Using a GDSS to Facilitate Group Consensus: Some Intended and Unintended Consequences

Richard Thomas Watson · Gerardine DeSanctis · Marshall Scott Poole

465 citations0/0 files storedMIS Quarterly

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Decision Support System Applications Multi-Criteria Decision Making Team Dynamics and Performance

Abstract

A cumulative body of experimental research is emerging that examines the ability of computer technology to support the processes and outcomes of small group meetings. For the most part the group decision support system effort has been concerned with demonstrating the usefulness of the technology in planning and decisionmaking situations where the quality of the meeting’s outcomes can be objectively assessed. In many decision situations, however, there is no objective measure of decision quality available. Rather, the group must reconcile differences in opinion, personal preference, or judgment and achieve consensus about a particularmode of action. As a contribution to the accumulating research on GDSS, the current study examines the effects of a GDSS in resolving conflicts of personal preference. In a task requiring resolution of competing personal preferences, 82 groups—the largest sample size in the GDSS literature to date—were randomly assigned to one of three experiment conditions: (1) a computer-based support system (GDSS); (2) a manual, paper and pencil, support system; or (3) no support whatsoever. Groups were either of size 3 or 4 persons. Use of the GDSS was expected to facilitate democratic participation in group discussion, move group members toward agreement with one another, and result in a high level of satisfaction with the group decision process. While several of the intended effects of the technology were observed, the groups experienced some unintended consequences as a result of using the GDSS. In general, the GDSS technology appeared to offer some advantage over no support, but little advantage over the pencil and paper method of supporting group discussion.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 465 citations exist upstream.

References

1910How We Think 1987A Foundation for the Study of Group Decision Support Systems 1984Issues in the Design of Group Decision Support Sytems

Cited by

1994Capturing the Complexity in Advanced Technology Use: Adaptive Structuration Theory 1998A Theory of Task/Technology Fit and Group Support Systems Effectiveness1 1998Testing Media Richness Theory in the New Media: The Effects of Cues, Feedback, and Task Equivocality 2019Machines as teammates: A research agenda on AI in team collaboration 1988Information Technology to Support Electronic Meetings 2010What’s Under Construction Here? Social Action, Materiality, and Power in Constructivist Studies of Technology and Organizing 1998An Assessment of Group Support Systems Experimental Research: Methodology and Results 2001Understanding Fit and Appropriation Effects in Group Support Systems via Meta-Analysis1

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.