User satisfaction with system,decision process,and outcome in GDSS based meeting: an experimental investigation

Paul, Souren; Seetharaman, Priya; Ramamurthy, K.

doi:10.1109/hicss.2004.1265108

Cited by 26 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our instruments were based on prior works on user satisfaction (Bailey & Pearson, 1983;Ives et al, 1983) and communication and participation (Watson and Michaelsen, 1988). Similar instruments have been used in prior studies (Paul, Haseman, and Ramamurthy, 2004;Paul, Seetharaman, & Ramamurthy, 2004). In addition, the knowledgeable users who participated in our pilot study sessions reviewed and provided feedback on the instruments.…”

Section: Reliability and Validitymentioning

confidence: 98%

Input Information Complexity and Information Processing in Electronic Discussions: An Experimental Investigation

Paul

Sutanonpaiboon

Griffin

et al. 2013

Information Systems Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The findings of a laboratory experiment of electronic collaboration among the members of work groups reveal that both input information load and diversity have curvilinear (∩) relationships with the output information complexity generated by the groups and negative relationships with group interaction behaviors manifested through group members' communication and participation activities. Also, output information complexity and group interaction behavior have positive relationships with group members'satisfaction with the electronic meeting process.

show abstract

Section: Reliability and Validitymentioning

confidence: 98%

Input Information Complexity and Information Processing in Electronic Discussions: An Experimental Investigation

Paul

Sutanonpaiboon

Griffin

et al. 2013

Information Systems Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The questionnaire contained nine questions from [13] and eight questions to address distraction and awareness, using five-point Likertscale with lower scores reflecting negative responses. We balanced the valence of our Table 1), we reversed the rating so that higher was always positive.…”

Section: Questionnairesmentioning

confidence: 99%

WIPDash: Work Item and People Dashboard for Software Development Teams

Jakobsen

Fernandez

Czerwinski

et al. 2009

Human-Computer Interaction – INTERACT 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. We present WIPDash, a visualization for software development teams designed to increase group awareness of work items and code base activity. WIPDash was iteratively designed by working with two development teams, using interviews, observations, and focus groups, as well as sketches of the prototype. Based on those observations and feedback, we prototyped WIPDash and deployed it with two software teams for a one week field study. We summarize the lessons learned, and include suggestions for a future version.

show abstract

“…They can also follow the entire decision-making process using agents that represent decisionmakers. These agents can use automatic negotiation models to solve problems, finding consensual alternatives that provide a high level of satisfaction [9,10]. However, most of published works address the decision in a completely different perspective.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effect of Decision Satisfaction Prediction in Argumentation-Based Negotiation

Carneiro

Martinho

Marreiros

et al. 2016

Communications in Computer and Information Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Supporting group decision-making is a complex process, especially when decision-makers have no opportunity to gather at the same place and at the same time. Besides that, finding solutions may be difficult in case representing agents are not able to understand the process and support the decision-maker accordingly. Here we propose a model and an algorithm that will allow the agent to analyse tendencies. This way we intend that agents can achieve decisions with more quality and with higher levels of consensus. Our model allows the agent to redefine his objectives to maximize both his and group satisfaction. Our model proved that agents that use it will obtain higher average levels of consensus and satisfaction. Besides that, agents using this model will obtain those higher levels of consensus and satisfaction in most of the times compared to agents that do not use it.

show abstract

User satisfaction with system,decision process,and outcome in GDSS based meeting: an experimental investigation

Cited by 26 publications

References 32 publications

Input Information Complexity and Information Processing in Electronic Discussions: An Experimental Investigation

Input Information Complexity and Information Processing in Electronic Discussions: An Experimental Investigation

WIPDash: Work Item and People Dashboard for Software Development Teams

The Effect of Decision Satisfaction Prediction in Argumentation-Based Negotiation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About