effects of col-
laborative writing activity using google docs on students’
writing abilities. Turkish Online Journal of Educational
Technology, 13, 148–156.
Thomas, P. Y. (2011). Cloud computing: A potential paradigm
for practising the scholarship of teaching and learning. The
Electronic Library, 29, 214–224.
Webster, J., & Martocchio, J. J. (1992). Microcomputer playful-
ness: Development of a measure with workplace implica-
tions. MIS Quarterly, 16, 201–226.
Webster, J., & Martocchio, J. J. (1993). Turning work into play:
Implications for microcomputer software training. Journal
of Management, 19, 127–146.
Yang, H., & Lin, S. (2015). User continuance intention to use
cloud storage service. Computers in Human Behavior, 52,
219–232.
Yang, Z., Sun, J., Zhang, Y., & Wang, Y. (2015). Understanding
SaaS adoption from the perspective of organizational users:
A tripod readiness model. Computers in Human Behavior,
45, 254–264.
Zhou, W., Simpson, E., & Domizi, D. P. (2012). Google docs in
an out-of-class collaborative writing activity google docs in
an out-of-class collaborative writing activity. International
Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 24,
359–375.
(MS3) My team was able to reach agreement regard-
ing important issues related to the project.
(b) Computer Self-Efficacy (CS)
(CS1) I could use a new software application if some-
one showed me how to do it first.
(CS2) I could use a new software application if I had
used similar software before this one to do the same
job.
(CS3) I could use a new software application if a refer-
ence manual was available.
(CS4) I could use a new software application if I could
get help from others.
(c) Prior Experience (PE)
(PE1) I have used Google Drive (Document, Presenta-
tion, or Form) before this team project.
(PE2) I have used Google Drive Spreadsheet before
this team project.
(d) Usage (USG)
(USG1) I used Google Drive to modify/improve my
team members’ work.
(USG2) I used Google Drive to review my team mem-
bers’ work.