IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/grdene/v11y2002i1d10.1023_a1014538003326.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Enhancing CSCW with Advanced Decision Making Tools for an Agile Manufacturing System Design Application

Author

Listed:
  • Leslie Monplaisir

    (Wayne State University)

Abstract

Computer Supported Collaborative Work (CSCW) can provide an efficient decision-making environment for multi-disciplinary teams faced with the challenge of evaluating agile manufacturing systems. In this paper, the development and evaluation of CSCW prototypes to aid the systematic evaluation of agile manufacturing systems are described. An industrial case study involving the evaluation of alternative design configurations of a cellular manufacturing system (CMS) for agile manufacturing was used for testing with twelve multi-disciplinary teams. The results obtained suggest that engineering design teams can obtain productivity improvements through the use of CSCW tools. The results indicate that CSCW systems can assist decision-makers in reaching consensus especially when advanced decision making tools are incorporated into the problem-solving framework. In this study, we also found that an enhanced CSCW with a neural network module for preference aggregation outperformed a basic CSCW in: (1) decision quality, (2) users' satisfaction and agreement, (3) consensus. These results also have far reaching implications for distributed product development teams that face the problem of reaching consensus on a range of alternative designs with stringent pressures to reduce development time.

Suggested Citation

  • Leslie Monplaisir, 2002. "Enhancing CSCW with Advanced Decision Making Tools for an Agile Manufacturing System Design Application," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 11(1), pages 45-63, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:11:y:2002:i:1:d:10.1023_a:1014538003326
    DOI: 10.1023/A:1014538003326
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1023/A:1014538003326
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1023/A:1014538003326?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Joey F. George & George K. Easton & J. F. Nunamaker & Gregory B. Northcraft, 1990. "A Study of Collaborative Group Work With and Without Computer-Based Support," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 1(4), pages 394-415, December.
    2. Gerardine DeSanctis & R. Brent Gallupe, 1987. "A Foundation for the Study of Group Decision Support Systems," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 33(5), pages 589-609, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Anna-Theresa Walter, 2021. "Organizational agility: ill-defined and somewhat confusing? A systematic literature review and conceptualization," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 71(2), pages 343-391, April.
    2. Clare Bayley & Simon French, 2008. "Designing a Participatory Process for Stakeholder Involvement in a Societal Decision," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 195-210, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Terri L. Griffith & Mark A. Fuller & Gregory B. Northcraft, 1998. "Facilitator Influence in Group Support Systems: Intended and Unintended Effects," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 9(1), pages 20-36, March.
    2. Mi, Hwang, 1998. "Did Task Type Matter in the Use of Decision Room GSS? A Critical Review and a Meta-analysis," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 1-15, February.
    3. Daily, Bonnie F. & Teich, Jeffrey E., 2001. "Perceptions of contribution in multi-cultural groups in non-GDSS and GDSS environments," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 134(1), pages 70-83, October.
    4. Wm. David Salisbury & Michael Parent & Wynne W. Chin, 2008. "Robbing Peter to Pay Paul: The Differential Effect of GSS Restrictiveness on Process Satisfaction and Group Cohesion," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 303-320, July.
    5. Alain Pinsonneault & Henri Barki & R. Brent Gallupe & Norberto Hoppen, 1999. "Electronic Brainstorming: The Illusion of Productivity," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 10(2), pages 110-133, June.
    6. Elfvengren, K.Kalle & Karkkainen, Hannu & Torkkeli, Marko & Tuominen, Markku, 2004. "A GDSS based approach for the assessment of customer needs in industrial markets," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(3), pages 275-292, June.
    7. Meløn, Mønica García & Aragonés Beltran, Pablo & Carmen González Cruz, M., 2008. "An AHP-based evaluation procedure for Innovative Educational Projects: A face-to-face vs. computer-mediated case study," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 754-765, October.
    8. Jae Kwang Lee & Jae Kyeong Kim & Soung Hie Kim & Hung Kook Park, 2002. "An Intelligent Idea Categorizer for Electronic Meeting Systems," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 11(5), pages 363-378, September.
    9. O'Keefe, Robert M., 2016. "Experimental behavioural research in operational research: What we know and what we might come to know," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 899-907.
    10. Luis A. Guerrero & José A. Pino, 2009. "Supporting Discussions for Decision Meetings," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 18(6), pages 589-601, November.
    11. Wanda J. Orlikowski & C. Suzanne Iacono, 2001. "Research Commentary: Desperately Seeking the “IT” in IT Research—A Call to Theorizing the IT Artifact," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 12(2), pages 121-134, June.
    12. Francisco Antunes & João Paulo Costa, 2010. "The Missing Link: Theoretical Reflections On Decision Reconstruction," Portuguese Journal of Management Studies, ISEG, Universidade de Lisboa, vol. 0(2), pages 197-214.
    13. Guo Li & Wenling Liu & Zhaohua Wang & Mengqi Liu, 2017. "An empirical examination of energy consumption, behavioral intention, and situational factors: evidence from Beijing," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 255(1), pages 507-524, August.
    14. Sabrina Bresciani & Martin J. Eppler, 2015. "The Pitfalls of Visual Representations," SAGE Open, , vol. 5(4), pages 21582440156, October.
    15. Yu, Lean & Wang, Shouyang & Lai, Kin Keung, 2009. "An intelligent-agent-based fuzzy group decision making model for financial multicriteria decision support: The case of credit scoring," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 195(3), pages 942-959, June.
    16. Damart, Sébastien & Roy, Bernard, 2009. "The uses of cost-benefit analysis in public transportation decision-making in France," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 16(4), pages 200-212, August.
    17. Smith, Antoinette L. & Murthy, Uday S. & Engle, Terry J., 2012. "Why computer-mediated communication improves the effectiveness of fraud brainstorming," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 13(4), pages 334-356.
    18. Gebauer, Judith & Mahoney, Joseph T., 2013. "Joining Supply and Demand Conditions of IT Enabled Change: Toward an Economic Theory of Inter-firm Modulation," Working Papers 13-0100, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, College of Business.
    19. Steven Way & Yufei Yuan, 2014. "Transitioning From Dynamic Decision Support to Context-Aware Multi-Party Coordination: A Case for Emergency Response," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 23(4), pages 649-672, July.
    20. Salo, Ahti A., 1995. "Interactive decision aiding for group decision support," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 84(1), pages 134-149, 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:spr:grdene:v:11:y:2002:i:1:d:10.1023_a:1014538003326. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.