Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2004
A Language Technology Toolset for Development of a Large Group Augmented Facilitation System Mark Adkins & John Kruse Center for the Management of Information University of Arizona Tucson, AZ
[email protected] &
[email protected]
Abstract Facilitating large groups of people distributed around the globe is challenging from a technological, social psychological, and communication perspective. From a technological standpoint information systems are required to connect individuals though firewalls, time zones, cultures, languages, etc. Then the systems must allow sense to be made from huge numbers of interactions in a timely manner so that large groups can make effective decisions. Ideally the large group decisions will be based on valid information that leads to free and informed choices so the group has an internal commitment to the decision. This paper explains a conceptual framework on how technology and the facilitation processes can be melded to support effective interaction in large, distributed groups of 50 to 5000 individuals. We provide an approach for the development of a complete system to augment the human facilitator. This system would first scan inputs for inconsistencies with the rules then engage the participant in an activity to modify the input to be consistent with the TSF ground rules. Then the inputs are clustered with similar inputs and automatically summarized for the group and the facilitator. At this point group members can continue to contribute to the clusters, which are continuously re-summarized and distributed to the group. Meanwhile, the facilitator is developing a dynamic document of the groups' interactions, behavior, progress and potential conclusions. As the meeting progresses the facilitator will modify processes to focus the group toward reaching conclusions on the cluster summaries. As with small, face-to-face meetings, the goal is to enable the group to reach a decision with appropriate or required levels of commitment from the group members. The functional elements of technology are currently available and have been integrated into robust systems for other applications.
Robert Younger Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center San Diego, CA
[email protected]
Adapting these functional components to a different domain such as group facilitation is feasible with a limited investment.
1. Introduction Facilitating large groups of people distributed around the world is challenging from technological, social, psychological, and communication perspectives. From a technological standpoint information systems are required to connect individuals though firewalls, time zones, cultures, languages, etc. Then the systems must allow sense to be made from huge numbers of interactions in a timely manner so that large groups can make effective decisions. Ideally the large group decisions will be based on valid information that leads to free and informed choices so the group has an internal commitment to the decision (Schwarz, 2002). This paper explains a conceptual framework for largescale technology to augment a facilitator’s role of assisting groups with effective interactions. The focus is on how technology and the facilitation processes can be melded to support effective interaction in large, distributed (geographically and/or temporally) groups (50-5000 individuals).
2. Distributed Collaboration Distributed collaboration among large groups of people spread across the world is increasing as people are flying less and global work is on the rise. This article outlines a theoretically grounded approach to enabling facilitation of such groups through the development of an integrated set of principles and tools that will aid the human facilitation process. This work advances knowledge about computer-supported cooperative research, group interaction, distributed communication, the process of facilitation itself, and the extent to which technology can supplement and/or supplant human facilitators.
0-7695-2056-1/04 $17.00 (C) 2004 IEEE
1
Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2004
Research on collaboration and distributed work is relevant to nearly every context in which humans come into contact. At a general level this research has social significance for how individuals, groups, organizations, and societies manage complex work relationships and how technology can aid or hinder such work. At a more specific level, the test beds in which the research will be conducted-emergency management, humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, and dispute mediation–are important venues in their own right, and the development of tools and facilitation practices that will benefit workers in these areas is justification alone. The difficulties in creating coalition support in the United States led war on terror is a striking demonstration that skilled facilitation is needed to work through the diverse and often competing interests and perspectives of relevant parties to an emergency situation or dispute. A system for facilitating group deliberations that includes both guidelines for communication processes and computer-based tools to assist in the deliberations would be a significant boon to the very trying and delicate negotiation process. Additionally, collaboration is becoming as basic to business, education and societal development today as reading and arithmetic are to surviving in either environment. Workers collaborate to build and expand ideas from new product development to marketing strategies; educators collaborate to learn from each other and to conduct research; and community members collaborate to build healthy and sustainable communities. Today’s work environment routinely requires employees to interact with a number of people across time and space in order to make critical decisions. This decision process involves discussion, declarations, information dissemination, cooperation, coercion, manipulation, interpretation of intent, justification, and in some cases, deception. Consequently, forthright cooperation and effective collaboration are critical to organizational effectiveness (Bennis & Shepard, 1956). Collaboration has become such an important function that, according to Fortune Magazine in 1998, the word “collaborate” was in the mission statements of each and every Fortune 500 company. Collaborative group work offers a multitude of advantages to an organization through sharing information, generating ideas, reaching consensual decisions, and reviewing the effects of decisions (Nunamaker, Vogel, & Potter, 1997). Decision-making groups are social entities that require effective coordination of time and resources (Van Gundy, 1988).
Generally, the goal of such groups is to determine an optimal solution to an issue. Groups often reach better decisions than individuals because the collective knowledge and skill of the group is typically greater than an individual’s knowledge or skill (Maier, 1967; Maier & Maier, 1957; Wright, 1999). And, when employed properly, collaboration creates value in the sense of better and innovative product designs, effective public policies, and new mechanisms for creating sustainable and livable communities (Aakhus, 1997; Brashers, Adkins, Meyers, 1994; Nunamaker, Romano, & Briggs, 2002). For the most part, collaboration is straightforward when the groups are small, tasks are uncomplicated, and group members are located in the same place. As businesses and communities become more global and group size increases, tasks may become more complex. The task is further complicated when group members are no longer guaranteed to be in the same location. In addition, modes of collaboration also change. This is especially true as communities seek each other to help find solutions to their problems or as businesses partner with one another so as to continually develop innovative products and keep markets fresh with new and improved products and services. Collaborators often choose to meet asynchronously, and require communication via media such as personal digital assistants, text messaging, cellular or satellite telephones. The complexities of globally distributed group collaborations and decision-making by large numbers of people (groups of 50-5000) require far greater coordination, tools, information technology and intervention strategies than traditional approaches to group work. Although e-mail and tools such as Lotus Notes and Groove have been successful for information sharing, now the focus must turn to joint problem solving, decision making, and creation of a shared vision. For such higher-order aspects of group work, facilitation and a new generation of computer-based tools are a must.
3. Facilitation The purpose of facilitation is to increase group effectiveness. By helping a group improve its processes, it can increase the quality of its decisionmaking, increase group member commitment to the decisions, and decrease time for effective implementation (Ackerman, 1996; Adkins, Burgoon, & Nunamaker, 2002). Traditionally, the facilitation role
0-7695-2056-1/04 $17.00 (C) 2004 IEEE
2
Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2004
has been filled by a substantively neutral third-party facilitator who is an advocate for effective group process while simultaneously avoiding interventions that would influence a particular content of a group’s decision (Schwarz, 1994b). According to Schwarz (2002) “facilitative skills are increasingly becoming core competency for leaders, consultants, and others who work with groups” (p. 33). Research has confirmed that when group decision-making involves an independent facilitator and a computer-aided group support system, higher quality decisions are made in less time (Adkins, Burgoon, & Nunamaker,., 2002; Briggs, de Vreeder, & Nunamaker, 2003; Hirokawa & Gouran, 1989; Jessup & Valacich, 1993; Poole, 1995). Herein lays one of the problems. Today’s facilitators are being asked to work with groups that range in size from 50 to 5000 participants, meet twenty-four hours a day seven days a week, and are located around the world. As collaborators reach outside their boundaries (e.g. businesses with international stakeholders, community members whose communities reach across the country, researchers around the world) the need for computer-mediated collaboration increases. Clearly, facilitators cannot be available to the group for this period of time, much less be an effective catalyst for productive group interaction. A related problem is group size and dispersion. One successful approach to facilitation with face-to-face groups is “The Skilled Facilitator” approach (Schwarz, 1994b, 2002). Schwarz incorporated three decades of social science work by Argyris and colleagues (Argyris, 1970, 1982, 1985, 1990, 1993; Argyris & D., 1974; Argyris, Putnam, & Smith, 1985; Argyris & Schon, 1996) on intervention and action theory into The Skilled Facilitator (TSF) approach to facilitation. After working with TSF approach for eight years, Schwarz’s (2002) latest book provides the core values, assumptions and principles of TSF approach in a theory-driven, values-based systemic methodology for facilitators and groups to interact successfully in traditional face-to-face environments. The behaviorbased TSF approach works well with groups of less than 50 people that meet in the same place at the same time. But with groups of 50 to 5000 participants connected around the clock and across the globe, the TSF approach is not scalable. Thus, the challenges facing large distributed groups are determining how to facilitate such work and what technologies are needed to supplement and/or supplant some aspects of human facilitation.
4. Research Objectives A clear solution is to develop an information system that relies on TSF principles but also augments human facilitation. The objectives are twofold: (1) to develop an operational information technology system that implements the TSF behavioral theory principles and that enables effective facilitation of anytime, anyplace, large (50-5000 group members) distributed meetings, and (2) to test features of the system for their ability to best capitalize on the power of large distributed groups. The research will explore the fundamental relationship between the acquisition and utilization of knowledge and the information tools needed to acquire, organize, and interpret that knowledge. Creating the capability to transfer the behavioral theory based concepts of the TSF approach to large group distributed across time and space has the potential for monumental social impacts. The facilitator’s role is to help a group improve the way it identifies and solves problems and makes decisions, in order to increase the group’s effectiveness (Schwarz, 1994a). TSF uses normative model for diagnosing group effectiveness; a set of facilitative roles (e.g., facilitator, facilitative leader, facilitative consultant) from which to help groups; a set of models that identifies effective and ineffective core values and assumptions underlying facilitator and group member behavior; a set of behaviorally specific ground rules for establishing effective behavior and diagnosing ineffective behavior; a diagnosis-intervention cycle for intervening on ineffective behavior; and a process for the facilitator and group to reach agreement on whether and how they will work together. Using TSF concepts as a guide for automation, one can imagine a capability, which allows medical doctors in North Carolina to effectively interact with researchers at the Joint Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in California and on-site emergency personnel to determine a process to evacuate citizens and limit the impacts of a chemical agent released from a sabotaged chlorine gas tanker. Several years ago, key personnel from the University of Arizona’s Center for the Management of Information (CMI) participated in a similar scenario using voice circuits, e-mail, and an on-line chat system. One finding of that exercise was that the required decision making group became large quickly. For example, there were 10 required medical personal (doctors and nurses with different specializations); 3 to 5 JPL researchers in such areas as meteorology, hydrology, toxicology, and chemistry; local, county, and state police; a fire department representative; city
0-7695-2056-1/04 $17.00 (C) 2004 IEEE
3
Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2004
planners for transport routes; Red Cross representatives for shelters and assistance; county and city government officials, air traffic controllers, Federal Emergency Management Agency representatives; water authority representative, power authority representative, and so forth (Adkins et al., 2000).
5. Review Adkins, Younger and Schwarz (2003) “propose the development of an information technology system based on current state of the art natural language processing technologies to augment the Skilled Facilitator approach and a allow effective facilitation of large distributed meeting twenty-four hours a day seven days a week.” Schwarz and Adkins (2002) report requirements to effectively facilitate a distributed collaboration session. Information technology has advanced sufficiently to consider the development of augmented facilitation tools that can mitigate problems of distributed diagnosis and intervention by a facilitator. The ground rules for effective groups can be used to identify patterns in group members’ language (i.e., input text) that are inconsistent with the structure of language as prescribed by the ground rules. In this way, the ground rules provide a template that can be used to identify group member input that deviates from the ground rules (Schwarz & Adkins, 2002).
6. Functional requirements TSF encourages members of the group to agree on a particular set of rules for the meeting. These rules are designed to assist the group in not only solving the current issue, but also improving the performance of the group for ongoing or future interactions. These ground rules for effective groups include: 1. Test assumptions and inferences. 2. Share all relevant information. 3. Use specific examples and agree on what important words mean. 4. Explain your reasoning and intent 5. Focus on interests, not position. 6. Combine advocacy with inquiry. 7. Jointly design next steps and ways to test disagreements. 8. Discuss undiscussable issues. 9. Use a decision-making rule that generates the level of commitment needed. © 2002 Roger Schwarz & Associates
The ground rules impose certain performance requirements on the system to collect information and provide feedback to group members when inputs are incomplete or not in accordance with the ground rules. Eventually, language processing technology will enable
the system to provide real time feedback to group members. For this conceptual architecture, the system will provide users with formats that prompt users for complete inputs in accordance with the ground rules.
7. Performance requirements In addition to the TSF ground rules, the temporally and geographically distributed group structure creates additional requirements. The system must collect and distribute group inputs utilizing a common web browser for the client application because with large groups it is inevitable that certain group members will be participating from a variety of computers. By using a common web browser, with SSL encryption and user ID and password protection, the group can remain private and its activities secure. By using the Internet, the system can take advantage of a worldwide communications infrastructure. By using common, though current web browsers, users are not required to load applications and can participate in the group interactions from any web-enabled system. The purpose of the facilitator is to provide the group with feedback on its activities, to keep it focused on the current task, and also to help the group develop into a more effective entity overall. Given both the temporal distribution and the size of this hypothesized group, as pointed out earlier it will be impossible for a facilitator to provide real time feedback. It will also be impossible for the facilitator to read each of several thousand inputs and provide even cursory feedback on those inputs. Given large numbers of group members and their inputs it’s likely that inputs will cluster around particular topics or threads. Topic detection and tracking technology provides the ability to create clusters of documents on the same topic. However, this still does not solve the facilitator’s problem. A text summary of the documents in the cluster is required to provide the facilitator, and group members, with an understanding of the group’s discussions. At this point the role the facilitator would take in a small, face-toface group changes. In a large, distributed group we hypothesize that the facilitator will take a macro view of the group’s activities and using the text summaries of the clusters, create a dynamic document that provides feedback to the group on their progress. The facilitator will update this document periodically consistent with the temporal distribution of the group.
8. Architecture and Application Requirements The performance requirements provide the basis for determining application and architecture requirements.
0-7695-2056-1/04 $17.00 (C) 2004 IEEE
4
Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2004
1.
2.
Provide group members with the ability to do the following: a. Register and verify as a group member b. Introduce themselves and see introductions of other group members c. Create and submit inputs in accordance with the ground rules d. Provide alerts to group members when inputs are incomplete (not in accordance with the ground rules) e. View the summary document that is created by the facilitator f. View the cluster summaries g. Drill down from the summaries to the individual inputs h. Provide threaded responses to individual inputs or summaries Provide the facilitator(s) with the ability to do the following: a. Introduce themselves and see introductions of the group members b. Provide the group with an introduction to the group’s process and ground rules c. Provide the group with an introduction to the group’s goals, objectives, and milestones d. Create and edit the dynamic summary document e. Send constructive comments to individual group members regarding
3.
inputs not in conformance with the ground rules Overall application requirements a. Provide group members and facilitators with links to individual comments and threads b. Provide group members a ‘chat’ facility for communicating directly with other group members (Adkins, Younger, Schwarz, 2003) c. Enable a repository for documentation provided as inputs by group members, or documentation generated by the group. d. Provide a ‘threaded conversation’ view of ongoing dialogues, thereby providing a means for group members to respond directly to other group members’ inputs. e. Provide a view of cluster summaries that highlight changes from earlier in the groups’ discussion.
These application requirements require a macro system architecture that is represented by Figure 1. Current language processing research, specifically in the DARPA Translingual Information Detection, Extraction and Summarization (TIDES) Program, performs these functions on news documents. By substituting group inputs for news documents the language processing technologies can perform the similar functions for the augmented facilitation system.
0-7695-2056-1/04 $17.00 (C) 2004 IEEE
5
Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2004
Figure 1 – Large Group Support Functions
9. Notional Scenario
providing information while actually behaviors and lessening our vulnerabilities.
In the past, the Center for the Management of Information (CMI) has done research in both AntiTerrorism and Disaster Relief areas with the U.S. Navy. During a Y2K planning session hosted by the U.S. Navy Commander Third Fleet and CMI, the research team was introduced to the incredible interdependencies that exist between our energy, water, agricultural, and industrial systems. Traditional centralized planning and risk assessment processes are woefully inadequate for the task of protecting our nation against terrorist threats. Instead, what is required is a flexible and powerful system that can harness the energy and expertise of our community leaders, law enforcement and service providers wherever they may be. To be useful, this system needs to walk people through the process of anticipating the risks and effects of a potential terrorist attack or system failure on their organizations. The payoff for these users will be that they can take information out of the system to mitigate risks and better prepare for potential catastrophe. These changes can then be fed back into the system to make the model truly dynamic. Such an approach has the benefit of
Too often, people protecting the public are handicapped by incomplete information, an overwhelming flow of materiel and people, and the limits of human vigilance. There is simply not the wherewithal to safeguard every potential target in the United States. However, steps can be taken to prioritize security requirements, balance the needs of the populace, and maximize the utilization of limited homeland defense resources. Decisions about the application of limited resources fall prey to many different problems. The primary one being that these decisions are usually heir to a great deal of subjectivity. It is extremely difficult to predict much less quantify all of the potential fallout from a terrorist attack. The complex weavings of a multitude of organizations, markets and logistics make such a task next to impossible. This situation is then exacerbated by the natural tendency to centralize decisions in an effort to reduce redundancy and create an encompassing strategy for preventing and reacting to terrorist actions. Finally, these decisions often become static plans that do not change to reflect new realities and new information.
0-7695-2056-1/04 $17.00 (C) 2004 IEEE
changing
6
Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2004
The typical small planning group making decisions does not have the assets or time to take a more dynamic approach.
occur in a distributed environment utilizing the conceptual architecture and applications delineated in this paper.
In June of 1999, CMI partnered with the United States Navy, Commander Third Fleet to facilitate a Year 2000 (Y2K) planning meeting assembled in San Diego in preparation for possible crises related to computer problems. There were thirty attendees at the meeting representing government agencies, business professionals, and interested citizens. Included were representatives from fire departments, county manager’s office, city, state and federal prisons, private and public ambulance services, city, county and state law enforcement, water and sewer utilities, supermarkets, the trucking industry, farmers, health care providers, the telephone company, and trash haulers. A networked computer system designed by CMI and a skilled facilitator were used to allow participants to communicate simultaneously and effectively in a large group. The general question that was asked of the group was if Y2K became a disaster, what would be the impact on each organization?
Information technology will be developed to augment facilitation and mitigate some problems of distributed large, co-located groups. Specifically, TSF ground rules for effective groups can be used to identify patterns in group members’ language that are inconsistent with the structure of language as prescribed by the ground rules. Hence, the ground rules would provide an a priori template that can be used to identify how a group member input deviates from the ground rules before the input is shared with the group. Functionally, the system would scan a group member's input for inconsistency, intervene with the participant to "automatically" diagnose with a ground rule-based query the participant intent, reasoning, etc before the input can be submitted to the group. Thus, pre-scanning the inputs and interacting with the system to clarify the input before sharing it with the group will improve the group interaction.
After working with the group to electronically generate ideas and organize them, the group verbally discussed a number of issues that needed decisions. In a short time, the participants realized that the group had vastly underestimated the interdependence of the different organizations and were unprepared for some problems. For example, when the power company representative explained the development of a prioritized list for turning power back on to customers, the water company delegate was surprised to find that they were a low priority. In making prioritization decisions, the power company did not realize that all of the water pumps in San Diego were electric. The group was even more surprised to find out that power generation requires a lot of water for cooling. Effectively, because the greater system was not completely understood, the power company was going to potentially deprive itself of the water required to generate power in an emergency. Through effective facilitation and computer-mediated group communication tools, a large heterogeneous group was able to realize its potential and easily surface critical connections that might never have been found independently. With this new knowledge in hand, the group participants were able to go back to their organizations and make new plans to mitigate the fallout from a catastrophic system failure. The scenario above was in a same-time / same-place environment. Realistically in a real time crisis the group discussed in the scenario needs to operate in a distributed environment. The following is how it might
However, with a large group, as mentioned earlier, the facilitators role changes to one of addressing the group’s overall progress and process rather than the behavior of individual group members. The augmented facilitation system collects inputs, performs the topic detection, clustering, and summarization functions, and provides the facilitator and the group with continuously updated summaries of the clusters. The facilitator’s role is now to shepherd the group to ensure conformance with the ground rules and progress toward the goals and objectives for the meeting. Helping individual group members understand the ground rules becomes the exception. The role of correcting individual group members will fall to other group members who understand the Had the above scenario for whatever reason happened in a distributed setting the group members could have accomplished the same objectives, and could have accommodated many more group members, such as a similar meeting on a regional or national level.
10. Conclusion There is a great opportunity to research and develop group facilitation tools suitable for large 50-5000 person groups in distributed environments. Much of the current research (Wong & Aiken, in press; Lopez, et. al, 2002) focuses on creating specific technology such as time keeping, coordination tools, or embedding custom processes. In this work we provide an approach for the
0-7695-2056-1/04 $17.00 (C) 2004 IEEE
7
Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2004
development of a complete system to augment the human facilitator. A primary function of a facilitator is to diagnosis and intervene with group members using a behavior based methods that improve group interaction. This TSF approach is successful with face-to-face groups under 50 people. The structure of the TSF approach allows for the development of information technology because the base assumptions are supported with functional rules which can be used to develop a system. This system would first scan inputs for inconsistencies with the rules then engage the participant in an activity to modify the input to be consistent with the TSF ground rules. Then the inputs are clustered with similar inputs and automatically summarized for the group and the facilitator. At this point group members can continue to contribute to the clusters which are continuously resummarized and distributed to the group. Meanwhile, the facilitator is developing a dynamic document of the groups' interactions, behavior, progress and potential conclusions. As the meeting progresses the facilitator will modify processes to focus the group toward reaching conclusions on the cluster summaries. As with small, face-to-face meetings, the goal is to enable the group to reach a decision with appropriate or required levels of commitment from the group members. The functional elements of technology are currently available and have been integrated into robust systems for other applications, in particular, news analysis. Adapting these functional components to a different domain such as group facilitation is feasible with a limited investment. Furthermore, the process of this adaptation will enhance future use of these technologies by streamlining the integration process for these technology components across varying domains. A key element of this adaptation process involves a collaboration of scientists in diverse disciplines in a meeting much as is envisioned by this paper.
11. References Aakhus, M. (1997). The communication of logics if computer-supported facilitative interventions: A study of the community of practices and social technologies surrounding the use of group decision support systems in process facilitation. Unpublished Dissertation, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ. Ackerman, F. (1996). Participants' perceptions on the role of facilitators using group decision. Group Decision and Negotiation, 5, 93-112.
Adkins, M., Burgoon, M., & Nunamaker, J. F. J. (2002). Using Group Support Systems for Strategic Planning with the United States Air Force: The effects of a facilitator's using GSS to structure communication to increase quality output and improve group member satisfaction with the interaction process. Decision Support Systems, 34(3), 315-337. Adkins, M., Kruse, J., McKenna, T., Cuyugan, A., Nunamaker, J. F., Miller, S. A., et al. (2000). Experiences Developing a Virtual Environment to Support Disaster Relief with the United States Navy's Commander Third Fleet. Paper presented at the ThirtyThird Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences, Maui, HI. Adkins, M., & Schwarz, R. (2002). Embedded facilitation requirements using the skilled facilitator approach: Within and across time and space. Paper presented at the Thirty-Fifth Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences. Adkins, M., Younger, R. E., & Schwarz, R. (2003). Information technology augmentation of the killed facilitator approach. Paper presented at the Thirty-Sixth Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences. Albrecht, C. C., & Lee, J. D. (Forthcoming). Properties for distributed collaborative applications. Communications of the ACM. Argyris, C. (1970). Intervention Theory and Method: A Behavioral Science View. Reading, MA: AddisonWesley. Argyris, C. (1982). Reasoning learning and action. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Argyris, C. (1985). Strategy, change, and defensive routines. Boston: Pitman. Argyris, C. (1990). Overcoming organizational defensives: Facilitating organizational learning. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Argyris, C. (1993). A guide to overcoming barriers to organizational change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Argyris, C., & D., S. (1974). Increasing Professional Effectiveness: A Theory-in–Action Perspective. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Argyris, C., Putnam, R., & Smith, D. M. (1985). Action Science: Concepts, methods, and skills for research and intervention. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
0-7695-2056-1/04 $17.00 (C) 2004 IEEE
8
Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2004
Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1996). Organizational learning II: Theory, method, and practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Bennis, W. G., & Shepard, H. A. (1956). A theory of group development. Human Relations, 9, 415-437. Brashers, D. E., Adkins, M., & Meyers, R. A. (1994). Argumentation and computer-mediated group decision making. In L. R. Frey (Ed.), Communication in context: Studies of naturalistic groups (pp. 263-283). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Briggs, R. O., Adkins, M., Mittleman, D. D., Kruse, W. J., Miller, S., & Nunamaker, J. F. J. (1999). A technology transition model. Journal of Management Information Systems, 15(3), 151-195. Briggs, R. O., de Vreeder, G. J., & Nunamaker, J. F. (2003). Collaborative engineering with thinklets to pursue sustained success with group support systems. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(4) 3164. Hirokawa, R. Y., & Gouran, D. S. (1989). Facilitation of group communication. Management Communication Quarterly, 3, 71-92. Jessup, L. M., & Valacich, J. S. (1993). Group support systems: New perspectives. New York: MacMillian. Maier, N. R. (1967). Assets and liabilities in group problem solving: The need for an integrative function. Psychological Review, 74(4), 239-249.
Entrepreneurship, Innovation, and Economic Growth, 9, 199-247. Poole, M. S. (1995). Group decision support systems as facilitators of quality team efforts. In L. R. Frey (Ed.), Innovations in group facilitation: Applications in natural group settings (pp. 299-321). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton. Schwarz, R. M. (1994a). A consumer's guide to hiring and working with a group facilitator. Popular Government, 55(4), 12-18. Schwarz, R. M. (1994b). The skilled facilitator: Practical wisdom for developing effective groups. San Francisco: Josey-Bass. Schwarz, R. M. (2002). The skilled facilitator: A comprehensive resource for consultants, facilitators, managers, trainers, and coaches, new and revised edition. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Van Gundy, A. B. (1988). Techniques of structured problem solving (2nd Ed.). New York: Van Nostran Reinhold Company. Wong, Z. and Aiken, M., (in press). Automated Facilitation of Electronic Meetings. Information and Management. Wright, B. E., & Rohrbaugh, J. (1999). Evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of group decision-making processes: A competing values approach. Group Facilitation: A Research & Applications Journal, 1, 513.
Maier, N. R., & Maier, R. A. (1957). An experimental test of the effects of "developmental" vs. "free" discussion on the quality of group decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 41, 320-323. Lopez, A.V., Booker, Q. Shkarayeva, N.S., Briggs, R. O., Nunamaker, J.F. (2002). Embedding facilitation in group support systems to manage distributed group behavior. In Sprague (Ed) Proceedings of the 35th Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences. Nunamaker, J. F., Romano, N., & Briggs, R. O. (2002). Increasing intellectual bandwidth: Generating value from intellectual capital with information technology. Group Decision and Negotiation, 11, 66-86. Nunamaker, J. F., Vogel, D. R., & Potter, R. (1997). Individual and team trends and implications for business firms. Advances in the Study of
0-7695-2056-1/04 $17.00 (C) 2004 IEEE
9
