A Group Support Systems Approach to Cognitive Mapping

Sheetz, Steven D.; Tegarden, David P.; Kozar, Kenneth A.; Zigurs, Ilze

doi:10.1080/07421222.1994.11518029

Cited by 38 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As such it provided the researchers with the means to explore the dynamics of cognition: how participants contribute to, and make sense of, their views and the views of others; and explore many aspects of how agreements were reached. It should be noted that this research focused on individual cognition as a basis for group negotiation, in contrast to that proposed by Sheetz et al (1994) and Tegarden and Sheetz (2003) who focus on capturing group and organizational thinking.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 88%

“…Klimoski and Mohammed (1994) refer to 'team mental models', and undoubtedly the models (maps) developed in the plenary session could be regarded as a team mental model or a representation of group thinking (Sheetz et al 1994;Tegarden and Sheetz 2003). The creation of the team mental model, in the instance of the plenary session, was seen as likely to have been influenced substantially by (i) the declaration of different perspectives at the beginning of the meeting with some tentative linking to show different meanings of common statements, and (ii) the enforced structure provided by the requirement to work in trios representing each operating company.…”

Section: Collective Cognition-how Would We Know It?mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Negotiation in Strategy Making Teams: Group Support Systems and the Process of Cognitive Change

Ackermann

Eden

2008

Group Decis Negot

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This version is available at https://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/13282/ Strathprints is designed to allow users to access the research output of the University of Strathclyde. Unless otherwise explicitly stated on the manuscript, Copyright © and Moral Rights for the papers on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyright owners. Please check the manuscript for details of any other licences that may have been applied. You may not engage in further distribution of the material for any profitmaking activities or any commercial gain. You may freely distribute both the url (https://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/) and the content of this paper for research or private study, educational, or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge.Any correspondence concerning this service should be sent to the Strathprints administrator: strathprints@strath.ac.ukThe Strathprints institutional repository (https://strathprints.strath.ac.uk) is a digital archive of University of Strathclyde research outputs. It has been developed to disseminate open access research outputs, expose data about those outputs, and enable the management and persistent access to Strathclyde's intellectual output.Group Decis Negot (2011) Abstract This paper reports on the use of a Group Support System (GSS) to explore at a micro level some of the processes manifested when a group is negotiating strategy-processes of social and psychological negotiation. It is based on data from a series of interventions with senior management teams of three operating companies comprising a multi-national organization, and with a joint meeting subsequently involving all of the previous participants. The meetings were concerned with negotiating a new strategy for the global organization. The research involved the analysis of detailed time series data logs that exist as a result of using a GSS that is a reflection of cognitive theory.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 88%

Section: Collective Cognition-how Would We Know It?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Negotiation in Strategy Making Teams: Group Support Systems and the Process of Cognitive Change

Ackermann

Eden

2008

Group Decis Negot

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The beliefs of the participants were collected using a cognitive mapping approach supported by group support system (GSS) software similar to that described in Sheetz, Tegarden, Kozar and Zigurs (1994). A GSS is a collection of programs that support group interactions such as electronic brainstorming, voting, rating of alternatives or de"ning an agenda of activities.…”

Section: Participant Belief Collectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cognitive activities in OO development

Tegarden¹,

Sheetz²

2001

International Journal of Human-Computer Studies

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…While there has been extensive debate about whether cognitive maps can belong to anyone other than an individual, there have, nevertheless, been many attempts to capture group and organisational thinking (Johnson and Johnson 2002;Lee et al 1992;Laukkanen 1996), some through the use of a GSS (Kwak and Kim 1999;Sheetz et al 1994;Tegarden and Sheetz 2003).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using Causal Mapping with Group Support Systems to Elicit an Understanding of Failure in Complex Projects: Some Implications for Organizational Research

Ackermann

Eden

2005

Group Decis Negot

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper reflects upon the use of causal mapping supported by a Group Support System (GSS) in a particular legal setting. The mapping method and GSS tool was used for the forensic analysis of eight major engineering and construction projects where the contractor intended to claim significant compensation (typically in excess of $20m). Necessarily detailed records were kept of every aspect of the analyses and processes adopted. This paper is an examination and reflection upon analysis of these records, with particular attention to the process. The task of capturing the way in which participants (witnesses) in a project 'make sense' of a cost and time overrun is an important aspect of forensic analysis as they have an experience based perspective, that has often involved dealing with high levels of complexity as projects move from planned order through to what they describe as "absolute chaos". In addition the requirement to account for, and be held responsible for, behaviors that that may in retrospect be seen as incompetent raises interesting issues in determining the validity of the data capture and analyses. Moreover, participants' views regarding the complex causality of outcomes, reflected in the causal map, are tested through the use of a simulation model replicating the causal map. The implications of this approach as a research method for undertaking organizational research are thus considered by drawing upon experiences of using the approach to develop the case for litigation in several disruption and delay claims. In particular the paper addresses the issues related to defensiveness of participants, anonymity, accessing multiple perspectives in a group setting, organizational learning and the 'changing of mind' of participants, and developing an organizational memory.

show abstract

A Group Support Systems Approach to Cognitive Mapping

Cited by 38 publications

References 22 publications

Negotiation in Strategy Making Teams: Group Support Systems and the Process of Cognitive Change

Negotiation in Strategy Making Teams: Group Support Systems and the Process of Cognitive Change

Cognitive activities in OO development

Using Causal Mapping with Group Support Systems to Elicit an Understanding of Failure in Complex Projects: Some Implications for Organizational Research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About