Computational Indicators to Assist Meeting Facilitation

In many group work settings, meetings take up a reasonable amount of time and often do not achieve satisfactory outcomes. One of the techniques that has been introduced to ensure meetings run smoothly and reach their goals places an individual in the role of meeting facilitator. Facilitation involves putting together the meeting agenda, designing meeting dynamics and overseeing the meeting at run time, to ensure goals are met. This may involve intervening or adjusting meeting structure to produce desired results. Thus, a facilitator should be able to act according to perceived group dynamics or problems. In this paper, we investigate information needs during facilitation activities. Based on initial investigations, we describe a meeting support system constructed to aid the facilitator in assessing meeting dynamics and a preliminary evaluation. Our goal is to provide information to the facilitator so he or she can better decide when to act and what to do.     

The Effects of Integrating Cognitive Feedback and Multi-attribute Utility-Based Multicriteria Decision-Making Methods in GDSS

Cognitive conflicts arise within groups because the members of a group view a problem from different perspectives, even when they have similar interests in achieving a goal. Disagreement within a group may occur due to: (a) differing judgment policies among the members, (b) inconsistency by any member in using a judgment policy, (c) group process losses that prevent group members from understanding each other better, or (d) limited processing capability which may prevent group members from processing all information effectively. Disagreement is especially likely when policies, processes, or information are conflicting in nature.A level 2 GDSS to aid judging in cognitive conflict tasks is presented that combines cognitive feedback and Multi-attribute utility (MAU) theory based multicriteria decision-making techniques with the communication structure and activity-structuring capabilities of a level 1 GDSS. Though cognitive feedback and MAU methods have been used separately to help groups resolve cognitive conflicts, never before have the two decision aids been used together in a computer-based collaborative system.The contributory effects of the components of this GDSS design were empirically tested in a laboratory setting. Three treatments: an unaided face-to-face meeting, a level 1 GDSS supported meeting, and a level 2 GDSS supported meeting were compared in a repeated measures experimental design.Results largely supported the proposed research hypotheses. Some specific findings include: (1) the level 2 GDSS reduced disagreement between group members and improved consistency of judgments better than the other meeting environments did; (2) there was no significant difference in the reduction of disagreement between the level 1 GDSS and face-to-face meetings; and (3) while there was no difference in improvement of consistency of individual judgments between the face-to-face and level 1 GDSS supported meetings, group judgments made in face-to-face meetings were more consistent.     

Participants' perceptions on the role of facilitators using Group Decision Support Systems

The impact of facilitation upon group meetings has been a topic of research and debate for over 40 years. However, with the emergence and increasing usage of Group Decision Support Systems (GDSS), the role of facilitators is once more being addressed. Facilitators aim to substantially increase the effectiveness of group working, making meetings more productive and efficient through the management of both content and process. However, while the benefit that facilitators can bring is acknowledged, developing the necessary skills and techniques is more problematic. There are few manuals for would-be faciliators to draw upon, and much of their ability is acquired through experience. This article therefore attempts to increase the knowledge available and to provide facilitators with some practical suggestions. The research focuses on a series of interviews with group members (participants) who had used a particular GDSS—Strategic Options Development and Analysis (SODA)—for organizational decision making. From the analysis of the interviews, a number of reoccurring issues were identified which are presented as a set of learning points. These cover not only the workshop/meeting itself, but also the pre-workshop and post-workshop stages. The article also reflects on the impact which these identified learning points have on design and future GDSS development.     

Influence of Computer-Based Meeting Support on Process and Outcomes for a Divisional Coordinating Group

This research examines the introduction of computer-based group decision support systems (GDSS) to members of a division level coordinating group. Participants performed authentic problem formulation tasks which varied naturally in degree of structuredness, in two non-GDSS meetings then were provided GDSS for four additional meetings. It was proposed that the introduction of the GDSS and task structuredness would influence (1) group process in terms of the amount of divergent and convergent thinking communicated during meetings and (2) perceived outcomes regarding quality, satisfaction, understanding, confidence, and commitment to group positions. Results suggest that GDSS use affected both the total amount and pattern of group communication but not perceived outcomes. Structuredness of the task affected perceived outcomes but neither amount nor patterns of communication. Additional qualitative data regarding perceived of costs and benefits in using GDSS provide richer explanation for study findings and suggest further lines of inquiry.     

An Assessment Framework for Practicing Facilitator

There is an on-going recognition of the need for facilitation to support different group settings. However, the skills and expertise required to successfully facilitate a group of participants to achieve their goal is a challenging task to achieve. There are a number of barriers towards facilitation: A facilitator needs to operate at many different levels at the same time; understand the politics within the group; encourage interaction within the group; and guide participants through tasks and activities, while balancing the needs of the group and the client to reach real outcomes. One of the key competences of a facilitator is flexibility, to adapt to varying circumstances. The complexity and dynamic nature of delivering an appropriate and effective facilitation service makes it therefore difficult to assess the facilitator’s performance in any facilitated session. In this paper we describe a framework in the form of an artefact developed to aid the facilitators in assessing their own performance in different meetings. Facilitation Service Assessment Framework (FSAF) allows facilitators to define metrics and measures in the context of facilitator’s goals. The assessment framework consists of a structure and a process which facilitators use to apply the framework to facilitation scenarios. Finally, the paper describes how experts evaluated FSAF in alternative scenarios by running a survey and then by conducting interviews.     

Contrasting Single User and Networked Group Decision Support Systems for Strategy Making

The use of computers to support group work – as a Group Decision Support System (GDSS) – on strategy making has grown over the last decade. Some GDSS's have a facilitator managing the computer with the group viewing a public screen displaying the debate, problem definition, and agreements of the group as it negotiates strategies. Others involve members of the group in the direct input of data that forms part of the problem definition – data that is then used by the group employing electronic voting and other organizing devices. This paper discusses a real case relating to an organization seeking to reach important agreements about its strategy. The case involved the top management team and over 50 senior managers. The organization used a facilitator driven GDSS for some of this work, and a networked system for other parts. Some of the meetings were video taped, some were observed through one-way mirrors, and all of the participants were interviewed about their reactions to the different systems. This paper reports on some of the significant contrasts between the two approaches.     

Developing a Group Decision Support System for Advertising Media Evaluation: A Case in the Middle East

The importance of advertising media evaluation as a multifaceted problem is well known by both academics and practitioners. Although previous studies tried to optimize media evaluation, there still are some gaps and problems to address, particularly in areas of flexibility of models/frameworks, decision making quality, tension management, and agility of the evaluation process. Most of previous studies are based on inflexible models/frameworks that have limitations on number of criteria/alternatives they can consider and type of data they can process. A great volume of the work used arbitrary decision making; arbitrary decision making regarding criteria and media importance may reduce effectiveness of advertising campaigns. Furthermore, the academic literature offers little guidance on group decision aggregation, and tension management during decision making is neglected. Media evaluation is a time taking process and any acceleration will reduce pre-campaign costs. The main aim of this paper is to illustrate how a group decision support system (GDSS) can assist media planners to overcome mentioned problems more systematically. For this purpose, we developed a GDSS that is an integration of three well-known multi-criteria decision making techniques. With a real world case study, we illustrate the performance of the proposed GDSS. Results of our quantitative assessments indicate that the GDSS is flexible, allows decision makers to express their opinions, reduces tension among decision makers, and saves time.     

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.     

Asking Questions: A Sine Qua Non of Facilitation in Decision Support?

This paper reflects our ongoing interest in discovering essential elements of facilitation in decision support for groups with members having different perspectives on a strategic problem. We investigated questioning behaviour, a critical aspect of microlevel behaviour, of the facilitator in a classroom experiment with five-person groups (N?=?26). The supported groups used a facilitated modelling approach, that is, group model building, which is based on system dynamics. In the control condition, one of the participants led the group discussion in the role of chairperson. As expected, we found that the facilitator asked more questions than the chairperson. Subsequently, based on proposed functions of questions by discussion leaders in group decision making, we distinguished three categories of questions; related to (a) rational and social validation, (b) reflection, and (c) information management. Analysis of question type frequencies revealed that facilitators mainly ask questions from the rational and social validation category, and that this question type declines over the course of the discussion process. Questions prompting reflection increased over time. Information management questions were mostly used in the beginning and middle part of the session. In the groups led by a chairperson, a less clear picture emerged. There was a great variety between groups with respect to type of questions and sequence in which the chairperson asked questions. The only consistent result for unsupported meetings is that information management primarily took place at the end of the sessions.     

Evolution of group performance over time: A repeated measures study of GDSS effects

Many studies in the group decision support system (GDSS) literature have reported on the behavior and performance of ad hoc groups meeting for the first, and, in fact, the only time. Such one‐time studies of groups may not represent their longer term behavior and performance accurately. Adaptive Structuration Theory (AST) conceives of technology use as a social practice that emerges over time. AST suggests that meeting outcomes reflect the extent to which structures offered by the technology (such as GDSS tool sequences, meeting agenda, etc.) are faithfully appropriated by the group. Such faithful appropriation, however, takes time. This article explicitly recognizes the relevance of this appropriation process and reports on a lab study that examined the impact of computer support on group performance over time. In general, results showed that the performance of computer‐supported groups improved over time, whereas the performance of non‐computer‐supported groups stayed the same or declined. The number of alternatives generated by computer‐supported groups increased considerably as they became more proficient in incorporating the technology into group processes. However, the quality of decisions made by computer‐supported groups began to increase slightly, only during the last session. Both these findings suggest that AST is, in fact, a viable theory for studying group behavior and performance over time. Results from this study also point out the need for conducting more longitudinal studies of group processes in the future.     

The Design of a GDSS Meeting Preparation Tool

The facilitator is a critical resource in computer supported decision-making groups. Facilitation is a complex task, encompassing social and technical abilities, analysis and synthesis skills, and making use of planning and flexibility, which opens multiple opportunities for computational support. This paper addresses specifically the current limitations of pre-meeting support. Having the objective of increasing support to the facilitation activities that deal with the process facet, we developed a meeting preparation tool around a comprehensive model of the decision process. An experiment revealed that the tool produces considerably different meeting agendas, especially in what concerns size and diversity. An attempt to evaluate the quality of the meeting agendas indicates an increase in the clarity criterion.     

Combining GDSS and Gaming for Decision Support

Both gaming and group (decision) support systems (GDSS) are frequently used to support decision-making and policymaking in multi-actor settings. Despite the fact that there are a number of ways in which gaming and GDSS can be used in a complementary manner, there are only sporadic examples of their combined use. No systematic overview or framework exists in which GDSS are related to the functions of gaming or vice versa. In this article, we examine, why, how and for what purpose GDSS can be used to enrich and improve gaming simulation for decision support, and vice versa. In addition to a review of examples found in the literature, four games are discussed where we combined gaming and GDSS for complex decision making in a multi actor context: incodelta, a game about transportation corridors; infrastratego, a game about a liberalizing electricity market; containers a drift, a game about the planning of a container terminal, and; dubes, a game about sustainable urban renewal. Based on the literature and these four experiences, a classification is presented of (at least) four ways in which GDSS and gaming can be used in a complementary or even mutually corrective, manner: the use of GDSS for game design, for game evaluation, for game operation and the use of gaming for research, testing and training of GDSS.     

Distributed group support systems: Social dynamics and design dilemmas

A “distributed group support system”; includes decision support tools and structures embedded within a computer‐mediated communication system rather than installed in a “decision room.”; It should support groups who are distributed in space but not time ("synchronous”; groups), as well as “asynchronous”; groups whose members participate at different times. Pilot studies conducted in preparation for a series of controlled experiments are reviewed in order to identify some of the problems of implementing such a system. Many of the means used by groups meeting in the same place at the same time to coordinate their activities are missing. Embedding decision support tools within a different communications medium and environment changes the way they “work.”; Speculations are presented about software tools and structuring or facilitation procedures that might replace the “missing”; coordination channels.     

Cooperation support through the use of group decision systems

This article considers the development of the group decision support system (GDSS) field both from organizational and technological perspectives. The growing importance of teamwork, lateral coordination, and activities integration inside modern business organizations is emphasized. Technological and knowledge specialization, quick transformation of business environments, reduction of response time, and so on, are some of the reasons that can explain the renewed relevance of teamwork. Also, the development of information technology (IT) is analyzed in relation to the role it is assuming in supporting group activities. Research in the GDSS field is then introduced. A proposal concerning the identification of three different phases in GDSS studies is developed, ranging from decision rooms to distributed systems. Each phase shows distinctive research topics and application fields, together with different organizational goals. Results of these developments are the growth of potential application areas of GDSS tools. These theoretical considerations, together with empirical experiences coming from the study of a real manufacturing environment (an IBM plant where group cooperation plays a fundamental role for production efficiency), constitute the basis for a research GDSS prototype (GROUPS). Prototype features are designed to support executives in facing production‐planning problems through an improvement in communications and in knowledge representation.     

Facilitation Methods for Collaborative Modeling Tools

This paper presents results of an ongoing research effort to support effective user involvement during modeling and analysis meetings. Productivity and user participation of traditional group meetings have been limitations imposed by chauffeured facilitation and single-user tools. These tools have been designed for analysts rather than for direct use by non-analyst users. Recently, electronic meeting systems (EMS) modeling tools that allow users to work in parallel to contribute directly during meetings have been developed. Such tools allow more domain experts to participate directly and productively during model development meetings than is possible using the traditional approach. Although previous research has demonstrated that EMS modeling tools may be used to develop some model content, little research had been done on collaborative facilitation methods that employ these tools. This paper presents a comparison of modeling approaches for use with EMS modeling tools and proposes an approach that overcomes significant problems inherent in other approaches. It leverages the productivity enhancement afforded by direct group access and still results in production of complete, integrated, high quality models. This approach allows models to be developed two to four times faster than with traditional modeling support and yet avoids model ambiguities and inconsistencies.     

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.     

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.     

An Intelligent Idea Categorizer for Electronic Meeting Systems

Research on group decisions and electronic meeting systems have been increasing rapidly according to the widespread of Internet technology. Although various issues have been raised in empirical research, we will try to solve an issue on idea categorizing in the group decision making process of electronic meeting systems. Idea categorizing used at existing GDSS was performed in a top-down procedure and mostly by participants' manual work. This resulted in tacking as long in idea categorizing as it does for idea generating, clustering an idea in multiple categories, and identifying almost similar redundant categories. However such methods have critical limitation in the electronic meeting systems, so we suggest an intelligent idea categorizing methodology which is a bottom-up approach. This method consists of steps to present idea using keywords, identifying keywords' affinity, computing similarity among ideas, and clustering ideas. This methodology allows participants to interact iteratively for clear manifestation of ambiguous ideas. We also developed a prototype system, IIC (intelligent idea categorizer) and evaluated its performance using the comparison experiments with other systems. IIC is not a general purposed system, but it produces a good result in a given specific domain.