IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/orisre/v3y1992i3p224-251.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Effects of Variations in Capabilities of GDSS Designs on Management of Cognitive Conflict in Groups

Author

Listed:
  • V. Sambamurthy

    (Information and Management Sciences, College of Business, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida 32306)

  • Marshall Scott Poole

    (Department of Speech Communication, University of Minnesota, 460 Folwell Hall, 9 Pleasant Street S.E., Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455)

Abstract

Group decision support systems have been advocated as mechanisms for facilitating conflict management in groups. Two noted shortcomings of research on GDSS effects motivate this study: (i) Most researchers have compared the effects of computer-based and manual delivery of structures for supporting group decision making. By treating the GDSS as a “black box,” researchers have neglected attention toward examining the effects of specific capabilities delivered by a GDSS. (ii) Despite the volume of accumulated research, scant attention has been paid to examining GDSS impacts on the group interaction process itself. This research proposes a conceptual view of a GDSS as providing communication and consensus capabilities for supporting the cognitive conflict management process in group decision making. Through a manipulation of the delivery of communication and consensus structures to groups working on a strategic planning task, several exploratory research questions were examined. The GDSS used in this study was the SAMM system. Key results obtained were: (a) despite using the same GDSS structures, groups exhibited a variety of patterns of conflict management processes; (b) the delivery of communication and consensus structures together, as opposed to primarily communication structures, however, did result in higher confrontiveness, or the ability of groups to confront their conflicts and resolve them in positive ways; (c) higher confrontiveness resulted in higher levels of post-meeting consensus; and, (d) computerization of structures enabled groups to confront their conflict and resolve it more positively than when groups were provided with equivalent manual structures. The results demonstrate the value of process-oriented methodological approaches to investigating effects of GDSS designs.

Suggested Citation

  • V. Sambamurthy & Marshall Scott Poole, 1992. "The Effects of Variations in Capabilities of GDSS Designs on Management of Cognitive Conflict in Groups," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 3(3), pages 224-251, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:orisre:v:3:y:1992:i:3:p:224-251
    DOI: 10.1287/isre.3.3.224
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/isre.3.3.224
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/isre.3.3.224?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Wm. David Salisbury & Wynne W. Chin & Abhijit Gopal & Peter R. Newsted, 2002. "Research Report: Better Theory Through Measurement—Developing a Scale to Capture Consensus on Appropriation," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 13(1), pages 91-103, March.
    2. Marsden, James R. & Mathiyalakan, Sathasivam, 2003. "An investigation of changes in attitude over time of GDSS groups under unanimity and majority decision rules," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 145(3), pages 693-712, March.
    3. Franco, L. Alberto & Rouwette, Etienne A.J.A., 2011. "Decision development in facilitated modelling workshops," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 212(1), pages 164-178, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:orisre:v:3:y:1992:i:3:p:224-251. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.