A research framework for group support systems

Stevens, Caroline A.; Finlay, Paul N.

doi:10.1007/bf00553916

Cited by 2 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Another way to consider this finding is that GDST may promote anonymity, and anonymity does not promote social closeness. While the degree of anonymity is thought to have a major impact on group perceptions, processes and outcome (Jessup, Connolly, & Galegher, September 1990; Nunamaker, Applegate, & Konsynski, 1988; Stevens & Finlay, 1996), it did not seem to be an issue for the group members here. This could be attributed to the small size of the group, or to the fact that the power and status relationships between and within groups were relatively equal, since all participants were within the same professional and management levels within the organization.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 75%

“…Without GDST, the groups felt that VC provides a much broader social bandwidth, since it allows them to receive non-verbal communication cues. Such cues are very important (Stevens & Finlay, 1996; Zigurs, Poole, & DeSanctis, December 1988), since many of the rules that set the boundaries of interpersonal relationships in organizations are implied by nonverbal communication (Baskin & Aronoff, 1980; Stevens & Finlay, 1996). This finding is actually consistent with those of several studies that compare AC with VC (Yoo, 1996).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The impact of audio- or video-conferencing and group decision tools on group perception and satisfaction in distributed meetings.

Habash¹

1999

The Psychologist-Manager Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigated the impact of communication media (audio conferencing [AC] vs. video-conferencing [VC]) and the use/non-use of group decision support tools (GDST) on group perception and goal satisfaction in synchronous distributed group decision tasks. A factorial design with repeated measures on the communication medium factor was employed. Professionals (n=72) from a large non-profit organization solved real-world tasks in small groups. Perception of social presence, of communication interface, and of communication effectiveness was assessed. Individual personal satisfaction with the meeting process and outcome, and perception of the final decision quality were also measured. The study found that organizations can get all the benefits of using GDST in distrib uted meetings without losing much in terms of perception of com munication interface. If GDST are used, audio-conferencing (AC) is sufficient, since adding video-conferencing (VC) provided little or no additional benefit. Implications for managers are discussed.This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 75%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The impact of audio- or video-conferencing and group decision tools on group perception and satisfaction in distributed meetings.

Habash¹

1999

The Psychologist-Manager Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A range of standard tasks was developed for use in controlled studies (DeSanctis et al, 2008). Studies on GDSS share a meta-analytical framework (Nunamaker et al, 1991;Pinsonneault & Kraemer, 1989;Stevens & Finlay, 1996) that supports accumulation of research results. Over the years a number of reviews of controlled studies (Fjermestad & Hiltz, 1998;Pinsonneault & Kraemer, 1990), field studies (Fjermestad & Hiltz, 2000), combinations of controlled and field studies (DeSanctis et al, 2008;Nunamaker et al, 1993;Pervan, 1998) and meta analyses (Benbasat & Lim, 1993;Dennis, 1996;Dennis & Wixom, 2002;Dennis et al, 2001;Hwang, 1998;McLeod, 1992) have appeared.…”

Section: Research Focus and Major Theoriesmentioning

confidence: 98%

Technologies for Improving Group Decision making

Rouwette¹,

Franco²

2021

The Emerald Handbook of Group and Team Communication Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This chapter focuses on techniques and technologies to aid groups in making decisions, with an emphasis on computer-based support. It is now customary for many office workers to regularly meet colleagues and clients in virtual meetings using videoconferencing platforms, which enable participants to carry out tasks in a manner quite similar to a face-to-face meeting. The development of computer-based platforms to facilitate group tasks can be traced back to the 1960s, and while they support group communication, they do not directly support group decision making. In this chapter we distinguish four technologies developed to provide support to group decisions, clustered into two main traditions. Technologies in the taskoriented tradition are mainly concerned with enabling participants to complete tasks to solve the group's decision problem via computer-supported communications. Group Decision Support Systems and social software technologies comprise the task-oriented tradition.Alternately, in the model-driven tradition, participants use computers to build and use a model that acts as a referent to communicate, mostly verbally, about the group's decision problem. Systems modeling and decision modeling technologies constitute the model-driven tradition.This chapter sketches the history and guiding ideas of both traditions, and describes their associated technologies. Our discussion centers on whether increased availability of online tools will also lead to increased use of group decision support technologies, and the differential impact of communication and decision support.terms technology, technique and tool in specific ways. Technology will refer to a set of techniques and tools plus the guidelines, principles, or assumptions needed to implement and use those. Technique will refer to a set of well-described activities (e.g. Nominal Group Technique). Finally, tool will refer to an artefact (e.g., computer software) that can assist in the deployment of a technique.An influential characterization of levels of group decision-making support is offered by DeSanctis and Gallupe (1987), and may serve to give a first overview of the types of technologies, tecniques and tools available. Level 1 decision support removes communication barriers by offering technical features such as electronic messaging, anonymous gathering, display of ideas on a shared screen, and anonymous clustering and voting. Level 1 tools are similar to videoconferencing in that they facilitate information exhange, but they can also include additional features that directly support decision making, such as anonymous gathering, clustering, and prioritization of ideas. By more fully capturing elements of the discussion, a group memory is created that participants can refer to during and after the meeting. Level 2 decision support adds group decision techniques (e.g., Nominal Group Technique, Delphi). Level 2 tools include decision models to support techniques such as Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis. Level 3 decision support employs machine-induced group co...

show abstract

A research framework for group support systems

Cited by 2 publications

References 29 publications

The impact of audio- or video-conferencing and group decision tools on group perception and satisfaction in distributed meetings.

The impact of audio- or video-conferencing and group decision tools on group perception and satisfaction in distributed meetings.

Technologies for Improving Group Decision making

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About