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.     

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.     

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.     

Technology and Group Decision Process in Going-Concern Judgements

Accounting and auditing practices are continually being affected by advances in technology. This study empirically examined the effect of group decision processes and technological advances on group going-concern decision making. Groups with access to group decision support systems (GDSS) were compared to groups without access to GDSS for their going-concern judgments. The results show group discussion induced auditors to be more conservative and to consider factors which may have overlooked at the individual level, though neither structure significantly reduced the considerable variance in the individual going-concern judgments. Further, as compared to their counterparts in the face-to-face discussion groups, GDSS groups indicated much higher confidence in their group's final assessment of the client's going-concern status and a higher level of satisfaction and agreement with the group decision processes. The findings suggest that while group discussions did not significantly reduce auditors' considerable variance in going-concern judgments, future research should investigate which explicit models would improve the consensus on going-concern evaluations.     

Artificial Neural Systems as a Research Paradigm for the Study of Group Decision Support Systems

Artificial neural systems (ANSs) have received interest recently because of their ability to accurately forecast and classify data. Group decision support systems (GDSSs) also have received much interest for their support of group communication and decision making. This paper explores the potential of the ANS as a methodology for modeling the many complex, interrelated research variables involved in the field of GDSS. As an illustration, multilinear regression, an ANS with backpropagation, and an ANS with a genetic algorithm were developed to classify 133 subjects into verbal or GDSS groups based on their responses to a questionnaire. The ANSs with backpropagation and the genetic algorithm achieved higher classification accuracies (81.8 and 90.9%, respectively) than was achieved with multilinear regression (75.8%). Therefore, an ANS may more accurately model the many interrelationships occurring with GDSS group behavior.     

Technology support for cooperative work: A framework for studying introduction and assimilation in organizations

This article draws on published research on the nature of the innovation process and exploratory field research in 10 companies to develop a framework for research on organizations’ introduction and assimilation of computer‐supported cooperative work technologies. The research reported in this article, part of a much larger study of the general process of innovation in organizations, focuses specifically on the transfer and assimilation of new technology innovations.

Technologies to support group process, communication, and coordination in face‐to‐face group meetings [electronic meeting support systems (EMSS)] were chosen to illustrate the use of the research framework. The article focuses on the transfer of these technologies from R“D units to target organizational units and the alignment of group, technology, and task during assimilation by end‐user groups. Research propositions are developed and discussed. Future articles will present the findings from current research that utilizes the frameworks presented in this article to study the introduction, transfer, and assimilation of EMSS in organizations.     

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.     

Facilitating computer-supported meetings: A cumulative analysis in a multiple-criteria task environment

There have been many instances of the ineffective applications of new information technology. This article describes a program of enhancing the effectiveness of a new technology, Group Decision Support Systems (GDSS), through a series of studies which resulted in improvements in the technology itself as well as in how the technology is supported. Our approach emphasizes human facilitation and facilitative features embedded in the GDSS software.     

An object-oriented architecture for group decision support systems

An object-oriented GDSS can produce a rich environment for easily accessing software tools or applications running under a Graphical User Interface and can provide communication among meeting participants. This requires definition of (1) objects to manage the meeting and participant sessions, (2) applications that can run under these sessions, and (3) data storage and data communications capability that handle both private and shared data. This article suggests that a GDSS system can operate under three layers of software: an application-layer, a GDSS environment, and an operating system environment. It defines the structure and behavior of the GDSS environment layer in terms of (1) objects and messages used to communicate among these objects and (2) a message passing protocol between the GDSS environment and the other two layers. These specifications result in an architecture that is sufficiently modular to enable addition of various GDSS software. This article also discusses a prototype implementation of the architecture that is developed in Smalltalk and runs under Microsoft's Windows 3.0.     

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.     

The Impact of Role Training in a User-Driven Group Support System Environment

We tested the proposition that training groups to use roles would improve performance in a user-driven, GSS-supported meeting. Two methods of role training, fixed and rotated roles, were compared against a control procedure in which no formal role training was provided. In a repeated measures experiment, half of the groups completed four generate-creative tasks, while the remaining groups completed three generate-creative tasks followed by one choice-intellective task. Both role training methods were successful in reducing the time spent by groups orienting themselves to the technology, particularly in the choice-intellective task context; however, decision quality or quantity did not improve with role training.     

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.     

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.     

A Proposal of Toolkit for GDSS Facilitators

Most group decision meetings are perceived to be extremely unproductive in terms of efficiently utilizing the participants’ time and effectively achieving the group decision meeting objectives. Indeed, group decision meetings consume a great deal of time and effort in organizations. These problems occur frequently because effective guidelines or procedures are not used. To overcome these problems, many group decision support systems (GDSS) imbed some facilitation mechanisms and are currently being used with the help of a human facilitator who guides the group members through the decision process. We propose in this paper a toolkit for GDSS facilitators that we integrate in our proposed architecture for distributed GDSS. Based on a model of the decision making processes group facilitation tasks are automated, at least partially in order to increase the ability of inexperienced facilitator to monitor and control the group decision meeting process.     

An Experimental Analysis of Face to Face versus Computer Mediated Communication Channels

Experimental research on Group Decision Support Systems (GDSS) has generally focused on democratic groups whose members typically share the same objectives. In organizations, however, there are many situations where groups have a leader who has the power to override the group's recommendation, the objective of the leader may not be the same as the objective of each member, and not everyone may have the same information. This paper reports the results of an experiment in which the groups, having a designated leader, worked on a mixed-motive task. Within this context, we analyze group decision outcomes and processes for groups that use a face-to-face channel of cormnunication and those that utilize computer mediated communication. We compare performance of the leader and members with respect to an objective measure of performance, the efficient frontier. The results indicate that for this task groups using face-to-face channel outperform groups using computer mediated communication.     

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.     

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.     

New Approaches to Business Process Redesign: A Case Study of Collaborative Group Technology and Service Mapping

Whether it is called reengineering, quality function deployment, quality circles, continuous improvement or total quality management, business process redesign (BPR) is occurring in many organizations. In the broadest sense, BPR includes nearly any kind of systematic effort by companies to realign their business processes so that they are more competitive. Successful business process redesign can lead to dramatic improvements in productivity and quality. But BPR typically requires vast amounts of time and money to implement, since extensive employee input is necessary during the redesign process. Group Decision Support Software (GDSS) provides a viable alternative to the traditional BPR approach. GDSS is defined as computer-based information systems used to support intelligent, collaborative work.This technology allows multiple users to meet and discuss topics simultaneously via a computer network, thus increasing employee commitment while decreasing time and cost.This paper describes a business process redesign project that was conducted for a division within a large government agency fall of 1993. The BPR was done using a type of Group Decision Support Software called Group Systems V. A services marketing tool called service mapping was also used to identify customer needs and interfaces. Data were collected throughout the project to measure employee attitudes about the redesign process and the GroupSystems technology. Time to complete tasks was also recorded. The results of the study showed that the business process redesign was accomplished more effectively in a shorter period of time than with traditional BPR methods previously used. Participants also indicated that the service mapping tool provided a perspective that is missing from many BPR approaches: an understanding of the service from the customer's perspective.