Electronic Meetings and Intense Group Conflict: Effects of a Policy-Modeling Performance Support System and an Audio Communication Support System on Satisfaction and Agreement

Ad-hoc decision teams were used to examine the effects of an electronic meeting system (EMS) on group satisfaction and agreement. The decision task provoked intense conflict of values. The EMS had two core features - a policy-modeling group performance support system (incorporating structured decision methods and computer-supported cognitive feedback using Multi-Attribute Utility Analysis and Social Judgment Analysis), and an audio-based group communication support system (allowed dispersed members to communicate by voice). Policy groups reached higher agreement than conventional decision-making groups, apparently due primarily to the structure for cognitive-conflict tasks that was imposed on group discussion rather than computer-supported cognitive feedback displays. Audio groups were more satisfied with the conflict process than face-to-face groups. Decision agreement was equivalent across the two media. These audio effects for a highly equivocal task represent a further challenge to media richness theory.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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 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.     

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.     

Multiple Criteria Decision Making Models in Group Decision Support

Use of multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) models to aid the group decision process was tested. Two multiple criteria group decision support systems (MCGDSS) were studied, one using the AHP/Tchebycheff method of Iz and the other using Kersten's NEGO system. These systems were compared with a commercial GDSS, VisionQuest. VisionQuest does not include multiple criteria tools. To make the study comparable, VisionQuest was augmented with an ad hoc linear programming model that could generate solutions with specified characteristics requested by the using group. The three systems were compared on the dimensions of solution quality and decision support effectiveness.One of the hypotheses was that MCDM models would force participants to examine criteria, preferences, and aspirations more thoroughly, thus leading to decisions of better quality. Subjects using the MCGDSSs were expected to have higher mean quality and effectiveness values. However, the quality and effectiveness values of the VisionQuest/ad hoc system were found to be better on the dimension of effectiveness. Explanations for this result are included in the paper.Another hypothesis was that the AHP/Tchebycheff method of Iz, a value-oriented system, would yield more effective group support than the goal-oriented NEGO system. However, the NEGO system was found to yield solutions with better quality measures than the solutions obtained with the AHP/Tchebycheff system.Observation of the groups using the MCDM systems indicate that both the AHP/Tchebycheff and NEGO methods can be revised to enhance their effectiveness. The primary difficulty encountered with the AHP/Tchebycheff method was in the large number of pairwise comparisons required by AHP. The NEGO method can be enhanced by including specification of desired attainment levels in the first stage of the method. Both MCDM techniques have potential to benefit group decision support by giving using groups a means to design better solutions.     

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.     

Towards a Design Science of Ethical Decision Support

Ethical decision making involves complex emotional, cognitive, social, and philosophical challenges. Even if someone wants to be ethical, he or she may not have clearly articulated what that means, or know how to go about making a decision consistent with his or her values. Information technology may be able to help. A decision support system could offer individuals and groups some guidance, assisting them in making a decision that reflects their underlying values. The first step towards a design science of ethical decision support is to develop a theoretical base on which first-generation systems can be built. This paper brings together work in cognitive, social and moral psychology, information systems, and philosophy relevant to ethical decision making. Attributes of a system that would support ethical decision making are described.     

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.     

CONFIDE: A Collective Decision-Making Procedure Using Confidence Estimates of Individual Judgements

An algorithm (termed CONFIDE) is proposed that may capture many of the benefits of group decision making without the necessity of face-to-face interaction. The algorithm allows individual decision makers to differentially weight the contributions from members according to the confidence with which each member holds to their opinions. The CONFIDE algorithm is compared to both face-to-face group decisions and simple averaging of group members opinions on the Lost-at-Sea ranking task. Results indicate that, in terms of decision quality, the CONFIDE algorithm produces solutions equal to that of the face-to-face group decision method and significantly better than the solution achieved by simple averaging of group members responses.     

Perceptions of facilitators of a keypad‐based group support system

Organizations are using Group Support Systems (GSSs) to improve the quality of group meetings. Keypad‐based GSSs are a widely used form of this technology, yet there has been little research on their use and effects. This paper reports the findings of a survey of facilitators of a particular keypad GSS. Facilitators indicate that keypad technology improves the quality of meetings for a variety of tasks in a range of group settings and cultures. The findings are in general agreement with field studies of workstation‐based systems.     

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.     

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.     

Divergent and Convergent Idea Generation in Teams: A Comparison of Computer-Mediated and Face-to-Face Communication

Many tasks and decisions in business, including management consulting, are performed in group settings. Computer-mediated communication (CMC) tools (e.g., Lotus Notes) are increasingly being used by businesses to support teams in a variety of settings. Considerable research in information systems has demonstrated the advantages of electronic brainstorming (EBS) for generic tasks involving only divergent thinking. However, it is unclear whether the benefits of CMC extend to tasks that require both divergent and convergent processes. Per task–technology fit theory (TTF) (Zigurs and Buckland 1998), the use of computer-based group communication support tools, including chat systems in wide-spread use today, may be less effective for convergent processes than for divergent processes. This study experimentally compares the performance of computer-mediated and face-to-face (FTF) teams on tasks requiring both divergent and convergent processes. Consistent with theoretical predictions, the results revealed that computer-mediated teams outperformed FTF teams in the divergent aspects of the tasks, while FTF teams outperformed computer-mediated teams in the convergent aspects of the tasks.     

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.