Group Decision and Negotiation

, Volume 1, Issue 1, pp 57–70 | Cite as

An experimental investigation of facilitation in an EMS decision room

  • Joey F. George
  • Alan R. Dennis
  • J. F. NunamakerJr.
Article

Abstract

Electronic meeting systems (EMS) provide a way for information technology to support groups meeting together for a variety of tasks. Some systems have been designed to depend on facilitators to guide groups through EMS use, whereas others have been designed to be used without facilitators. Yet little empirical research has been conducted to determine the differences between facilitated and nonfacilitated EMS use. This article describes an experiment that compared facilitated and nonfacilitated EMS groups. No differences were found between these two modes of EMS use for the number of alternatives generated, decision quality, ability to reach consensus, or satisfaction with the group process. However, if the number of alternatives generated is treated as a covariate, facilitated groups made better decisions, but nonfacilitated groups were more likely to reach consensus.

Keywords

Information Technology Experimental Investigation Empirical Research Group Process Good Decision 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anson, R.: 1990, “Effects of Computer Support and Facilitator Support on Group Processes and Outcomes: An Experimental Assessment,” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University.Google Scholar
  2. Anson, R. and Heminger, A.: 1990, “The Effects of Process Facilitation in a Group Support System Setting,” Working paper, Indiana University.Google Scholar
  3. Applegate, L.: 1986, “Idea Management in Organization Planning,” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona.Google Scholar
  4. Barefoot J. and Strickland L.: 1982, “Conflict and Dominance in Television-Mediated Interaction,”Human Relations 35(7), 559–566.Google Scholar
  5. Dennis A.R., George J.F., Jessup L.M., NunamakerJr. J.F. and Vogel D.R.: 1988, “Information Technology to Support Group Work,”MIS Quarterly 12(4), 591–624.Google Scholar
  6. Dennis A.R., Heminger A.R., NunamakerJr. J.F. and Vogel D.R.: 1990, “Bringing Automated Support to Large Groups: The Burr-Brown Experience,”Information and Management 18(3), 111–121.Google Scholar
  7. Dennis, A.R., Tyran, C.K., Nunamaker, JF., Jr. and Vogel, D.R.: 1990, “An Evaluation of Information Technology to Support Strategic Management,”Procedings of the International Conference on Information Systems, 37–51.Google Scholar
  8. DeSanctis, G. and Dickson, G.W.: 1987, “GDSS Software: A ‘Shell’ System in Support of a Program of Research,”Proceedings of the Twentieth HICSS, 431–440.Google Scholar
  9. DeSanctis G. and Gallupe R.B.: 1987, “A Foundation for the Study of Group Decision Support Systems,”Management Science 33(5), 589–609.Google Scholar
  10. Dickson, G., Lee, J.E., Robinson, L. and Heath, R.: 1989, “Observations on GDSS Interaction: Chauffeured, Facilitated, and User-Driven Systems,”Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Annual HICSS, Vol. 3, Kona-Kailua, Hawaii, January 3–6, 337–343.Google Scholar
  11. Easton G.K., George J.F., Nunamaker J.F.Jr. and Pendergast M.O.: 1990, “Using Two Different Electronic Meeting Systems Tools for the Same Task: An Experimental Comparison,”Journal of MIS 7(1), 85–100.Google Scholar
  12. Gallupe, R.B. 1985.: “The Impact of Task Difficulty on the Use of a Group Decision Support System,” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
  13. George J.F., Easton G.K., Nunamaker J.F.Jr. and Northcraft G.B.: 1990, “A Study of Collaborative Group Work with and without Computer-Based Suport,”Information Systems Research 1(4), 394–415.Google Scholar
  14. Gibson, D.V. and Ludl, E.J.: 1988, “Executive Group Decision Support Systems Considered at Three Levels of Analysis,”DSS-88, 26–38.Google Scholar
  15. Glover J.A. and Chambers T.: 1978, “The Creative Production of the Group: Effects of Small Group Structure,”Small Group Behavior 9(3): 387–392.Google Scholar
  16. Gouran D.S., Brown C. and Henry D.R.: 1978, “Behavioral Correlates of Perceptions in Decision-Making Discussions,”Communication Monographs 45 (March), 51–63.Google Scholar
  17. Gray P. and Olfman L.: 1989, “The User Interface in Group Decision Support Systems,”Decision Support Systems 5(2), 119–137.Google Scholar
  18. Greenhalgh, L.: n.d., “Parkway Drug Company,” Amos Tuck School of Management, Dartmouth University.Google Scholar
  19. Hackman J.R. and Kaplan R.E.: 1974, “Interventions into Group Process: An Approach to Improving the Effectiveness of Groups,”Decision Sciences 5, 459–480.Google Scholar
  20. Hiltz R.S. and Turoff M.: 1978,The Network Nation, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc., Reading, MA.Google Scholar
  21. Hirokawa R.Y. and Pace R.: 1983, “A Descriptive Investigation of the Possible Communication Based Reasons for Effective and Ineffective Group Decision Making,”Communication Monographs 50, 363–379.Google Scholar
  22. Lewis F.L.: 1987, “Facilitator: A Decision Support System for Face-to-Face Groups,”Journal of Information Science 13, 211–219.Google Scholar
  23. Mantei M.: 1989, “Observation of Executives Using a Computer Supported Meeting Environment,”Decision Support Systems 5(2), 153–166.Google Scholar
  24. Maier N. and Hoffman L.: 1960, “Quality of First and Second Solutions in Group-Problem Solving,”Journal of Applied Psychology 44(4), 310–323.Google Scholar
  25. McGoff, C., Hunt, A., Vogel, D.R. and Nunamaker, J.F., Jr.: 1990, “The Role of the Facilitator in the IBM Decision Support Center Process,” Working paper, Department of MIS, University of Arizona.Google Scholar
  26. McGrath J.E.: 1984,Groups: Interaction and Performance, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
  27. NunamakerJr. J.F. Applegate L.M. and Konsynski B.R.: 1988, “Computer-Aided Deliberation: Model Management and Group Decision Support,”Journal of Operations Research 36(6), 826–848.Google Scholar
  28. Nunamaker J.F.Jr., Dennis A.R., Valacich J.S., Vogel D.R. and George J.F.: 1991, “Electronic Meeting Systems to Support Group Work,”Communications of the ACM 34(7), 40–61.Google Scholar
  29. NunamakerJr. J.F. Vogel D., Heminger A., Martz B., Grohowski R. and McGoff C.: 1989, “Experiences at IBM with Group Support Systems: A Field Study,”Decision Support Systems 5(2), 183–196.Google Scholar
  30. Shaw M. 1981.Group Dynamics: The Psychology of Small Group Behavior, 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
  31. Stefik M., Foster G., Bobrow D.G., Khan K., Lanning S. and Suchman L.: 1987, “Beyond the Chalkboard: Computer Support for Collaboration and Problem Solving in Meetings,”Communications of the ACM 30(1), 33–47.Google Scholar
  32. Van deVan A. and Delbecq A.: 1971, “Nominal Versus Interacting Group Process for Committee Decision-Making Performance,”Academy of Management Journal 14(2), 203–212.Google Scholar
  33. Zigurs I., Poole M.S. and DeSanctis G.: 1988, “A study of Influence in Computer-Mediated Communication,”MIS Quarterly 12(4), 625–644.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joey F. George
    • 1
  • Alan R. Dennis
    • 2
  • J. F. NunamakerJr.
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Management Information SystemsUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Management, Terry College of BusinessUniversity of GeorgiaAthensUSA
  3. 3.Department of Management Information SystemsUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA

Personalised recommendations