Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Design of GSS-Enabled Interventions: A Habermasian Perspective

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

Abstract

This article frames GSS-enabled interventions as electronically supported discourses, designed and evaluated against a gold standard of ideal speech in a perfect communication environment. The objectives are, firstly, to develop a model of GSS-enabled interventions based on Habermas' theory of communicative action, and secondly, to apply the model as a problem-structuring device to the conceptual problem of designing the strategic evaluation of a comprehensive urban plan. The model, known as the VC (validity claims) Model, provides separate evaluative criteria for personal, social and technical aspects. The criteria for successful GSS-enabled interventions may be summarized as “personal commitment (validated by personal truthfulness or sincerity), to a social consensus (validated by rightness), for informed action (validated by objective truth)”. Detailed criteria (viz., goal, strategy, procedure, issues, problems) are developed for each type of validity claim and matched to the technologies available. The result is a detailed brief illustrating the design of a GSS-enabled strategic urban planning intervention, including a sample agenda for the GSS-supported meeting and the GSS tools that will be employed.

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

  • Altschuler, Alan. (1965a). The City Planning Process: A Political Analysis. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Altschuler, Alan. (1965b). “The Goals of Comprehensive Planning,” Journal of the American Institute of Planners 31(3), 186–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banville, Claude, and Maurice Landry. (1989), “Can the field of MIS be Disciplined?,” Communications of the ACM 32(1), 48–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barry, David and Michael Elmes. (1997). “Strategy Retold: Toward a Narrative View of Strategic Discourse,” Academy of Mgt Review 22(2), 429–452.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benbasat, Izak and Robert W. Zmud. (1999). “Empirical Research in Information Systems: The Practice of Relevance,” MIS Quarterly 23(1), 3–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Checkland, Peter and Sue Holwell. (1998). Information, Systems and Information Systems. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Churchman, C. W. (1971). The Design of Inquiring Systems: Basic Concepts of Systems and Organizations, New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cilliers, Paul. (1998). Complexity and postmodernism: Understanding complex systems. London and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crystal, David. (1997). The Cambridge Encyclopaedia of Language, 2nd Ed., Cambridge University Press.

  • Daft, Richard, and Robert Lengel. (1986). “Organizational Information Requirements, Media Richness, and Structural Design,” Management Science 32(5), 554–571.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dutton, Jane E. and Robert B. Duncan. (1987). “The Creation of Momentum for Change Through the Process of Strategic Issue Diagnosis,” Strategic Management Journal 8, 279–295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennis, Alan R., and Monica J. Garfield. (2003). “The Adoption and Use of GSS in Project Teams: Towards More Participative Processes and Outcomes”, MIS Quarterly 27(2), 289–323.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennis, Alan R., Barbara H. Wixom, and Robert J. Vandenberg. (2001). “Understanding Fit and Appropriation Effects in Group Support Systems Via Meta-Analysis,” MIS Quarterly 25(2), 167–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Earl, M. J. (1993), “Experiences in Strategic Information Systems Planning,” MIS Quarterly 17(1), 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eden, Colin. (1992). “A Framework for Thinking About Group Decision Support Systems (GDSS),” Group Decision and Negotiation 1(2), 199–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eden, Colin and Fran Ackermann. (2001a). “SODA-The Principles,” in Rosenhead, Johnathan and John Mingers (eds.), Rational Analysis for a Problematic World Revisited: Problem Structuring Methods for Complexity, Uncertainty and Conflict. 2nd Ed., Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eden, Colin and Fran Ackermann. (2001b). “SODA-Journey Making and Mapping in Practice,” in Rosenhead, Johnathan and John Mingers (eds.), Rational Analysis for a Problematic World Revisited: Problem Structuring Methods for Complexity, Uncertainty and Conflict, 2nd Ed., Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fjermestad, Jerry, and Starr Roxanne Hiltz. (1999). “An Assessment of Group Support Systems Experimental Research: Methodology and Results,” Journal of Management Information Systems 15(3), Winter 1998-1999, 7–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fjermestad, Jerry, and Starr Roxanne Hiltz. (2001). “Group Support Systems: A Descriptive Evaluation of Case and Field Studies,” Journal of Management Information Systems 17(3), Winter 2000-2001, 115–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forsyth, Ann. (1997). “Five Images of a Suburb: Perspectives on a New Urban Development,” Journal of the American Planning Association 63(1), Winter 1997, 45–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1968). Knowledge and Human Interests. Boston: Beacon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1984). The Theory of Communicative Action Volume 1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society, Thomas McCarthy (trans.). Boston: Beacon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1987), The Theory of Communicative Action Volume 2: Lifeworld and System, Thomas McCarthy (trans.). Boston: Beacon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, Jurgen and T. H. Nielsen. (1990). “Jurgen Habermas: Morality society, and ethics: An interview with Torbin Hviid Nielsen,” Acta Sociologica 33(2), 93–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Healey, Patsy. (1997). Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies,New York: Palgrave.

  • Innes, Judith E. (1996). “Planning Through Consensus Building,” Journal of the American Planning Association 62(4), 460–472.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Alan. (1999). “The MIS Field, the Publication Process, and the Future Course of MIS Quarterly,” MIS Quarterly 23(1), v–xi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyytinen, K. and H. K. Klein. (1985). “The Critical Theory of Jurgen Habermas as a Basis for a Theory of Information Systems,” in Mumford, E., R. A. Hirschheim, G. Fitzgerald and T. Wood-Harper (eds.), Research Methods in Information Systems, Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markus, M. Lynne, Ann Majchrzak, and Les Gasser. (2002). “A Design Theory for Systems that Support Emergent Knowledge Processes,” MIS Quarterly 26(3), 179–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mingers, J. (1981). “Towards an Appropriate Social Theory for Applied Systems Thinking: Critical Social Theory and Soft Systems Methodology”, Journal of Applied Systems Analysis 7, 41–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mingers, John. (2001a). “Multimethodology-Mixing and Matching Methods”, in Rosenhead, Johnathan and John Mingers (eds.), Rational Analysis for a Problematic World Revisited: Problem Structuring Methods for Complexity, Uncertainty and Conflict, 2nd Ed. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mingers, John. (2001b). “Combining IS Research Methods: Towards a Pluralist Methodology”, Information Systems Research 12(3), 240–259.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitroff, I. I. and H. A. Linstone. (1993), The Unbounded Mind, Oxford University Press: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morton, Alec, Fran Ackermann, and Valerie Belton. (2003). “Technology-Driven and Model-Driven Approaches to Group Decision Support: Focus, Research Philosophy and Key Concepts,” European Journal of Information Systems 12, 110–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ngwenyama, Ojelanki K. (2002), “The Critical Social Theory Approach to Information Systems: Problems and Challenges,” in Myers, Michael D, and David Avison (eds.), Qualitative Research in Information Systems: A Reader, London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ngwenyama, Ojelanki K, and Allen Lee. (1997). “Communication Richness in Electronic Mail: Critical Social Theory and the Contextuality of Meaning,” MIS Quarterly 21(2), 145–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nutt, Paul C. (1989). Making Tough Decisions, San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Outhwaite, W. (1996). The Habermas Reader, Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pervan, Graham P. (1998). “AReviewof Research in Group Support Systems: Leaders Approaches and Directions,” Decision Support Systems 23(2), 149–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quinn, John J. (1996). “The Role of “Good Conversation” in Strategic Control,” Journal of Management Studies 33(3), 381–394.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenhead, Johnathan and John Mingers (eds.). (2001). Rational Analysis for a Problematic World Revisited: Problem Structuring Methods for Complexity, Uncertainty and Conflict, 2nd Ed. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schultze, Ulrike and Dorothy E. Leidner. (2002). “Studying Knowledge Management in Information Systems Research: Discourses and Theoretical Assumptions,” MIS Quarterly 26(3), 213–242.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shakun, Melvin F. (1992). “Defining a Right Problem in Group Decision and Negotiation: Feeling and Evolutionary Generating Procedures,” Group Decision and Negotiation 1(1), 27–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shakun, Melvin F. (1999a). “Consciousness, Spirituality, and Right Decision/Negotiation in Purposeful Complex Adaptive Systems,” Group Decision and Negotiation 8(1), 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shakun, Melvin F. (1999b). “An ESD Computer Culture for Intercultural Problem Solving and Negotiation,” Group Decision and Negotiation 8(3), 237–249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shakun, Melvin F. (2001). “Unbounded Rationality,” Group Decision and Negotiation 10(2), 97–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shakun, Melvin F. (2003). “Right Problem Solving: Doing the Right Thing Right,” Group Decision and Negotiation 12(6), 463–476.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheffield, James. (1995). “The Impact of Communication Medium on Negotiation Performance,” Group Decision and Negotiation 4(2), 159–179.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheffield, James. (2004a). “Validating Problem Structure via the V-Model,” Proceedings of IADIS (International Association for Development of the Information Society e-Society 2004 July 16-19. Avila, Spain. ISBN 972-9847-6-0. Vol. 1, pp. 659–666.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheffield, James. (2004b). “Visualizing Information Systems Epistemology via the V-Model,” Proceedings of IADIS (International Association for Development of the Information Society) e-Society 2004 July 16-19. Avila, Spain. ISBN 972-9847-6-0. Vol. 1, pp. 675–684.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trauth, Eileen and Leonard M. Jessup. (2000). “Understanding Computer-Mediated Discussions: Positivist and Interpretive Analyses of Group Support Systems Use,” MIS Quarterly 24(1), 43–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van de Ven, A. H. and A. L. Delbecq. (1971). “The Effectiveness of Nominal, Delphi, and Interacting Group Decision Making Processes,” Academy of Management Journal 17, 605–621.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilber, Ken. (2000). The Collected works of Ken Wilber Vol 6: Sex, Ecology, Spirituality. Boston: Shamballah.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E. (1979). The Social Psychology of Organising.New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin, Robert. (2003). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 3rd Ed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zack, Michael H. (1993). “Interactivity and Communication Mode Choice in Ongoing Management Groups,” Information Systems Research 4(3), 207–239.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. MSIS, University of Auckland, Private Bag, 92019, Auckland, New Zealand.

    Jim Sheffield

Authors
  1. Jim Sheffield
    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

Sheffield, J. The Design of GSS-Enabled Interventions: A Habermasian Perspective. Group Decision and Negotiation 13, 415–435 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:GRUP.0000045750.48336.f7

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:GRUP.0000045750.48336.f7

Search

Navigation