Annette C. Easton

Stakeholder identification and assumption surfacing in small groups: an experimental study

The authors investigated the impact of a GDSS (group decision support systems) based on the stakeholder identification and assumption surfacing model for strategic planning impact analysis. A controlled laboratory experiment was used to compare the results of four-person groups which had GDSS support, comparable manual support, and no support. Measures were taken on decision outcomes (quality, time and satisfaction with the outcomes) and decision process variables (quantity of unique alternatives, distribution of individual participation, and satisfaction with the process). Observational data was recorded through the use of videotape of the sessions. Results of the experiment are presented.<<ETX>>

An experimental investigation of electronic focus groups

Recently, we began applying Group support systems (GSS) tools to tasks and groups that are uncharacteristic of the GSS research literature. Instead of using GSS tools on tasks requiring a solution, a decision, or any threshold consensus measure, we examined the potential utility that these tools have in the area of marketing research, specifically with focus groups. The results of an experimental study to validate the use of this technique are presented. The results indicate that GSS can offer improvements in the areas of, number of comments, focus on the task, and distribution of participation, while not suffering a loss of participant satisfaction. Additionally the results show some promise that the size of focus groups can be increased through the use of GSS technology.

Interactive versus stand-alone group decision support systems for stakeholder identification and assumption surfacing in small groups

Abstract As we begin to see evidence that Group Decision Support Systems can be beneficial, it becomes increasingly important to investigate the effect of different GDSS designs on decision making processes. This study investigated the effect of a GDSS based on the Strategic Assumption Surfacing and Testing model for strategic planning impact analysis. A controlled laboratory experiment compared the results of 4-person groups that had either Stand-Alone GDSS support (one personal computer per group) or Interactive GDSS support (4 networked personal computers per group). Measures were taken on decision outcomes (quality, time and satisfaction with the outcomes) and decision process variables (quantity of unique alternatives, distribution of individual participation, and satisfaction with the process). We found that the interactive GDSS groups generated a higher number of unique ideas and had more even participation rates. However they were less satisfied with both the process and the outcomes. We also found no significant difference between the groups in terms of decision quality and decision time.

Effects of an Electronic Meeting System Group Writing Tool on the Quality of Written Documents.

Electronic meeting systems (EMS) technology can effectively support groups in a diverse set of meeting functions. The introduction of the Groupwriter tool allows group composition of documents in a highly efficient environment. To test this tool, we conducted an experiment to compare the quality of policy and procedure docu ments written by groups in three face-to-face treatments: (a) those using the EMS Groupwriter tool with a planning guide; (b) those using pen and paper with a planningguide; and (c) those using only pen and paper. The dependent variables were planning quality, document length, document quality, and member satisfac tion with document quality. We found that EMS technology significantly improved planning quality over manual support. EMS groups wrote longer documents and, in comparison to manual groups with imposed planning, better documents. Mem ber satisfaction with document quality was not statistically different for all three treatments.

Supporting Group Writing with Computer Software.

Our article presents an overview of computer-supported collaborative work (CSCW) group writing tools. Although not an exhaustive overview, we suggest a framework to classify group writing tools. Our framework can be utilized for classifying future group writing software. The tools reviewed here are classified partly by the way group members enter and edit textual documents collectively since collectivity, we argue, is the essence of collaborative writing. Collaborative or group writing tasks are an important part of most business peoples’ work today. Collaboration occurs for writing short documents, such as memos, letters, information briefs, or press releases or for writing longer documents, such as reports, proposals, or policy and procedure statements. Group writing usually produces better documents because of the authors’ combined experiences and writing abilities. However, several problems are inherent in most group work such as time and distance constraints and differences in styles and personalities of group members. Some group writing problems, nevertheless, can be solved by using computer software tools specifically designed to enhance collaborative work. As a result, we discuss an assortment of

Teaching in the Electronic Boardroom

Abstract Managers spend a significant portion of their time working in groups. Recent advantages in information technology have led to the development of computer-based tools to make group meetings more productive. Although research into the use of electronic meeting systems suggests that they can improve group efficiency, these systems have not yet been widely integrated into business classes. This article describes how electronic meeting systems can be incorporated into the classroom and provides recommendations for their use.