A Foundation for the Study of Group Decision Support Systems

DeSanctis, Gerardine; Gallupe, R. Brent

Management Science; May 1987; 33, 5; ABI/INFORM Global
pg. 589

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 590 GERA RDIN E DESANCTIS AND R. BRENT GALLU PE

available within a GDSS include electronic messaging, local- and wide-area networks,
teleconferencing, and store and forward facilities. Computer technologies include
multi-user operating systems, fourth generation languages, data bases, data analysis
facilities, data storage and modification capabilities, and the like. Decision support
technologies include agenda setting, decision modeling methods (such as decision trees,
risk analysis, forecasting methods, and multiattribute utility functions), structured
group methods (such as the Nominal Group and Delphi techniques), and rules for
directing group discussion. Empirical investigations into the use of GDSS have been
reported by Adelman (1984), Gray et al. (198 1), Gallupe (1985), Lewis ( 1982), Turoff
and Hiltz (1982), Quinn et al. ( 1985), and others.
In order for research on GDSS to generate cumulative knowledge, a common per-
spective regarding the purpose and characteristics of these systems is required. In
particular, a taxonomy outlining variables critical to GDSS design and impacts is
needed to identify research questions and organize research results. The purpose of this
paper is to provide a foundation for the study of decision support systems for groups. A
conceptual overview of GDSS, their purpose, components, and anticipated impacts, is
presented. Our perspective is based on an information-exchange view of group decision
making and posits that the effects of GDSS occur due to changes in the pattern of
interpersonal communication brought about by the technology. In particular, the use of
GDSS alters the nature of participation within the group, which, in turn, impacts
decision quality and other outcomes of a meeting. Three levels of GDSS systems are
described, each representing an increasing degree of technological sophistication and a
more dramatic intervention into the process of group exchange. We propose that
research proceed progressively through these three levels of systems, only considering
more complex systems after the effectiveness of less sophisticated designs is understood.
This paper proposes a multidimensional taxonomy of GDSSs using a contingency
approach. In particular, we suggest that the design of support systems be driven by three
factors: the size of the group, the presence or absence of face-to-face interaction, and the
task confronting the group (see Figure 1). Empirical research can proceed systemati-
cally by examining the role of decision support technology within each cell of the
taxonomy. Our paper concludes by discussing research issues related to the design and
impacts of GDSS technology. General hypotheses and important constructs to be used
in GDSS research are identified.

2. Group Decision Making

The Decision-Making Group: A Definition

It has been well documented that managers spend a great deal of their working hours
in meetings and that much of this meeting time is not for decision-making purposes
(Argyris and Schon 1974; Hoffman 1979; Mintzberg 1973). But what we want to focus
on here are those situations where groups must, in fact, reach a decision, and where the
intention is that the decision be implemented following the collaborative experience of
the group meeting.
For our purposes then, a decision-making group can be dehned as two or more
people who are jointly responsible for detecting a problem, elaborating on the nature of
the problem, generating possible solutions, evaluating potential solutions, or formulat-
ing strategies for implementing solutions. The members of a group may or may not be
located in the same physical location, but they are aware of one another and perceive
themselves to be a part of the group which is making the decision. Common examples
of decision-making groups include project teams, governing boards, legislative com-
mittees, and medical teams. In most instances the group has been delegated responsi-
bility for matters considered to be too signihcant for any single individual. Through

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Thank you for using www.freepdfconvert.com service!

Only two pages are converted. Please Sign Up to convert all pages.

https://www.freepdfconvert.com/membership