Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Influence of Computer-Based Meeting Support on Process and Outcomes for a Divisional Coordinating Group

  • Published:
Group Decision and Negotiation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This research examines the introduction of computer-based group decision support systems (GDSS) to members of a division level coordinating group. Participants performed authentic problem formulation tasks which varied naturally in degree of structuredness, in two non-GDSS meetings then were provided GDSS for four additional meetings. It was proposed that the introduction of the GDSS and task structuredness would influence (1) group process in terms of the amount of divergent and convergent thinking communicated during meetings and (2) perceived outcomes regarding quality, satisfaction, understanding, confidence, and commitment to group positions. Results suggest that GDSS use affected both the total amount and pattern of group communication but not perceived outcomes. Structuredness of the task affected perceived outcomes but neither amount nor patterns of communication. Additional qualitative data regarding perceived of costs and benefits in using GDSS provide richer explanation for study findings and suggest further lines of inquiry.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anson, R., R. Bostrom, and B. Wynne. (1995). “An Experiment Assessing Group Support System and Facilitator Effects on Meeting Outcomes,” Management Science 41: 189–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bettenhausen, K.L. (1991). “Five Years of Group Research: What We Have Learned and What Needs to Be Addressed,” Journal of Management 17: 345–381.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, F.G. (1983). Principles of Educational and Psychological Testing, 3rd Edition, Holt Rinehart Winston, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chidambaram, L., and R.P. Bostrom. (1993). “Evolution of Group Performance Over Time: A Repeated Measures Study of GDSS Effects,” Journal of Organizational Computing 3: 443–470.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chidambaram, L., R.P. Bostrom, and B.E. Wynne. (1990–91). “A Longitudinal Study of the Impact of Group Support Systems on Group Development,” Journal of Management Information Systems 7: 7–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cozier, R.A., and C.R. Schwenk. (1990). “Agreement and Thinking Alike: Ingredients for Poor Decisions,” Academy of Management Executive 4: 69–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daft, R.L., and K.E. Weick. (1984). “Toward a Model of Organizations as Interpretation Systems,” Academy of Management Review 9: 284–295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalkey, N. C. (1969). The Delphi Method: An Experimental Study of Group Opinion. RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeSanctis, G., and R.B. Gallupe. (1987). “A Foundation for the Study of Group Decision Support Systems,” Management Science 33: 589–609.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeSanctis, G., and M.S. Poole. (1994). “Capturing the Complexity in Advanced Technology Use: Adaptive Structuration Theory.” Organization Science 5: 121–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeSanctis, G., M.S. Poole, G. Desharnais, and H. Lewis. (1991). “Using Computing to Facilitate the Quality Improvement Process: The IRS-Minnesota Project,” Interfaces, 21: 23–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeSanctis, G., M.S. Poole, G.W. Dickson, and B.M. Jackson. (1993).” Interpretive Analysis of Team Use of Group Technologies,” Journal of Organizational Computing 3: 1–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeSanctis, G., V. Sambamurthy, and R.T. Watson. (1987). “Computer-Supported Meetings: Building a Research Environment,” Large Scale Systems 13: 43–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson, L.A. (1989). Gender Differences in Conflict Interaction: An Exploratory Study. Paper presented at the 1989 Speech Communication Association Convention, San Francisco, CA.

  • Fisher, B.A., G.L. Drecksel, and W.S. Werbel. (1979). “Social Information Processing Analysis (SIPA): Coding Ongoing Human Communication,” Small Group Behavior 10: 3–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frey, L.R. (ed.) (1994). Group Communication in Context: Studies of Natural Groups. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallupe, R.B., G. DeSanctis, and G.W. Dickson. (1988). “Computer-Based Support for Group Problem-Finding: An Experimental Investigation,” MIS Quarterly 12: 277–296.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gopal, A., R.P. Bostrom, and W. Chin. (1992). “Modelling the Process of GSS Use: An Adaptive Structuration Perspective,” Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences, Volume IV, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA. 208–219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gouran, D., C. Brown, and D. Henry. (1978). “Behavioral Correlates of Perceptions of Quality in Decision Making Discussions,” Communication Monographs.

  • Gray, B. (1989). Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multiparty Problems. Jossey-Bass Inc., San Francisco, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, S.G., and T.D. Taber. (1980). “The Effects of Three Social Decision Schemes on Decision Group Process,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 25: 97–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hackman, J.R. (1968). “Effects of Task Characteristics on Group Products,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 4: 162–187.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hackman, J.R., and R.E. Kaplan. (1974). “Interventions into the Group Process: An Approach to Improving the Effectiveness of Groups,” Decision Sciences 5: 459–480.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huber, G.P. (1984). “Issues in the Design of Group Decision Support Systems,” MIS Quarterly 8: 195–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janis, I.L. (1989). Crucial Decisions: Leadership in Policymaking and Crisis Management. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janis, I.L., and L. Mann. (1977). Decision Making: A Psychological Analysis of Conflict, Choice, and Commitment. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jessup, L.M., and J.S. Valacich. (1993). Group Support Systems: New Perspectives. New York: MacMillan Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keyton, J. (1993). “Evaluating Individual Group Member Satisfaction as a Situational Variable,” Small Group Research 22: 200–219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lamm, H., and G. Trommsdorff. (1973). “Group versus Individual Performance on Tasks Requiring Ideational Proficiency (Brainstorming): A Review,” European Journal of Social Psychology 3: 361–388.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luthans, F., and T.R.V. Davis. (1982). “An Idiographic Approach to Organizational Behavior Research: The Use of Single Case Experimental Designs and Direct Measures,” Academy of Management Review 7: 380–391.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyles, M.A. (1981). “Formulating Strategic Problems: Empirical Analysis and Model Development,” Strategic Management Journal 2: 61–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyles, M.A., and I.I. Mitroff. (1980). “Organizational Problem Formulation: An Empirical Study,” Administrative Science Quarterly 25: 102–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maier, N.R.F. (1967). “Assets and Liabilities in Group Problem Solving: The Need for an Integrative Function,” Psychological Review 74: 239–249.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGrath, J.E. (1993). “Introduction The JEMCO Workshop — Descriptions of a Longitudinal Study,” Small Group Research 24: 285–306.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGrath, J.E. (1991). “Time, Interaction, and Performance (TIP): A Theory of Groups,” Small Group Research 22: 147–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGrath, J.E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and Performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mintzberg, H. (1979). The Structuring of Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mintzberg, H., D. Raisinghani, and A. Theoret. (1976). “The Structure of ‘Unstructured’ Decision Processes,” Administrative Science Quarterly 21: 246–275.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitroff, I.I., and J.R. Emshoff. (1979). “On Strategic Assumption-Making: A Dialectical Approach to Policy and Planning,” Academy of Management Review 4: 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitroff, I.I., and T.R. Featheringham. (1974). “On Systemic Problem Solving and the Error of the Third Kind,” Behavioral Science 19: 383–393.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitroff, I.I., and R.O. Mason. (1980). “Structuring Ill-Structured Policy Issues: Further Explorations in a Methodology for Messy Problems,” Strategic Management Journal 1: 331–342.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitroff, I.I., R.O. Mason, and V.P. Barabba. (1982). “Policy as Argument: A Logic for Ill-Structured Decision Problems,” Management Science 28: 1391–1404.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niederman, F. (1990). Influence of a Computer-Based Structured Procedure on Problem Formulation Activities and Outcomes, unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Minnesota.

  • Nunamaker, J.F, A.R. Dennis, Jr., J.S. Valacich, and D.R. Vogel. (1991). “Information Technology for Negotiating Groups: Generating Options for Mutual Gain. Management,” Science 37: 1325–1346.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nutt, P.C. (1992). “Formulation Tactics and the Success of Organizational Decision Making,” Decision Sciences Journal 23: 519–540.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nutt, P.C. (1984). “Types of Organizational Decision Processes,” Administrative Science Quarterly 29: 414–450.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinsonneault, A., and K.L. Kraemer. (1989). “The Impact of Technological Support on Groups: An Assessment of the Empirical Research,” Decision Support Systems 5: 197–216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, L.L., and R.L. Sorenson. (1982). “Equivocal Messages in Organizations,” Human Communications Research 8: 114–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rao, V.S., and S.L. Jarvenpaa. (1991). “Computer Support of Groups: Theory-Based Models for GDSS Research,” Management Science 37: 1347–1362.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rathwell, M.A., and A. Burns. (1985). “Information Systems Support for Group Planning and Decision-Making Activities,” MIS Quarterly 9: 255–271.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reagan-Cirincione, P. (1994). “Improving the Accuracy of Group Judgment: A Process Intervention Combining Group Facilitation, Social Judgment Analysis, and Information Technology,” Organization Behavior and Human Decision Processes 58: 246–270.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rohrbaugh, J. (1988). “Organizationally-Based Experiments: Looking at Processes, not Outcomes, of Group Decision Making,” Paper prepared for the Harvard Business School Coloquium on Experimental Methods in Information Systems. University of British Columbia at Vancouver.

  • Sambamurthy, V. (1989). Supporting Group Performance During Stakeholder Analysis: The Effects of Alternative Computer-based Designs, unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Minnesota.

  • Sambamurthy, V., and W.W. Chin. (1994). “The Effects of Group Attitudes Toward Alternative GDSS Designs on the Decision-making Performance of Computer-Supported Groups,” Decision Sciences Journal 25, March/ April 1994, 215–241.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheidel, T.M. (1986). “Divergent and Convergent Thinking in Group Decision-Making,” in R.Y. Hirokawa, and M.S. Poole (eds.), Communication and Group Decision Making, pp. 113–130. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharda, R., S.H. Barr, and J.C. McDonnell. (1988). “Decision Support System Effectiveness: A Review and an Empirical Test,” Management Science 34: 139–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H.A. (1973). “The Structure of Ill Structured Problems,” Artificial Intelligence 4: 181–201.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tinsley, H.E., and D.J. Weiss. (1975). “Interrater Reliability and Agreement of Subjective Judgments,” Journal of Counseling Psychology 22: 358–376.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van de Ven, A.H., and A.L. Delbecq. (1974). “The Effectiveness of Nominal, Delphi, and Interacting Group Decision Making Processes,” Academy of Management Journal 17: 605–621.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogel, D.R., J.F. Nunamaker Jr., W.B. Martz Jr., R. Grohowski, and C. McGoff. (1989–90). “Electronic Meeting Experience at IBM,” Journal of Management Information Systems 6: 25–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Volkema, R.J. (1983). “Problem Formulation in Planning and Design,” Management Science 29: 639–652.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson, R.T., G. DeSanctis, and M.S. Poole. (1988). “Using a GDSS to Facilitate Group Consensus: Some Intended and Unintended Consequences,” MIS Quarterly 12: 463–478.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yadav, S.B., and A. Korukonda. (1985). “Management of Type III Error in Problem Identification,” Interfaces 15: 55–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R.K. (1984). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Applied Social Research Methods Series, Volume 5, Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zigurs, I., M.S. Poole, and G.L. DeSanctis. (1988). “A Study of Influence in Computer-Mediated Group Decision Making,” MIS Quarterly 12: 625–644.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Information and Quantitative Sciences, Merrick School of Business, University of Baltimore, 1420 N., Baltimore, MD, 21201, USA

    Fred Niederman

  2. Hubert H., University of Minnesota, 271 19th Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN, 55455, USA

    John Bryson

Authors
  1. Fred Niederman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. John Bryson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Niederman, F., Bryson, J. Influence of Computer-Based Meeting Support on Process and Outcomes for a Divisional Coordinating Group. Group Decision and Negotiation 7, 293–325 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008698407943

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008698407943

Search

Navigation