An Assessment of Group Support Systems Experimental Research: Methodology and Results

Fjermestad, Jerry; Hiltz, Starr Roxanne

doi:10.1080/07421222.1998.11518216

Cited by 527 publications

(282 citation statements)

References 60 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

274

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…From the beginning of the 1980's, Electronic Meeting Systems have been viewed as the Holy Grail to improve meeting processes (Fjermestad and Hiltz, 1999). The role of EMS can be broadly defined as supporting work by enhancing group cognition.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Model for Organisational Integration of Meeting Outcomes

Costa¹,

Antunes

Dias³

2001

Contemporary Trends in Systems Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Organizations convert meeting outcomes into digital documents for many obvious reasons. This paper discusses one such reason: simplifying the integration of meeting outcomes in the organizational process. Unfortunately, the level of integration afforded by digitalized meeting outcomes is still very weak, serving more official or legal purposes rather than catalysts for action. In order to tackle this problem, we propose an information system and a framework. The framework is necessary to analyse how does a community of users produce and disseminate meeting outcomes, and also to tailor the information system to the community. This framework is composed of three levels of detail: context level, genre level and implementation level. The context level clarifies and models the general problem. The genre level designs a solution, using the concept of communication genres. Finally, the implementation level transforms communication genres in a software system. This paper illustrates the application of the framework to a specific organisation. The proposed framework contributes to develop information systems where organizational integration of different social systems is required.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Model for Organisational Integration of Meeting Outcomes

Costa¹,

Antunes

Dias³

2001

Contemporary Trends in Systems Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Limiting our discussion to the outcome variables, [17] propose five categories: efficiency, effectiveness, satisfaction, consensus and usability. [28] has also an extensive overview of the published results from empirical research.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There is a strong feeling, constructed from many personal experiences, that too many meetings fail or are simply a waste of time [35]. Technology has been viewed as the Holy Grail to improve the meeting process and outcomes [17]. This perspective has lead to the development of meetingware, defined as a combination of implementation and use of meetingware, and the whole development may be compromised because of misaligned expectations [16; 26].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perceived Value: A Low-Cost Approach to Evaluate Meetingware

Antunes

Costa

2003

Groupware: Design, Implementation, and Use

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Meetingware supports, manages, guides and stimulates participation in meetings. The evaluation of meetingware has not yet produced concluding results due to many reasons, one of them concerning the high cost (in time, money and logistics) of the evaluation process. This paper proposes a low-cost approach to evaluate meetingware. The approach is centered on a variablePerceived Value -measuring several external product attributes of meetingware that can be negotiated between developers and users. The proposed approach was used by an organization with the purpose of evaluating a meetingware prototype developed by the authors.

show abstract

“…But even after hundreds of experiments the data is still inconclusive and there are no solid conclusions for the overall topic. Fjermestand and Hiltz [11] conducted a meta-study in 1999 examining more than 230 articles. They observed that most experiments do not show any significant results, especially when comparing Face-toface (FtF) and Computer-mediated communication (CMC) groups.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%