Group Decision and Negotiation

, Volume 12, Issue 6, pp 481–499 | Cite as

Internet Multiattribute Group Decision Support in Electronic Commerce

  • Giampiero E.G. Beroggi


The rapid growth of the Internet has provided the means for distributed organizational decision making for electronic commerce. Members of organizations can jointly investigate products, exchange information, and make decisions on-line from remote sites. Internet-based multiattribute group decision making is characterized by three aspects, (i) individual interactive decision making, (ii) communication means, and (iii) group consensus reaching. The purpose of this research was to study the role of communication and individual decision strategies and their influence on multiattribute group decision making and consensus reaching in organizational electronic commerce settings. The results of this study indicate that analytic decision support is indispensable in collaborative Internet-based decision making, that a perfect match of analytic decision support and communication channels must be achieved, and that efficiency of individual decision support should be compromised for higher confidence in the group's decisions. The results of this study also confirm findings by Häubl and Trifts (2000) that interactive decision analytic support has positive effects on the quality and efficiency of individual decision making, and findings by Limayem and DeSanctis (2000) and Todd and Benbesat (2000), that decision makers will use normative decision models if they require little effort and if decisional guidance is provided. The conclusion drawn from this study is that the continuously evolving Internet technology for collaborative decision making is only one aspect for better organizational decision making – the crucial aspect, however, will be the development and optimal integration of analytic decision models, communication channels, and consensus reaching mechanisms.


Decision Making Decision Support Communication Channel Decision Model Individual 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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anson, R., R. Bostrom, and B. Wynne. 1995. “An Experiment Assessing Group Support System and Facilitator Effects on Meeting Outcomes,” Management Science 41 (2), 189–208.Google Scholar
  2. Appelt, W. 2000. “Web-Based Cooperation of Locally Distributed Groups,” NFD Information, Wissenschaft und Praxis 51 (5), 281–285.Google Scholar
  3. Bagozzi, R. P. and U. M. Dholakia. 2002. “Intentional Social Action in Virtual Communities,” Journal of Interactive Marketing 16 (2), 2–21.Google Scholar
  4. Beroggi, G. E. G. 2000. “An Experimental Investigation of Paired-Comparison Preference Elicitation Methods,” Journal of Multiattribute Decision Analysis 9, 76–89.Google Scholar
  5. Beroggi, G. E. G. 1999. Decision Modeling in Policy Management - An Introduction to the Analytic Concepts. MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  6. Beroggi, G. E. G. and W. A. Wallace. 1995. “Operational Control of the Transportation of Hazardous Materials: An Experimental Assessment of Alternative Decision,” Management Sciences 41 (12), 1962–1977.Google Scholar
  7. Chang, I. F. and L. C. Lin. 1998. “Design and Operation of an Internet Real-Time Conference,” Group Decision and Negotiation 7 (5), 387–398.Google Scholar
  8. Chau, P. Y. K., G. Au, and K. Y. Tam. 2000. “Impact of Information Presentation Modes on Online Shopping: An Empirical Evaluation of a Broadband Interactive Shopping Service,” Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce 10 (1), 1–22.Google Scholar
  9. Dustdar, S. and R. Huber. 1998. “Group Decision Making on Urban Planning Using Desktop Multimedia Conferencing,” Multimedia Tools and Applications 6 (1), 33–46.Google Scholar
  10. Finholt, T. A. and S. D. Teasley. 1998. “Psychology - The Need for Psychology in Research on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work,” Social Science Computer Review 16 (1), 40–52.Google Scholar
  11. Häubl, G. and V. Trifts. 2000. “Consumer Decision Making in Online Shopping Environments: The Effects of Interactive Decision Aids,” Marketing Science 19 (1), 4–21.Google Scholar
  12. Hiltz, S. R., D. Dufner, M. Holmes, and S. Poole. 2000. “Distributed Group Support Systems: Social Dynamics and Design Dilemmas,” Journal of Organizational Computing 2 (1), 135–159.Google Scholar
  13. Ikeda, Y., G. E. G. Beroggi, and W. A. Wallace. 1998. “Supporting Multi-Group Emergency Management with Multimedia,” Safety Science 30 (1-2), 223–234.Google Scholar
  14. Johnson, D. W. and F. P. Johnson. 1987. Joining Together: Group Theory and Group Skills, 3rd Ed., Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  15. Karacapilidis, N. and C. Pappis. 2000. “Computer-Supported Collaborative Argumentation and Fuzzy Similarity Measures in Multiple Attribute Decision Making,” Computers and Operations Research 27 (7-8), 653–671.Google Scholar
  16. Klein, G. 1999. Sources of Power: How People Make Decisions. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Kouvelis, P. and M. A. Lariviere. 2000. “Decentralizing Cross-Functional Decisions: Coordination Through Internal Markets,” Management Science 46 (8), 1049–1058.Google Scholar
  18. Lea, M. and R. Spears. 1992. “Paralanguage and Social Perception in Computer-Mediated Communication,” Journal of Organizational Computing 2 (3-4), 321–341.Google Scholar
  19. Levy, J. K., D. M. Kilgour, and K. W. Hipel. 2000. “Web-Based Multiple Attribute Decision Analysis: WEBHIPRE and the Management of Environmental Uncertainty,” INFOR 38 (3), 221–244.Google Scholar
  20. Limayem, M and G. DeSanctis. 2000. “Providing Decisional Guidance for Multiattribute Decision Making in Groups,” Information Systems Research 11 (4), 386–401.Google Scholar
  21. Lohse, G. L., S. Bellman, and E. J. Johnson. 2000. “Consumer Buying Behavior on the Internet: Findings from Panel Data,” Journal of Interactive Marketing 14 (1), 15–29.Google Scholar
  22. Miller, G. A. 1956. “The Magical Number Seven Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on Our Capability for Processing Information,” The Psychological Review 63, 81–97.Google Scholar
  23. Mustajoki, J. and R. P. Hämälainen. 2000. “Web-HIPRE: Global Decision Support by Value Tree and AHP Analysis,” INFOR 38 (3), 208–220.Google Scholar
  24. Olson, E. L. and R. E. Widing II. 2002. “Are Interactive Decision Aids Better than Passive Decision Aids? A Comparison with Implications for Information Providers on the Internet,”Journal of Interactive Marketing 16 (2), 22–33.Google Scholar
  25. Payne, J. W., J. R. Bettman, and E. J. Johnson. 1993. The Adaptive Decision-Maker. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  26. Pervan, G. P. 1998. “A Review of Research in Group Support Systems: Leaders, Approaches and Directions,” Decision Support Systems 23 (2), 149–159.Google Scholar
  27. Rheingold, H. 1993. The Virtual Community: Homestreading on the Electronic Frontier. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  28. Russo, J. E. and B. A. Dosher. 1983. “Strategies for Multiattribute Binary Choice,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 9, 676–696.Google Scholar
  29. Saini, R., P. K. Saxena, and P. K. Kalra. 2000. “Internet Enabled Synergistic Intelligent Systems and their Applications to Efficient Management of Operational Organizations,” Information Sciences 127 (1-2), 45–62.Google Scholar
  30. Stephanidis, C. (ed.), 2001. User Interfaces for All: Concepts, Methods, and Tools. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.Google Scholar
  31. Todd, P. and I. Benbasat. 2000. “Inducing Compensatory Information Processing through Decision Aids that Facilitate Effort Reduction: An Experimental Assessment,” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 13 (1), 91–106.Google Scholar
  32. Todd, P. and I. Benbasat. 1999. “Evaluating the Impact of DSS, Cognitive Effort, and Incentives on Strategy Selection,” Information Systems Research 10 (4), 356–374.Google Scholar
  33. Tung, L. L. and E. Turban. 1998. “A Proposed Research Framework for Distributed Group Support Systems,” Decision Support Systems 23 (2), 175–188.Google Scholar
  34. Widing, R. and W. Talarzyk. 1993. “Electronic Information Systems for Consumers: An Evaluation of Computer-Assisted Formats in Multiple Decision Environments,” Journal of Marketing Research 30, 125–141.Google Scholar
  35. Warkentin, M. E., L. Sayeed, and R. Hightower. 1997. “Virtual Teams Versus Face-to-Face Teams: An Exploratory Study of a Web-Based Conference System,” Decision Sciences 28 (4), 975–996.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Giampiero E.G. Beroggi
    • 1
  1. 1.Spring AnalyticaZürichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations