Group Development (I): A Review and Synthesis of Development Models

This is the first of two parts that examine the issue of group development and its impact on the study design of group support systems (GSS). We review the various models of group development, analyze the sources of differences among these models, and synthesize common themes across various models. The paper concludes with a meta-framework for understanding group development; this framework highlights the two areas of focus that have dominated group development research in the past: group processes and outcomes. The second paper will build on the ideas developed here and discuss the implications of group development for GSS research.Previous research on group behavior suggests that groups change over time; patterns of change, referred to as group development models, have been an important area of study for the past four decades. For the first three of these decades, unitary models of group development were very popular; that is, the notion that all groups go through a certain series of predefined stages. In the last decade, however, researchers have cast doubt on such unitary models of group development. Nonsequential models that recognize the uniqueness of each group (and consequently reject the idea of a single, predetermined series of stages) have become increasingly popular. This paper examines the implications of these issues for researchers and managers of groups. It also attempts to serve as the foundation for the propositions developed in the next paper, in which the relevance of group development for GSS research and practice are discussed.     

Group Development (II): Implications for GSS Research and Practice

This article is the second of a two-part series that examines the issue ofgroup development and its impact on the study and design of group supportsystems. It builds on the ideas developed in the preceding article anddiscusses the implications of group development for group support systems(GSS) research. Specifically, the paper examines the impact of computersupport systems on group development processes. Our previous paper reviewed models of development—based on two competingparadigms, sequential and nonsequential—proposed by various researchers.Despite differences between the two paradigms, individual models share somecommon aspects, from the types of processes experienced to the nature ofoutputs produced, that jointly help describe group development. Commonprocesses displayed in the evolution of a group, distilled from the variousmodels, include cohesiveness, conflict management, balance betweensocioemotional and task needs, effective communication, and involvement ingroup activities. Additionally, the various models also indicate that groupshave critical periods in their developmental path. This paper develops the idea that GSS structures can support groups withtheir developmental processes and help them deal with critical periods. MostGSS provide global structures like anonymity, simultaneity, and the capacityfor enhanced information processing. These structures, if appropriatedeffectively by groups, can influence their developmental paths over time. Inmany cases these structures can help the development of groups by improvingtheir ability to manage conflict, increasing their cohesiveness, developing asense of group identity, and enhancing open communication. This paperdevelops a set of testable propositions that can guide researchers of groupbehavior, organizational users of GSS, and developers of these systems.     

Challenging Group Support Systems Research: The Case for Strategic Decision Making

Strategic decision making (SDM) often occurs in groups that can benefit from the use of group support systems (GSS). However, no comprehensive review of this logical intersection has been made. We explore this intersection by viewing GSS research through the lens of SDM. First, SDM is broadly characterized and a model of GSS-mediated SDM is produced. Second, we review empirical GSS research linking these findings to the characteristics of SDM. We conclude that GSS research has not produced sufficient knowledge about group history, heterogeneity, member experience, task type, time pressure, technology or tool effects, and decision consensus for a favorable evaluation of SDM in GSS groups. SDM in GSS groups challenges researchers to study the effects of group processes such as those just mentioned in a context that involves ongoing and established groups, political activity, and a multiplicity of tasks.     

Ethical Decision Making: A Comparison of Computer- Supported and Face-to-face Group

This study compares computer-supported groups, i.e., groups using group support systems (GSS), and face-to-face groups using ethical decision-making tasks. A laboratory experiment was conducted using five-person groups of information systems professionals. Face-to-face (FTF) and GSS groups were compared in terms of their decision outcomes and group members' reactions. The results revealed that computer-supported and face-to-face groups showed no significant difference in terms of the decision outcomes of choice shift and decision polarity. However, FTF groups reached their decisions more quickly and they were more successful in attaining group consensus than GSS groups. Subjects evaluated face-to-face communication more favorably than GSS interaction on most post-group measures related to perceived group processes and satisfaction. Despite these outcomes, some possibilities for using GSS technology in an ethical decision making context are examined.     

Exploring Continued and Discontinued Use of IT: A Case Study of OptionFinder, a Group Support System

This study explores how perceptions, experience, attitudes, communication behavior and environment affect continued and discontinued use of a group support system (GSS) as an organizational innovation. The case study method was used to investigate the largely unexplored process of GSS adoption and diffusion in terms of human factors, internal organizational context, external organizational environment and GSS management activities. Analysis of data collected in 25 in-depth interviews with informants who had voluntarily adopted GSS for use in one or more meetings they initiated, suggests GSS diffusion is a complex process. The author concluded the most significant determinants of initial adoption was support of a champion, while the presence of an intra-departmental champion and a well-rounded GSS infrastructure strongly influenced continued use. Lack of task-technology fit and perception of GSS as a large group tool strongly influenced discontinued use. The surprising finding that intentions to use GSS were the same for continued and discontinued users, led to the conclusion that some discontinued users are in reality stalled users who should not be classified as rejecters of the technology.These research findings have important implications for devising strategies for the effective introduction and assimilation of GSS and other information system technologies, and point to the need for continued support throughout the different stages of the diffusion process.     

Using and Influence Level of Information to Explain the Non-consensus Process Loss

Much of the Group Support System (GSS) literature comparing GSS groups with manual groups has produced contrarian results. One of the more confusing is that GSS groups have a higher level of non-consensus than manual groups. Lack of consensus in GSS groups is considered to be a negative aspect of GSS. This paper argues that low levels of consensus are not necessarily harmful and should be expected given the assumptions about GSSs. This study uses an alternate measure to compare face-to-face groups with GSS groups; an influence level of information. Experimental results using an influence level of information show no difference between face-to-face group members and GSS group members. We discuss these implications, as well as additional directions for further consensus research.     

Towards an Instrument to Measure Participants' Perceptions on Facilitation in Group Support Systems Meetings

Facilitation is often considered to be one of the key factors in the successful application of GSS. Research on GSS facilitation has revealed insight into the types of tasks performed by facilitators and the potential positive effects of facilitation on group consensus and satisfaction. However, earlier research has rarely approached GSS facilitation from the participants' point of view. In this study a questionnaire was developed and distributed to 369 participants of facilitated GSS meetings in order to measure their perceptions of various facilitation tasks. The results suggested three categories of facilitation tasks that are perceived as important by participants. Each of these categories strongly correlated with participants' meeting satisfaction. Further research is needed to refine these categories so that the instrument may be used to evaluate a facilitator's performance.     

Differences between workstations and keypad group support systems: Implications for keypad GSS facilitators

Organizations are successfully using group support systems (GSS) to improve efficiency, effectiveness, and satisfaction in organizational meetings. Meeting success relies on making an appropriate match between group, taks, and technology. This responsibility often falls to the meeting facilitator. This article draws upon GSS and facilitation literature to develop a framework for the discussion of effective facilitation in workstation and keypad meeting environments. The article identifies differences between the systems and how they impact upon the behavior of the meeting facilitators and their choice of technology. Compensatory actions are proposed for keypad facilitators to address the lack of key workstation features. Keypad strengths are also identified to show the opportunities available to facilitators to maximize the benefits of using these GSS. Further, it is proposed that different types of GSS are not mutually exclusive and should be seen as complementary components of a suite of GSS tools designed to support organizational goals.     

Performance-Based Reward Distribution Methods for Anonymous Decision-Making Groups

Research has shown that both the support of anonymity and the use of appropriate incentives can lead to improved group performance. Anonymity enables a more open discussion resulting in a more critical analysis of a problem. Rewards can motivate individuals to cooperate, giving them the incentive to share valuable information with the group. Unfortunately, these two mechanisms are both dependent on the ability to identify the contributor. Anonymity hides the identity of the contributor, while the support of individualized, performance-based rewards requires the rewarding agent to be able to determine the identity of the contributor. This contradictory requirement has prevented the simultaneous used of anonymity and performance-based rewards in decision making. Using group decision support systems as a basis, this work identifies procedures to simultaneously support participant anonymity and performance-based rewards. Mechanisms based on public key encryption technologies are presented which make it possible to distribute individual rewards to anonymous contributors, guarantee that only the contributor can claim a reward for her contribution, verify that a reward has been distributed, and be able to deliver this reward in such a way that the identity of the anonymous contributor is protected. This is accomplished without the rewarding agent ever knowing the identity of the recipient.     

Using GSS to Design Organizational Processes and Information Systems: An Action Research Study on Collaborative Business Engineering

During an action research study a collaborative business engineering approach was developed, applied, and evaluated. Key characteristic of the approach is its focus on the participative design of organizational processes and supporting information systems. Following the approach, various design activities are carried out in close cooperation with groups of stakeholders supported by a Group Support System (GSS). This paper describes and reflects on the execution of these collaborative design activities in a police organization. Lessons learned with respect to GSS and collaborative design are formulated. Key insights illustrate the stakeholders' perception of the group technology and the way in which it facilitated an efficient design process.     

Folding Arguments: A Method for Representing Conflicting Views of a Conflict

This article presents a method for representing social conflict under disagreements over its representation, with the view that the resolution of such disagreements often affects the resolution of the conflict itself. The Argumentative Analysis of Options (AAO) method proposed here extends Howard's Analysis of Options method for conflict analysis. The AAO method highlights the role of policy discourse in resolving the disagreed representation, and models arguments made in these social processes. In this method, people's arguments are folded into a "strategic map" of a conflict, using a new coding system based on modal logic. The method is designed to be incorporated into group support systems (GSS) as a non-exclusive, non-specialist communication medium for both principal players and grassroots people. An experimental study is reported in which use of a prototype of GSS with the AAO method resulted in an assembly of rational and structured arguments in an attempt to resolve a hypothetical conflict. An evaluation by users of the prototype GSS suggested that it was less simple and more difficult to use, but richer than a more traditional electronic mail system. Design implications and potential pitfalls of this approach to GSS are discussed based on the results of the experimental study.     

Modeling and supporting task-oriented group processes: Purposeful complex adaptive systems and Evolutionary Systems Design

Evolutionary Systems Design (ESD) is a universal general problem solving, formal modeling, design framework for purposeful complex adaptive systems (PCAS) and processes, i.e., task-oriented group processes. These processes constitute policy making, group decision, negotiation, and multiagent problem solving with human and/or artificial agents. ESD is also a framework for computer group support systems (GSS) that support these processes. The ESD general framework can be applied to define and solve specific problems. In this article the ESD framework is presented and illustrated by example. The article provides background for ESD computer implementations discussed in two other related articles (Lewis and Shakun 1996; Bui and Shakun 1996).     

Coordination Structures and System Restrictiveness in Distributed Group Support Systems

Most GSS research has studied the impact of restricting group interaction to GSS-prescribed coordination structures with face-to-face groups, while Distributed GSS (DGSS) has been largely ignored. Due to the nature of mediated communication in asynchronous interaction, it is relatively difficult to coordinate distributed groups, and a special coordination structure must be arranged to overcome these difficulties. This study examines the effect of system restrictiveness of coordination structures in an asynchronous environment. A 2 × 2 factorial experiment was designed with two independent variables – sequential vs. parallel coordination mode, and with vs. without a leader – to construct coordination structures with varying degrees of restrictiveness. The study finds that less restrictive coordination structures are more appropriate to support asynchronously interacting distributed groups. Objective decision quality is equal for both parallel and sequential coordination mode, but is significantly better with a group leader. Groups with parallel coordination mode have a stronger belief that the decisions they made are of higher quality than those of groups with sequential coordination mode. In groups with a leader, communication effectiveness is better. Satisfaction with a decision process is higher in parallel coordination groups and in groups with a leader. There is also a significant interaction effect. Satisfaction with the decision process is higher in sequential coordination groups with a leader than sequential coordination groups without a leader.     

The Role of Groupware in Requirements Specification

This article describes how 2 forms of groupware - electronic Mail and Group Support Systems (GSS) were employed to support user requirements specification in a university department. The system being specified was a bibliographic information system, while the users were both qualified systems analysts and academic staff in the department. The background literatures to both requirements specification and GSS are introduced and linked. Groupware tools were used to support the group interaction and consensus formation. The article discusses the key stages in this process and discusses the appropriateness of the techniques used. The results are significant in that they identify techniques appropriate to supporting user groups in the clarification of system requirements before the involvement of development personnel.     

Perceptions of facilitators of a keypad‐based group support system

Organizations are using Group Support Systems (GSSs) to improve the quality of group meetings. Keypad‐based GSSs are a widely used form of this technology, yet there has been little research on their use and effects. This paper reports the findings of a survey of facilitators of a particular keypad GSS. Facilitators indicate that keypad technology improves the quality of meetings for a variety of tasks in a range of group settings and cultures. The findings are in general agreement with field studies of workstation‐based systems.     

The Effects of Process and Content Facilitation Restrictiveness on GSS-Mediated Collaborative Learning

Group Support Systems (GSS) technology, extensively applied in decision-making contexts, is now seeing increased application in the educational sector. Previous work has suggested that GSS applications can have significant positive effects on both the process and the outcome of collaborative learning. This study extends this work to examine the effects of process (high/low) and content (high/low) facilitation restrictiveness on GSS-supported collaborative learning. Our results indicate that content facilitation restrictiveness has no significant bearing on student learning. Process facilitation restrictiveness, on the other hand, is more influential, with knowledge acquisition by students requiring a low restrictive environment.     

The Meta Environment: A New Group Support System Structure

The greatest success of conventional group support systems (GSS) has been in meetings whose purpose is to extract and record the ideas that participants bring to the meeting. Research supports the usefulness of GSS when complexity is high and groups are large. Conventional GSS almost always require a facilitator or group leader to guide a group through a desired set of tasks. The next natural step beyond conventional GSS is to empower people to use even a broader set of tools in meetings. This article proposes a new GSS structure called the meta environment in which group members bring material into the meeting from their individual workstations, and interact dynamically not only to generate new material, but also to access and analyze existing computer-based information such as spreadsheets and documents. More importantly, a meta environment enables people to work both in synchronism and out of synchronism with the meeting, and adjust to and remember work across meetings. A prototype development project and user testing shows how meta environment components can be built and used. Results from the user testing suggest the need for a new cycle of empirical testing in GSS research to evaluate the effect of the meta environment on existing and new group structures.