---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ####### ######## ######## ########### ### ### ## ### ## # ### # Interpersonal Computing and ### ### ## ### ## ### Technology: ### ### ## ### ### An Electronic Journal for ### ######## ### ### the 21st Century ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ## ### ISSN: 1064-4326 ### ### ### ## ### July, 1993 ####### ### ######## ### Volume 1, Number 3 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Published by the Center for Teaching and Technology, Academic Computer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC Additional support provided by the Center for Academic Computing, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802 This article is archived as AIKEN IPCTV1N3 on LISTSERV@GUVM ---------------------------------------------------------------- ADVANTAGES OF GROUP DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS Milam W. Aiken Department of Management and Marketing School of Business Administration, University of Mississippi INTRODUCTION A Group Decision Support System (GDSS), also known as an Electronic Meeting System or groupware, is commonly defined as a collection of software, hardware, and procedures designed for the automated support of group work (Dennis, et al., 1988; Kraemer & King, 1988). A GDSS is frequently based on a local area network of microcomputers in a meeting room (although the system may also be distributed across several rooms or locations). Using a GDSS, group members may exchange comments, rank solution alternatives, edit group documents, or perform some other type of collaborative group work. Results of the group's discussion or votes may be displayed at the individual computer terminal screens or on a projection screen at the front of the meeting room. The comments, rankings, or voting results may also be printed out as minutes of the meeting for future reference. The purpose of this paper is to describe how a GDSS can benefit groups for certain types of tasks. These advantages and disadvantages are discussed after a short description of a sample GDSS at the University of Mississippi and an illustration of GDSS use at IBM. THE GDSS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI Researchers at the University of Mississippi have developed a large, general-purpose, face-to-face GDSS which consists of one microcomputer at the front of an auditorium for the group leader or facilitator and 54 microcomputers in a U-shaped configuration on four elevated tiers for the group members. Four of the 54 microcomputer stations at the front of the room are specifically designed for wheelchair access. In addition, a BARCO projection system and an overhead projector allow the group to see displays at the front of the room. The GDSS uses GroupForum (software developed at the University of Mississippi by the author) which includes four programs for idea generation and voting: Brainstorm, Rank, Rate, and Quest. BRAINSTORM Brainstorm is an idea generation program that allows group participants to simultaneously and anonymously exchange ideas on a specific question proposed to the group, as shown in figure 1. Thus, it promotes an electronic discussion in response to the question. ================================================================= Figure 1: Brainstorm Sample Screen ---------------------------------- Question: How can we improve the MBA curriculum? 1. Recruit better students into the MBA program. 2. Have more practical courses that apply to the real world. 3. Have specializations within the program. 4. Improve the undergraduate curriculum to better prepare graduate students. 5. Offer more night classes for those in the working field to be able to attend school part-time. 6. If you have an undergraduate major in a specific business area, you should not have to take the core class in the MBA program. 7. Offer a practical internship program with firms around the country. 8. The classes should be taught on a case study basis. ================================================================= RANK Rank allows participants to order alternatives or choices according to some criterion. For example, group members may rank categories by their priority for funding. A summary screen then shows the categories listed by their average group ranking, as shown in figure 2. ================================================================= Figure 2: Ranking Matrix Sample Screen -------------------------------------- Rank Alternative: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Teachers 3 10 7 Courses 1 2 7 7 3 Equipment 2 4 10 4 Materials 4 10 2 4 Students 1 1 4 5 9 Other 6 7 7 ================================================================= RATE Rate allows participants to evaluate alternatives using several criteria. Any scale agreed upon by the group may be used to rate the items (for example, 1 to 5 or 1 to 10). As with the Rank program, a summary screen shows each choice in order of their ratings. QUEST Quest allows participants to answer a multiple-choice or open-ended, on-line questionnaire. Questions and choices are listed on the right side of the screen and answers to the questions are entered in the left-most column on the screen. A summary screen shows the minimum, the maximum, and the average response for open-ended questions (e.g., "What is your age?") and the percentage of group members choosing each alternative for multiple-choice questions. AN ILLUSTRATION OF GDSS USE AT IBM International Business Machines is one organization among many corporations and universities which have begun using GDSSs to improve their group meetings. An example of IBM's use of a GDSS for improving meetings is provided below (Nunamaker, et al., 1989): A plant manager was having trouble identifying problem areas that were hindering shop floor control. His subordinates seemed unable to isolate causes of the problem. A two-hour meeting of six key plant personnel had resulted in a number of arguments but no solutions to the problem. The manager decided to use the company's GDSS in an attempt to resolve the problem and develop a plan of action including information system requirements to improve the shop floor control process. The manager met with the company's GDSS facilitator to set the agenda of the meeting and to understand how the GDSS could be used to resolve the shop floor control problem. The manager and facilitator decided to use the electronic brainstorming and vote programs and to invite 10 of the plant employees, in addition to the manager and two junior analysts assigned to investigate the problem. The manager and facilitator decided that the topic of the meeting should be "What are the key issues in improving shop floor control?" During the subsequent GDSS session, the meeting participants used the brainstorming program for 35 minutes and generated 645 lines of comments about improving shop floor control. At the end of the brainstorming session, the manager saw that for the first time he was able to get concrete, meaningful answers to questions associated with shop floor control issues. The two analysts realized that they were beginning to better understand the complex nature of the overall shop floor control process. Next, the vote program was used. Each group member prioritized a list of issues in terms of importance to improved shop floor control. The accumulated results were displayed to the group. After 10 minutes of discussion, the meeting was concluded with comments from the manager thanking the participants. The manager was given a printout of all of the group's comments and the results of the group vote. ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF GDSSs ADVANTAGES Group Decision Support Systems give groups several advantages over many traditional, non-automated group meetings (Nunamaker, et al., 1991): More participation Because a GDSS allows anonymity, group members may be encouraged to participate because they do not feel as vulnerable to group censure for asking what may be perceived as "foolish" questions or making unpopular comments. Similarly, the participants will not be as subject to group think or conformance pressure (the reluctance to criticize the comments of others due to politeness or fear of reprisals). In addition, each group member will have more "air time" or time to contribute ideas. In non-automated meetings, people must listen to others speak and pausing to reflect can cost a turn at comment or response; a GDSS allows everyone to "speak" in parallel. In a typical meeting, group members have only few minutes to express their ideas rather than the entire meeting time. In some non- automated meetings, a few group members may exert undue influence or monopolize the group's time; a GDSS makes every participant equal, eliminating member status incongruities. Finally, more information will be presented to the group as more participate. Group synergy Other group members will be able to use an idea in a manner that the originator did not because participants have different information skills. Also, the group as a whole will be better able to catch errors in a comment than the individual who proposed the idea. Reading a comment often gives creative stimulus to others in the group. Also, groups may be more likely to consider an idea as the group's idea rather than an individual's because ideas have been merged together. Automated record keeping A GDSS can record all comments generated during the meeting, and consequently, the group participants may not need to take notes. In a non-automated setting, group members have to remember comments (rather than thinking of new ones) until they have a chance to speak. Participants may also forget what has been said before. In vocal meetings, some participants may not understand what was said or they may not be able to process the information quickly enough. This automated log of the discussion supports the development of an organizational memory from meeting to meeting. More structure A GDSS also provides a certain amount of structure to the meeting. With this structure in place, it is more difficult to deviate from the problem-solving cycle and make incomplete or premature decisions. The group has a more concentrated discussion, and they stay focused on the issues throughout the meeting. Lower levels of non-task interactions (gossiping, for example) in such groups have been observed as compared with traditional meetings. Other benefits As a result of more participation, group synergy, record keeping, and structure, many groups have been able to accomplish more in significantly less time necessary for traditional, non-automated meetings. Also, these factors have contributed to higher group satisfaction with the meeting process. Finally, the new technology has enabled larger groups to meet, resulting in more information, knowledge, and skills that are brought to bear to the task at hand. DISADVANTAGES There are some disadvantages to the technology, however, and they include: Slow Communication Most people speak much faster than they type, and thus would usually prefer a verbal environment (other things being equal). However, a GDSS allows participants to review recorded comments (people may read and scan faster than they can hear and process). Other advantages, including anonymity and parallel communication, may override the slow typing speed. The break-even point, where it is more efficient to type in parallel rather than speak and listen in sequence, occurs at a group size of approximately eight members (depending upon typing speed). Not all Tasks are Amenable to GDSSs Group meetings which involve "one-to-many" communication (for example, a leader lecturing to the group) would not benefit from a GDSS. Only those tasks which require group members to exchange ideas or preferences efficiently ("many-to-many") would benefit. CONCLUSION A Group Decision Support System (GDSS) presents an efficient and effective method for large groups to conduct meetings in which comments or preferences must be exchanged. The goal of this paper has been to introduce GDSSs and to describe an example GDSS at the University of Mississippi. REFERENCES 1. Dennis, A., George, J., Jessup, L., Nunamaker, J. & Vogel, D. (1988). Information technology to support electronic meetings. MIS Quarterly, 12(4). 2. Kraemer, K. & King, J. (1988). Computer-based systems for cooperative work and group decision making. ACM Computing Surveys, 20(2). 3. Nunamaker, J., Dennis, A., Valacich, J., Vogel, D., & George, J. (1991). Electronic meeting systems to support group work: Theory and practice at Arizona. Communications of the ACM, 34(7), 30-39. 4. Nunamaker, J., Vogel, D., Heminger, A., Martz, B., Grohowski, R., & McGoff, C. (1989). Experiences at IBM with group support systems: A field study. Decision Support Systems, 5(2), 183-196. ---------------------------------------------------------------- BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE: Milam W. Aiken Department of Management and Marketing School of Business Administration University of Mississippi University, MS 38677 601-232-5777 BITNET: MKAIKEN@UMSVM --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Interpersonal Computing and Technology: An Electronic Journal for the 21st Century Copyright 1993 Georgetown University. Copyright of individual articles in this publication is retained by the individual authors. Copyright of the compilation as a whole is held by Georgetown University. It is asked that any republication of this article state that the article was first published in IPCT-J. Contributions to IPCT-J can be submitted by electronic mail in APA style to: Gerald Phillips, Editor IPCT-J GMP3@PSUVM.PSU.EDU