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.     

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.     

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.     

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 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.     

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.     

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.     

The effect of communication medium on negotiation performance

Concepts of media efficiency and media richness are employed to describe the impact of communication media on two key aspects of negotiation behavior—reducing uncertainty about the task, and managing equivocality about negotiator's bargaining orientation. A controlled experiment was conducted to examine how the use of either audio or text forms of verbal communication, and the presence or absence of visual communication, impacts negotiation performance in a bilateral monopoly task. Each member of a pair of negotiators received private instructions either to maximize joint profit (a cooperative bargaining orientation) or to maximize individual profit (an individualistic bargaining orientation). Negotiation performance was measured via the total amount of relative cooperativeness of verbal communication and joint profit. In the audio mode as opposed to the text mode, the total amount of verbal communication and joint profit was increased. In the presence of visual communication the relative cooperativeness and joint profit of pairs of individualistic negotiators was less than that of cooperative negotiators. In the absence of visual communication the relative cooperativeness and joint profit of pairs of individualistic negotiators was no less than that of cooperative negotiators. In sum the findings suggest that uncertainty regarding the logical structure of the task was reduced primarily via verbal communciation, while equivocality regarding the bargaining orientation of the other negotiator was reduced primarily via visual communication. The implications for group decision and negotiation research and practice are explored.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Constructionist Theory to Explain Effects of GDSS

This paper analyses communication between actors as a major theoretical element in understanding the link between GDSS (Group Decision Support System) and the construction of shared meaning. The concept of shared meaning is discussed by using two schools of thought: Constructionism versus Constructivism. The schools differ in their approach to processes of communication and conversational techniques. Constructionist theory focuses on the necessity to activate process of intersubjectivity between individuals to reach shared meaning while constructivist theory focuses on process of negotiation. Arguments are given in this paper in favor of the Constructionist approach for dealing with the high complexity of the organizational issues involved in GDSS. The two theoretical approaches were operationalized under two different paradigms of communication: Intersubjective (Constructionist) versus Negotiative (Constructivist) and were compared in an experimental set-up. Better results were found for a GDSS based on the Constructionist paradigm.     

Executive GDSS: Behavioral considerations at individual,organizational, and environmental levels of analysis

This article emphasizes the importance of behavioral considerations at individual, organizational, and environmental levels of analysis when researching and evaluating the design, implementation, and use of group decision support systems (GDSS) within complex organizations. Discussion is based on interview and archival data collected on an executive level GDSS used within a corporate setting. Issues that are considered generalizable to organizational computing, coordination, and collaboration technologies concern (a) viewing organization participants as strategic, intuitive information processors, (b) understanding the importance of organizational power, politics, and situational constraints on decision making, and (c) appreciating the symbolic value of advanced information technologies to an organization's external environment.     

‘Joined-Up’ Policy-Making: Group Decision and Negotiation Practice

Creating public value is problematic in a world of austerity. Joint private and public, and public-public, projects are now an established way of creating public value. Establishing joint goals within a context of different ‘own goals’ is important and difficult. A particular issue facing many organisations in seeking to negotiate joint goals in a collaborative project is that of getting all the key managers from both organisations together over enough of a sequence of meetings for agreements to be meaningful and owned by those who will deliver the project. The development of such goals can be significantly enhanced by (1) using a Group Decision Support System (GDSS) and (2) using a powerful conceptualisation of a goals framework comprising: a goals system; ‘core goals’; ‘meta-goals’; ‘negative’ goals; and ‘above and beyond’ goals. In the case of negotiating joint goals the use of a GDSS has increased productivity to such an extent that powerful negotiated agreements can be achieved with all key managers in the room in as little as one meeting. The combination of high productivity, anonymity, and the structuring of the data has also facilitated the uncovering of ‘negative goals’, and the development of ‘meta-goals’ and ‘above and beyond’ goals. This paper uses three real cases to illustrate the significance of a Group Support System’s contribution and to illustrate the different types of goals. In doing so the paper suggests that facilitating such outcomes requires a carefully designed strategic conversation necessarily supported by a GDSS to enable group decision and negotiation in practice. Two of the cases are from public-public collaboration in the health field, and the other from a private-public setting.     

Video teleconference use among geographically dispersed work groups: A field investigation of usage patterns and user preferences

Use of video teleconferencing (VTC) has been on the rise for several years, yet researchers have often discussed the failure of VTCs to support communication. The VTC facility at the MITRE Corporation is used more than would have been predicted by other research. Surveys were mailed to 300 MITRE employees who were known to have used our VTC facility or to have traveled (or both) during August of 1991. The survey asked respondents to describe at least one geographically dispersed work group of which they are a member, and it asked them to discuss how they choose among various approaches to communication, including holding face‐to‐face meetings and VTCs. Respondents felt that VTC is highly useful. It is best used for meetings that have little emotional content or requirements for interpersonal contact. The content of the meeting, however, was not the primary reason given for choosing between travel and VTCs. Cost and inconvenience of travel were cited as reasons for using VTC, and unavailability of VTC was cited as a reason to travel. Results are compared with those of conflicting studies.