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.     

Information for decision making in marketing: the use of Group Support Systems (GSS)

Group Support Systems (GSS) Technology is an information technology which seeks to support collaborative work. Extensively used to support organisational activities, it has not yet been tested to the full within the market research setting. The paper reports on a GSS focus group meeting to determine key questions of concern about the National Training Reform Agenda. Participants were leaders in a primary industry in Australia and the questions would be related to a public relations exercise. GSS provided the opportunity to deal with complex issues efficiently and yet preserve the conversational characteristics of the focus group meeting.     

A conceptual framework of anonymity in Group Support Systems

As the development and use of automated systems for collaborative work grows, the need for a better understanding of these systems becomes more important. Our focus is on one type of system, a Group Support System (GSS) and, in particular, on one important aspect of a GSS—anonymity. A conceptual framework for the study of anonymity in a GSS is presented, which describes the general classes of variables and their relationships. These variables include the factors that influence anonymity in a GSS, types of anonymity, and the effects of anonymity on a message sender, receiver, group process, and outcome. Each of these variables is discussed with working propositions presented for important group process and outcome measures. The objectives of this article are to highlight the importance and complexity of anonymity, to act as a guide for empirical investigations of anonymity, and to influence future GSS development and use.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

The Importance of Facilitator Role Behaviors

SUMMARY

Shifting the emphasis from working alone to working together in the classroom or on the job is a relatively simple idea. However, implementing collaborative work and learning has not been so easy!

This paper argues that critical meeting facilitation skills and the appropriate use of Group Support Systems' (GSS) tools support the collaborative meeting and learning paradigm. These skills and tools greatly enhance the teacher's and meeting leaders? ability to create effective collaborative situations. The use of GSS with the case study methodology is discussed as one example of blending facilitation and technology to teach people to work together more productively in multinational settings.     

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.     

A Repeatable E-Collaboration Process Based on ThinkLets for Multi-Organization Strategy Development

In recent years, multi-organizational collaboration has become more and more important in both business and research. We conducted an action research (AR) intervention with a consortium of Finnish universities that needed to revise its joint strategy. We designed and facilitated a repeatable collaboration process for this multi-organizational strategy development. The process was built using the Collaboration Engineering (CE) approach with thinkLets, which provides expert-level advice for novice facilitators, and it was powered by Group Support Systems (GSS). Our overall impression of CE’s ability to provide valuable design and facilitation support for complex processes is very affirmative. The consortium was satisfied with the intervention, as it saved huge amounts of time compared with conventional strategic work. The process was also seen as more democratic, because the GSS tools enabled equal participation during the session. Our study also provides a ready-to-apply CE process recipe to organizations for revising their strategy. Through this recipe, supplemented with knowledge on thinkLets, the strategy development process may easily be repeated by other facilitators or even practitioners.     

Creative Problem Solving in GSS Groups: Do Creative Styles Matter?

Creative groups drive innovation and organizational change and collaborative systems can be used to pool creative team members across the globe. How individual creative preference impacts the group’s creative performance across different creative problem solving phases in a GSS environment is not well understood. The objective of this exploratory study was to understand if there are differences in group performance when groups with varying member creative styles interact solely via GSS. We conducted a quasi-experimental study that compared the performance of groups with two alternate member styles interacting only via group support systems during a creative problem solving process. Ideator and Evaluator groups were compared on their divergent and convergent phase performance. Significant differences were found between the Ideator groups and Evaluator groups on idea fluency, idea flexibility, idea novelty, idea elaboration and solution cost-effectiveness. No significant differences were found between the performance of the two groups on solution feasibility and novelty. Results indicate that member creative styles play an important role in determining the performance of technology-supported groups. These results aid researchers and practitioners by improving their understanding of the performance of creative teams interacting solely via collaborative support systems for creative problem solving tasks.     

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.     

Providing for Organizational Memory in Computer-Supported Meetings

Meeting memory features are poorly integrated into current group support systems (GSS). In this article, I discuss how to introduce meeting memory functionality into a GSS. The article first introduces the benefits of effective meetings and organizational memory to an organization. Then, the following challenges to design are discussed: How to store semantically rich output, how to build up the meeting memory with a minimum of additional effort, how to integrate meeting memory into organizational memory, and how to protect the privacy of the meeting participants. Finally, using the group-object object-oriented model of a GSS, the article shows how meeting memory functionality can be implemented in a GSS.     

The Role of Leadership in Group Support Systems Failure

This paper reports on a research case study in which the use of a Group Support System (GSS) by a multi-organizational alliance failed. The paper argues that the leadership style of the meeting champion may be a much greater moderating factor in GSS meeting success than previously thought. Transformational Leadership Theory is used to explain the results, and implications for both researchers and managers are drawn. Two themes emerge: first, the case shows where the concept of phony democracy may or may not occur. Second, the case illustrates conditions under which a GSS may generate, as opposed to mitigate conflict. For managers, it suggests that using a GSS may not be optimal if they choose to adopt a Transactional leadership style. For researchers, this work offers insights into boundary conditions affecting GSS usage, extending a paucity of research in negative GSSusage cases.     

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.     

Collaboration ‘Engineerability’

Collaboration Engineering is an approach to create sustained collaboration support by designing collaborative work practices for high-value recurring tasks, and transferring those designs to practitioners to execute for themselves without ongoing support from collaboration professionals. A key assumption in this approach is that we can predictably design collaboration processes. In this paper we explore this assumption to understand whether collaboration can, in fact, be designed, and elaborate on the role of thinkLets in the engineering of collaborative work practices. ThinkLets are design patterns for collaborative interactions.     

Managing industrial service co-design: identifying challenges from technology firms

This article investigates how the co-design of industrial services is managed by technology firms. Through multiple-case studies within high-technology semiconductor companies, the article finds that overlapped stages and collective action require considerations on a case-by-case basis as determined by business opportunities, industry standards, existing organisational practice and service level agreements. The major contribution of this article is a connection between recent research emphasising the importance of providing industrial services, and established literature on co-design. Key service operations management challenges are also identified and discussed in terms of the need for studies and frameworks to coordinate negotiations for enhanced service encounters, to critique industrial service co-design, and to integrated information during service design.