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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Group Consensus: The Impact of Multiple Dialogues

The research results on group consensus have been ambiguous within the field of Group Support Systems (GSSs). Some research studies have shown that groups using multiple communication channels produce more ideas, and more unique ideas than groups using a single communication channel. In addition, a second set of research findings have shown that groups using GSSs report group members hold less consensus with the group's decision. This research studies more closely how these two characteristics; communication channel and consensus, interact. Specifically, can less consensus be a function of the choice of channels used in problem solving. The results show that groups using a single communication channel generate more actual consensus than groups using multiple communication channels. Furthermore, the single channel discussions provide more integrative comments and these integrative comments may help explain the difference in consensus. These results suggest that those striving for consensus from group members should consider production methods used to create the information that is to be used in the decision.     

Meeting Scheduling: Face-to-Face,Automatic Scheduler,and Email Based Coordination

We conducted laboratory experiments based on small groups (4 to 5 participants) to compare the performance of 4 different mechanisms of meeting scheduling: (a) face-to-face coordination wherein individuals negotiate in person and arrive at a consensus on the timing of the meeting, (b) email as the sole communication medium with no structured support, (c) the calendar-based scheduling mechanism using email, and (d) an automated scheduler. Participants of the experiment were drawn from a university in Hong Kong. The experiment was implemented based on the real task of meeting scheduling among project groups that had to meet several times during a 3-month period to work on their project (regardless of this experiment). Postexperimental surveys were used to assess satisfaction with agreed meeting time and perceived efficiency in coordination. The frequency of scheduling conflicts also was measured. Data analysis indicates that even with higher scheduling conflicts among the group members, participants in general showed more satisfaction with the meeting time reached during the face-to-face meeting and also concurred on the efficiency of face-to-face coordination. Overall, they preferred communication-oriented approaches such as face-to-face coordination over decision-oriented ones such as the automated scheduler. We discuss the result of data analysis from the perspective of cultural implications on meeting scheduling and on virtual process management.     

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.     

Effects of Experience-based Work Patterns in a GSS Environment

Existing group support system (GSS) research has focused on the impacts of GSSs on conventional group-work patterns. Few studies have examined the effects of different group-work patterns in a GSS environment. Specifically, we are interested in group-work patterns that vary in terms of group members' experience or ability levels. In this paper, we report on an exploratory experiment designed to compare the effects of three distinct experience-based work patterns on group decision quality, efficiency, and participant satisfaction in the case of GSS usage. There is the conventional work pattern in which persons of differing experience levels work simultaneously in a meeting. An alternative pattern consists of experienced participants working on a problem first and then passing their results on to less experienced participants. Yet another pattern reverses this sequence. Our results show that while groups in the conventional work pattern are more efficient in considering alternative solutions, groups organized in the other two experience-based work patterns can produce higher quality solutions. We observed no significant differences in participant satisfaction among the three group-work patterns. These findings suggest that a GSS can be as effective (or even more effective) with alternative group-work patterns as it is with the conventional pattern.     

Online Focus Groups

The rise of Web 2.0, the advent of greater bandwidth, and new technology platforms have made it possible to extend the range of focus-group research to the online environment. This provides advertising researchers, advertising agencies, and advertisers with opportunities to reach consumers who were heretofore difficult to reach, to create groups with new and different compositions, and to use online collaborative tools not readily available in face-to-face groups. This article reviews online focus-group research, identifies several types of online groups, and contrasts the uses and results of online focus groups with the uses and results of face-to-face focus groups. The article concludes that online and face-to-face venues for focus-group research are complementary, with online focus-group research opening new opportunities for gathering data to inform advertising research, theory, and decision making. The article also suggests that differences between online focus-group research and face-to-face focus-group research, with respect to group interaction and the ability to obtain information, are being eroded as technology provides greater opportunities to create social presence in an online environment.     

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.     

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 Multi-Agent View of Strategic Planning Using Group Support Systems and Artificial Intelligence

The strategic planning process is dynamic and complex. Including a Group Support System (GSS) in the problem-solving process can improve the content quality of the strategic plan by allowing increased participation by more members of the organization. However, it can also add to the complexity of the problem by increasing the quantity of textual information that can result from group activity. Added complexity increases cognitive overload and frustrations of those participants negotiating the contents of the strategic plan. This article takes a multi-agent view of the strategic planning process. It considers group participants as multiple agents concerned with the content quality of the strategic plan. The facilitator agent is responsible for guiding groups in the strategic plan construction process as well as for solving process problems such as cognitive overload. We introduce an AI Concept Categorizer agent, a software tool that supports the facilitator in addressing the process problem of cognitive overload associated with convergent group activities by synthesizing group textual output into conceptual clusters. The implementation of this tool reduces frustrations which groups encounter in the process of classifying textual output and provides more time for discussion of the concepts themselves. Because of the large amount of convergent activity necessary for strategic planning, the addition of the AI Concept Categorizer to the strategic planning process should increase the quality of the strategic plan and the buy-in of the participants in the strategic planning process.