IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ororsc/v6y1995i5p569-584.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Managerial Openness to Change and the Introduction of GDSS: Explaining Initial Success and Failure in Decision Conferencing

Author

Listed:
  • Anne T. McCartt

    (The University at Albany, The State University of New York, Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy, 300 Milne Hall, 135 Western Avenue, Albany, New York 12222)

  • John Rohrbaugh

    (The University at Albany, The State University of New York, Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy, 300 Milne Hall, 135 Western Avenue, Albany, New York 12222)

Abstract

The term Group Decision Support System (GDSS) refers broadly to any application of information technology that supports the work of groups. As more organizations increasingly explore possible applications of GDSS in ways that have the potential to alter managerial routines, the extent of managerial openness to change will be tested at least as much as the new technology. The relation of managerial openness to the successful introduction of GDSS was studied by analyzing a survey of participants in 26 decision conferences hosted by the Decision Techtronics Group of the State University of New York. The perceived benefit of each conference was assessed by a global outcome scale. Eight additional scales were employed to measure group decision process effectiveness, based on the Competing Values Approach to organizational analysis. Results indicated that conferences were evaluated as most beneficial by flexible client organizations that appeared open to the initial use of GDSS. As expected, positive outcomes also were found to be associated with conferences that involved fewer participants and in which participants believed that important decisions had been made. To the extent that the process of GDSS introduction can be managed to avoid failures, the research findings strongly encourage the design of meetings that both efficiently focus on the task (i.e., are highly goal centered) while simultaneously engaging the full involvement of every group member (i.e., are highly participatory). While new technology must be repeatedly modified following adoption to suit the unique demands of each workplace, an organizational unit also must be able to change appropriately its established structures and processes to make accommodation. Such mutual adaptation suggests that the eventual assimilation of new technology will become threatened wherever it is rigidly introduced or wherever management teams are not flexible enough to alter their decision-making routines at the time of initiation.

Suggested Citation

  • Anne T. McCartt & John Rohrbaugh, 1995. "Managerial Openness to Change and the Introduction of GDSS: Explaining Initial Success and Failure in Decision Conferencing," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 6(5), pages 569-584, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:6:y:1995:i:5:p:569-584
    DOI: 10.1287/orsc.6.5.569
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.6.5.569
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/orsc.6.5.569?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. John Hagedoorn & Helen Haugh & Paul Robson & Kate Sugar, 2023. "Social innovation, goal orientation, and openness: insights from social enterprise hybrids," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 60(1), pages 173-198, January.
    2. Oussama Marrouni Alami & Otmane Bouksour & Zitouni Beidouri, 2015. "An Intelligent Project Management Maturity Model for Moroccan Engineering Companies," Vikalpa: The Journal for Decision Makers, , vol. 40(2), pages 191-208, June.
    3. Midgley, Gerald & Cavana, Robert Y. & Brocklesby, John & Foote, Jeff L. & Wood, David R.R. & Ahuriri-Driscoll, Annabel, 2013. "Towards a new framework for evaluating systemic problem structuring methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 229(1), pages 143-154.
    4. Martin S. Schilling & Nadine Oeser & Cornelius Schaub, 2007. "How Effective Are Decision Analyses? Assessing Decision Process and Group Alignment Effects," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 4(4), pages 227-242, December.
    5. K N Papamichail & G Alves & S French & J B Yang & R Snowdon, 2007. "Facilitation practices in decision workshops," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 58(5), pages 614-632, May.
    6. van Amsterdam, Jan & Phillips, Lawrence D. & Henderson, Graeme & Bell, James & Bowden-Jones, Owen & Hammersley, Richard & Ramsey, John & Taylor, Polly & Dale-Perera, Annette & Melichar, Jan & van den , 2015. "Ranking the harm of non-medically used prescription opioids in the UK," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 64653, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    7. Mitja Jeraj & Miha Maric & Ivan Todorovic & Mladen Cudanov, 2015. "The Role of Openness and Entrepreneurial Curiosity in Company’s Growth," The AMFITEATRU ECONOMIC journal, Academy of Economic Studies - Bucharest, Romania, vol. 17(38), pages 371-371, February.
    8. Karim Gassemi, 2019. "Collective Strategy Formulation: An Experimental Research Assessing the Positive Impact of Group Decision Support System on Work Group," International Review of Management and Marketing, Econjournals, vol. 9(5), pages 150-157.
    9. Francis Marleau Donais & Irène Abi-Zeid & E. Owen D. Waygood & Roxane Lavoie, 2021. "A Framework for Post-Project Evaluation of Multicriteria Decision Aiding Processes from the Stakeholders’ Perspective: Design and Application," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(5), pages 1161-1191, October.
    10. D F Andersen & J A M Vennix & G P Richardson & E A J A Rouwette, 2007. "Group model building: problem structuring, policy simulation and decision support," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 58(5), pages 691-694, May.
    11. L A Franco & M Meadows, 2007. "Exploring new directions for research in problem structuring methods: on the role of cognitive style," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 58(12), pages 1621-1629, December.
    12. A Morton & D Bird & A Jones & M White, 2011. "Decision conferencing for science prioritisation in the UK public sector: a dual case study," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 62(1), pages 50-59, January.

    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:ororsc:v:6:y:1995:i:5:p:569-584. 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.