Exploring the Boundaries of Successful GSS Application: Supporting ...

Exploring the Boundaries of Successful GSS Application: Supporting InterOrganizational Policy Networks Gert-Jan de Vreede Hans de Bruijn Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands

Abstract Technologies used to support group work are based on, and contain underlying assumptions regarding, how people work together, The appropriateness of such assumptions is an important factor in determining the successful employment of the technology. This paper uses an action research approach to explore the boundaries of effective GSS application by challenging the basic assumptions built into GSS. This exploration is carried out in the context of a particular arena in which groups have to interact to reach a certain goal: inter-organizational policy networks. From nine cases it appears that GSS are most effective in the orientation phase of inter-organizational policy making, while GSS should be avoided during the separation phase where winners and losers can be identified. During the package deal phase of an inter-organizational policy making process, GSS may have added value to offer, but the technology should be employed with caution. These findings are consistent with various experimental studies that found that GSS application is more successful for creativity tasks than for preference tasks and mixed motive tasks. ACM Categories: H.4.1, H.4.3 Keywords; group support systems, policy making, action research, negotiation, creativity tasks, preference tasks, mixed motive tasks.

Introduction Group support systems (GSS) are one of the few examples of an information technology that was conceptualized by university researchers and subsequently, with reasonable success, commercialized and applied in industry (Dickson, 1995). Since their commercial inception in the 1980s, GSS have become an important and popular area for research. GSS are believed to offer added value for collaborative problem solving by providing support for parallel communication, anonymous interaction, and automatic recording of meeting minutes (see e.g., Nunamaker et al., 1991).

Acknowledgments The authors are grateful for the helpful comments from Sajda Qureshi, Bob Briggs, Alan Dennis, and three anonymous reviewers.

A substantial body of knowledge has emerged concerning the effects of GSS on group processes and outcomes, but this knowledge is somewhat inconclusive. As much as field studies paint a predominantly positive picture, lab experiments

The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems - Summer-Fall 1999 (Vol. 30, No. 3,4)

111

present mixed results (Dennis et al., 1991; Dennis & Gallupe 1993). This is confirmed in a number of meta-analyses of lab studies. Although GSS seem in general to have a positive effect on group productivity and decision quality (Benbasat & Lim, 1993; Dennis et al., 1996; McLeod, 1992), the extent to which this positive effect occurs seems to depend on a number of other factors, such as task fit and group size (Dennis et al., 1996). Also, meta-studies show varied results with respect to meeting participant satisfaction (see also Shaw, 1998). Often, the inconsistencies in results are explained by pointing out the incomparability of tasks and GSS setup studied and the differences in experimental design and method of analysis. Yet, the positive findings from the field indicate that GSS do have a distinct potential to provide effective support for collaborative problem solving, if they are skillfully employed (Nunamaker et al., 1997). Therefore, the conclusion must be that GSS do not have an added value under all circumstances. In other words, when studying GSS, it is especially important to get a clear sense of the context in which the GSS is applied (Nunamaker et al., 1991). For the purposes of this study, we believe it is valuable to look at contexts in which GSS are applied in unsuccessful as well as successful manners. Accounts of GSS application failures (or "almost failures") may be more insightful than yet another account of a successful GSS application. It can be argued that one can learn more from unsuccessful experiences by comparing them to successful experiences than from successful experiences alone (Vreede & Muller, 1997). Also, lessons learned in critical situations can have serious implications for GSS meeting design and for the design of GSS meeting facilities. In other words, we have to explore the practical boundaries of effective GSS application. The application area that is addressed in this paper concerns interorganizational policy networks. Policy making is known to be an area in which there is a need for group support, but effective GSS application is anything but straightforward (Herik, 1998). To study the application of GSS and its added value in the context of interorganizational policy networks, we make a number of assumptions regarding group interaction and behavior underly-

112

ing GSS as a point of reference. Hence, we examine the extent to which these assumptions are applicable. An example of such an assumption is that people in an (electronic) meeting wish to share information. We take this perspective because experiences show that the application of group support technologies or the technologies themselves sometimes fail because of incorrect or incomplete assumptions of how people work and collaborate. Examples of such technologies are Xerox CoLab and the early version of the Coordinator (Bannon, 1997). In summary, the research objective of our study is to get insight into the use of GSS in a "difficult" application area. Specifically, we attempt to identify situations in which the application of GSS should be stimulated or avoided. To this end, our study aims to derive a set of GSS meeting design guidelines. These guidelines may go beyond the chosen application area. We pursued our research objective by applying an action research strategy. Action research, "an inquiry into how human beings design and implement action in relation to one another" (Argyris et al., 1982, p.4), is intended to have the dual outcomes of action (or change) and research (understanding). Action researchers participate or intervene in the phenomenon studied in order to develop a theory or to apply a theory to evaluate its worth (Argyris & SchSn, 1989). Action research studies are carried out in four phases: plan, act, observe, and reflect (Zuber-Skerrit, 1991). The remainder of the paper will describe the background of our study and the results of the four action research phases. First the introduction of the basic assumptions on group interaction and behavior underlying GSS. Then the description of the context of the study, interorganizational policy networks, and the way in which we choose and carried out the cases that were part of this study (the plan and act phases). The following section will illustrate in what way and to what extent the GSS assumptions hold (the observe phase). The final section will discuss our findings and propose a number of meeting design guidelines (the reflect phase). The paper concludes with a short summary and a description of the limitations and applicability of our findings.


Assumptions Underlying GSS Application There are various assumptions on group behavior in meetings that can be identified to have guided the design and application of GSS. Below, a number of these assumptions are presented, organized in six categories. These assumptions were not identified from research literature but from sources of practical experiences. First, we looked at GSS product information as presented by vendors of GSS and in popular computer magazines. Second, we looked at general reports on electronic meetings in popular computer and business magazines. Finally, we investigated the functionality of two GSS: GroupSystems and MeetingWorks. We selected these systems because (1) they can be considered the most widely applied commercial GSS, (2) they are comparable in terms of functionality, (3) most academic research has been done with GroupSystems, and (4) we used GroupSystems in our cases. It should be recognized that focusing only on two GSS developed from a predominantly technologically point of view limits the applicability of our findings to situations in which systems are employed that are developed from a social or negotiation point of view such as Resolver and Group Explorer. Assumptions on group behavior were seldom made explicit in the sources studied. We identified them by looking at the implicit implications of certain described features and advantages of GSS. The two GSS themselves were examined by structurally and carefully considering each function or option and their intended effect on group dynamics. For example, in success stories it is often pointed out that groups generated hundreds lines of output in so few minutes. This implies that it is desirable to generate a massive amount of output. The resulting list of assumptions was presented to eleven experienced GSS facilitators working in university (5) and commercial (6) environments for face-validity purposes. From their feedback, it appeared that they recognized all assumptions as dominating popular business publications and promotional materials. They did not, however, identify additional assumptions. They also felt their training had been based on the majority of

these assumptions. Finally, the facilitators also stated that they did not believe the assumptions were always applicable. The fact that an assumption on group behavior can be identified does not imply that all groups behave like that or will behave like that. It just means that certain group behavior is considered to be desired or expected behavior by some of the GSS designers and practitioners. We want to stress that a number of the assumptions presented below have been subject of various (often experimental) studies by university researchers. It is not the purpose of this paper to compare and contrast these studies with the assumptions, nor to evaluate the assumptions as such. Rather, we use these assumptions as a reference point to allow for a guided and focused inquiry into the application of GSS in the chosen context. The complete list of assumption in each category is presented in Table 1.

Meeting Processes Should Be "Fair" One of the most frequently stated advantages of using GSS is that they supposedly contribute to the fairness of the meeting process. GSS are promoted by claiming that because of the possibility to communicate in parallel, participants have equal time and equal opportunity to contribute to the meeting process. Also, because of the combined use of parallel and anonymous communication, single individuals will not be able to easily dominate an electronic discussion. Finally, fairness of the meeting process is also implicitly promoted in most of the voting tools. During a vote, the opinion of each group member counts the same. The investigated GSS do not offer dedicated functionality to determine whether someone's vote should count, for example, three times as much as someone else's.

Meeting Processes Should Be "Open" A second category of assumptions relates to the openness of meeting processes. Openness can have different meanings. First, participants should have an open mind toward each other and each other's ideas. Second, the main stakeholders should not be excluded from the session. We only refer to the first meaning. The assumption on openness is most prominently illustrated by the often-quoted characteristic of GSS that an accurate, literal record of what went on in the meeting is immediately available. In other words, the GSS


113

1. Meeting processes should be "fair" 1.1 Participants should have equal time contributing to a meeting. 1.2 Participants should have equal opportunity contributing to a meeting. 1.3 Dominant behavior should be avoided. 1.4 Participants' votes should weigh equally. 2. Meeting processes should be "open" 2.1 It is desirable to have a permanent meeting record. 2.2 It is desirable to have an immediate and literal meeting record. 2.3 Participants should freely see all contributions during the meeting. 3. Meeting processes should be "rational" 3.1 The only important attribute of an idea is content. 3.2 Body language should not influence the decision making process. 3.3 Meeting processes should be structured (agenda, behavioral rules, communication rules). 3.4 Consensus on issues can be achieved by voting. 4. Groups should be guided by a process facilitator 4.1 The facilitator should master the meeting process. 4.2 The facilitator should control electronic communication opportunities. 4.3 Only the facilitator or the whole group makes changes in the meeting agenda or process. 5. Groups should exchange as much information as possible 5.1 Groups should generate lots of ideas. 5.2 "Outside the box" contributions should be encouraged. 5.3 Participation should be as intense as possible. 5.4 Groups should be large to reach better results. 6. People are cooperative by nature with respect to each other and the meeting process 6.1 People with individual backgrounds, expertise, and reasons for attending a meeting will work together to reduce unfamiliarity and uncertainty with a problem domain. 6.2 People will synthesize their ideas with those of others, whenever they are confronted with the ideas of others. 6.3 If not identified, people will contribute honestly and openly. 6.4 If not identified, people will not be afraid to contribute ideas. 6.5 People are willing to express their ideas in writing. Table 1. Overview of the Assumptions able in the anonymity feature of GSS. This is facilitates a permanent record of the electronic advertised as having the advantage that ideas are part of the meeting process. Another illustration of only judged and commented upon based on their the desired open nature of meeting process conmerit, not on who contributed it. In other words, cerns the fact that normally contributions are the only important attribute of an idea is "conshared among the participants immediately. In tent." It is not important, even undesirable, to other words, all participants can freely see all conknow who formulated it or how it was communitributions during the meeting, except for individcated. Also, body language is often stated not to ual votes. An exception is the "use private list" influence the decision making process. Another option in GroupSystems that allows participants indication of the desire to have a rational meeting to generate ideas individually first before conprocess is the stress on structuring meetings tributing them for everyone to see. However, this according to a predefined agenda and setting a feature is primarily meant to support Nominal number of behavioral and communication rules Group Technique (Van de Ven & Delbecq, 1974). for the meeting participants to adhere to. Finally, Meeting Processes Should Be "Rational" it is often advertised that consensus on issues can be explored and achieved by using the GSS Often, meeting processes are stimulated to have voting tools. The results of a vote indicate to what a certain degree of rationality. This is most notice-

114

The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems- Summer-Fall 1999 (Vol. 30, No. 3,4)

extent a group has consensus. Subsequent discussions and new voting rounds are proposed to lead a group to consensus.

Groups Should Be Guided by a Process Facilitator The fourth category of assumptions underlying the design and application of GSS concerns the role of a process facilitator (not a "technographer") in an electronic meeting. In commercial writings, the facilitator is often pointed out as being critical to the success of a meeting. The meeting process is assumed to be mastered by a skillful facilitator. The facilitator should be the captain of the meeting process. This is embedded in GSS such as GroupSystems and MeetingWorks. All electronic communication opportunities are to be controlled by a facilitator, possibly using an assistant (i.e., technographer). Moreover, any change in the meeting agenda or process that has an effect on the GSS setup should be made by the facilitator, possibly following the consent of the group as a whole. It cannot be done by individual participants. (A change of the agenda can mean that new issues are put on the agenda, or that existing problem definitions are amended, or that new solutions are taken into account.)

Groups Should Exchange as Much Information as Possible One aspect that is continuously advertised with respect to GSS concerns the participants' productivity. Statements like "The group was able to generate 700 lines of output in under an hour of meeting time" are common. The assumption behind this is that groups should be focused on generating a lot of ideas; more is better. Participation should be as intense, i.e., actively concentrating, as possible to improve meeting efficacy. Also, "outside the box" contributions should be encouraged because this will encourage people to generate more ideas. Another illustration of the productivity focus is the argument that groups in electronic meetings should be large. It is assumed that larger groups reach better decisions and achieve better results because they have more interaction channels and as a result can share more information.

People Are Cooperative By Nature, with Respect to Each Other and to the Meeting Process The final category of assumptions addresses the consent meeting participants demonstrate during

electronic meeting with respect to each other and the process in which they participate. Claims that GSS enable organizations to draw all kinds of people to a meeting to work together in solving a complex problem are grounded in the assumption that people with individual backgrounds, expertise, and reasons for attending a meeting, will work together to reduce unfamiliarity and uncertainty with a problem domain. Also, it is assumed that people will synthesize their ideas with those of others, whenever they are confronted with the ideas of others, e.g., on their own screen or on the public display. Furthermore, anonymity is frequently advertised as a GSS characteristic that lowers the threshold for people to contribute to a meeting. In other words, if participants are not identified during the meeting process, they are expected not to be afraid contributing ideas and to be contributing these honestly and openly. A final assumption relates to the notion of electronic communication using keyboards. GSS designers assume that people are willing to express their ideas in writing.

The Analysis of GSS in Interorganizational Policy Networks In the literature in recent years, a great deal of attention has been devoted to so-called interorganizational policy networks (hereinafter called networks). A network is a collection of organizations that are dependent on one another for the realization of their goals. In this section, we first indicate what the characteristics of a network are and we describe the nature of decision making in networks. Research has shown that decision making in networks has certain specific characteristics that differ from decision making in socalled rational models. Next, we indicate that the parties in networks often have a need for electronic group support, such as GSS. Finally, we describe the method of analysis for our study.

Interorganizational Policy Networks The literature contains many definitions of networks, (Bruijn & Heuvelhof, 1995a; Marin & Mayntz, 1991). In this paper, a network is defined as a structure of interdependence between organizations or parts of organizations (O'Toole, 1997). The focus is on interorganizational networks: organizations that need each other to realize their own goals and therefore they will have to cooper-

The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems- Summer-Fall 1999 (Vol. 30, No. 3,4)

115

ate. However, cooperation does not come automatically. • The organizations in a network may have different interests. Organization A needs the support of organization B, but B is not interested in cooperation. • The organizations in a network may have different perceptions of their own dependencies. A does not realize that C has strong ties with B, so being provocative against C could harm the relation with B. • There may be a temporal misfit between the dependencies. A depends on B for Task 1, but B depends on A for Task 2. • Organizations behave strategically (see below) Decision making processes in a network differ from analytical-rational decision making (see Table 2). In an analytical-rational approach, an organization A will define a problem X, gather information and try to find the right solution. When A depends on B, C, D, and E, his problem is nothing more than a problem perception. B, C, D, and E may have other problem perceptions or may even be convinced that there is no problem at all. A will have to find out which interests the other organizations have and under which conditions they will be willing to cooperate with him. In order to get the support of B, C, D, and E, A may have to broaden the problem definition or will have to wait for a so-called policy window. In addition to that, A has to be aware that E has problem Y and will simultaneously try to get the support of B and C. This requires a strategic behavior of A; he has to be aware that his actions to get the support of B, C, D, and E can interfere with E's strategies. For a more detailed description of problem solving in a network, we refer to (Bruijn and Heuvelhof (1995b), Cohen et al. (1972); and Kickert, (1997). From this body of knowledge, it appears that decision making and problem solving in a network has three important characteristics: • Decision making is, at least for a part, a matter of negotiation. Organizations will try to solve

Analytical-Rational Problem Solving Focus on Problems Focus on Information Search for the Right Solution

their problems in a process of wheeling and dealing with other organizations. Organizations will have to behave strategically. They have to be aware that other organizations are trying to maximize their interests and will have to develop a strategy to cope with this. The result of a decision-making process may be favorable for organizations B, D, and E and may harm the interests of A and C. So a decision making process may result in winners and losers (which does not necessarily mean that the winners have the right solution for the right problem and that losers have wrong solutions or poor problem definitions).

The Need for Group Support In a network, there may be a great need for electronic support for meeting activities. The reasons for this, we propose, are threefold. First, as explained earlier, normally many parties are involved in the decision-making process. Each of them has its own interests, goals, problems, and desired solutions. As a result, the combination of goals, problems, and solutions in a network is complex. An organization A that desires to make a package deal with a number of organizations in collection B - G must form a picture of the goals, problems, and solutions of these organizations. GSS appear to enable the efficient exchange of information to build such a picture. Second, in line with the first reason, during the course of a session the participants may learn about the flexibility and adaptability of the goals, problems, and solutions of the other parties. In this way, they obtain a better sense of the room available for a package deal. Finally, the parties involved in the process may have a need for structuring. A final package deal may contain a wide variety of solutions. As a result, participants in a network normally have a strong incentive to contribute to a very great extent their own goals, problems, and solutions. Hence, there is a need to structure the variety of

Problem Solving in a Network Focus on Interest Focus on Relations Search for Support for a Solution

Table 2. Different Decision Making Processes 116


contributions made by the participants, for example, into likely and less likely solutions. For this, GSS can be helpful.

Method of Analysis In order to study to what extent the assumptions presented in the previous section are appropriate within the context of inter-organizational policy networks, we investigated a number of cases that met the following criteria: (1) participants represented a number (more than two) organizations, (2) who have different interests, and (3) who are inter-dependent. From the beginning of 1996 through the first half of 1998, nine cases were found that met these criteria. Together, the cases represented 12 GSS sessions. Some case characteristics are summarized in Table 3. GroupSystems was used in all cases. Note that the number of parties is not necessarily equal to the number of participants. In some cases, a number of participants represented the same party. However, there were no situations in which participants had to share a workstation during a GSS meeting. A more elaborate description of each case can be found in Appendix A. Data were collected from a number of sources. During our study, we used both open and semistructured interviews (questions are listed in Appendix B) to converse with participants and meeting owners. Interviews were done immediately after the session and, in some cases, up to 10 weeks after the session. To be interviewed participants were randomly selected. In addition, this sample was augmented with some specific individuals who made critical remarks about the GSS process and technology during the sessions. Also, participants filled in satisfaction questionnaires after each meeting, consisting of open questions and questions on a five-point Likert scale (Briggs & Vreede, 1997). The quantitative

Case 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Title Ministerial strategy development Optimization of waste/recycling chains Inter-municipal cooperation Oil and Gas Supply Industry Strategy development university board Environmental Law Enforcement National physical planning Provincial working process Prison privatization

results of the questionnaire were used to guide the interviews with the participants and assist in the interpretation of our observations. These sources were augmented by the facilitators' observations. The facilitators wrote their observations down during and immediately after each session. In some sessions the technographer added a few observations. We analyzed the collected data by coding them. Both authors closely examined all collected data, broke them into discrete parts, and labeled these parts. Coding was done on the level of phenomena or ideas. Labeled parts could refer to a couple of words, but also to complete paragraphs. Comparison of each coder's results yielded additional insights. Our procedure is similar to the process of open coding (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). However, rather than identifying labels during the coding process, we used a predefined set of labels that was directly derived from the list of assumptions. Consequently, if a data element did not seem to relate to any of the listed assumptions, it was not included in the analysis. After labeling the data for each case, we checked whether the data suggested that an assumption did not apply. If this was the case, the case scored a "-" for that particular assumption (see Table 4). If no data were found that conflicted with the assumption, the case scored a "+" for that assumption. There were no situations in which a case scored about as many "+"'s as "-"'s. In the few cases where both "-"'s and "+"'s were scored, the predominant score was included in the table. Finally, it is important to note that the role of the researchers during the cases was only that of a facilitator. Interventions during the session were aimed at supporting the participants in achieving their meeting goals. In other words, during the

No. of Sessions

Length (days) 4.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

# of Parties 6 10 6 15 6 6 4 4 4

Table 3. Summary of the Cases


117

Assumption Meeting processes should be "fair"

Case 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. 2. 3. 4.

+ -

Participants should have e q u a l t i m e contributing to a meeting. Participants s h o u l d have equal o p p o r t u n i t y contributing to a meeting. Dominant behavior should be avoided. Participants' v o t e s s h o u l d w e i g h equally.

+ + + +

+ + + +

+

+ + + +

+ + -

+ + + +

Meeting processesshould be"open"

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9

1. 2. 3.

+ + +

+ + +

It is desirable to have a permanent meeting record. It is desirable to have an immediate and literal meeting record. Participants s h o u l d freely see all c o n t r i b u t i o n s during the meeting.

+ + +

+ + -

+ + +

+ +

+ + -

+ +

+ + +

Meeting processesshould be"rational"

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9

1. 2. 3.

-

-

+ + +

-

+

4.

The only important attribute of an idea is content. B o d y language s h o u l d not influence the decision making process. Meeting processes s h o u l d be structured (agenda, behavioral rules, c o m m u n i c a t i o n rules). C o n s e n s u s on issues can be achieved by voting.

-

+

-

-

+ +

+ + +

-

-

+

Groups should be guided b y a process facilitator

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9

1. 2. 3.

+ + -

+ + +

The facilitator s h o u l d master t h e m e e t i n g process. The f a c i l i t a t o r s h o u l d c o n t r o l e l e c t r o n i c c o m m u n i c a t i o n o p p o r t u n i t i e s . Only the facilitator or the w h o l e g r o u p makes c h a n g e s in the meeting a g e n d a or process.

+ + +

+ + -

+ + +

+ + +

+ -

+

+ + +

Groups should exchange as much information as possible

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9

1. 2. 3. 4.

+ + + +

+ + + +

G r o u p s s h o u l d generate lots of ideas. "Outside the b o x " c o n t r i b u t i o n s s h o u l d be encouraged. Participation s h o u l d be as intense as possible. G r o u p s s h o u l d be large to reach better results.

+ + + +

-

+ + + +

-

-

+ + + +

People are cooperative by nature with respect to each other and the 1 2 3 4 5 meeting process

6 7 8 9

1.

+

-

+

-

-

+

+ + +

-

-

+ + +

2. 3. 4. 5.

People with individual b a c k g r o u n d s , expertise, and reasons for attending a meeting, will w o r k together to reduce unfamiliarity and uncertainty with a problem domain. People will s y n t h e s i z e their ideas w i t h t h o s e of others, w h e n e v e r they are c o n f r o n t e d w i t h the ideas of others. If not identified, people will c o n t r i b u t e honestly and openly. If not identified, people will not be afraid to contribute ideas. People are willing to express their ideas in writing.

-

+

-

+

+

-

+

-

-

-

+

Table 4. Results of the Case Characterization Regarding the Various Assumptions "plan" and "act" phases of our action research study, no interventions were planned nor made from a research perspective.

Results This section describes the " o b s e r v e " phase of our study. For each set of a s s u m p t i o n s , the c h a r a c terization of the nine cases w e investigated is s u m m a r i z e d in Table 4.

Meeting Processes Should Be Fair From Table 4, it appears that a s s u m p t i o n 1 is a p p l i c a b l e in almost all cases, e x c e p t w h e n there

118

are very large c o n f l i c t s of interest, s u c h as in cases 3 and 7. F e e d b a c k from i n t e r v i e w s s u g gests that p a r t i c i p a n t s a c c e p t this a s s u m p t i o n as a rule of the g a m e that t h e y do not w a n t to c h a l lenge. However, t h e y state that equal time c o n tributing to a m e e t i n g is not identical to e q u a l i t y in position of power! Strikingly, a s s u m p t i o n s 2, 3, and 4 score very mixed. O b s e r v a t i o n s and f e e d b a c k from the part i c i p a n t s s u g g e s t several e x p l a n a t i o n s . First, it appears that position of power is relevant. In a n u m b e r of sessions, the p a r t i c i p a n t s were not

The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems - Summer-Fail 1999 (Vol. 30, No. 3,4)

interested in the content of the opinions generated in the brainstorm. The assumption of equality appeared to clash with the existing power relations in the network. The participants knew which organizations they needed to realize a package deal and were especially interested in the opinions of these participants. For example, in case 7 the central government was more interested in the opinions of large municipalities than of small municipalities. Second, sometimes an idea is only interesting when the sender is known. Occasionally the inclination arose to break through the anonymity and to ask who had which opinion. Some participants mentioned in the brainstorm session their name and the ideas they generated. A number of case 1 sessions were attended by civil servants who restated the standpoints of political administrators. Every now and then they mentioned this, thus indicating that everybody should take these views into account. This clearly was an example of dominant behavior, which was, however, often appreciated by the participants. They knew where they stood as a result. Third, organizations are not equal. In some cases, the equality standard in voting produced lists of solutions, for which there was insufficient support. The one-man-one-vote system clashed with the power relations in the network. One participant clarified this as follows: "1 always have a big mouth! That helps [to get my way,]." (Note that "having a big mouth" is a Dutch expression that refers to the fact that a person attempts to get his or her way by dominating or overpowering the others around him or her.) It appears that the "best" solution in a network is not democratically chosen. During all cases in which the parties desired to reach a decision, the idea of one-manone-vote was rejected. In case 8, for example, the participants had to conclude with a number of mutual agreements. The one-man-one-vote system produced several agreements that did not do full justice to the real power relations and hence were not accepted by the participants. Finally, the positive scores with respect to assumptions 2, 3, and 4 concerned cases that focused more on the starting phase of the decision making process. This suggests that in this situation, equality gives room to learn about possible package deals. In a number of cases the participants clearly accepted the assumption of

equality opportunity and avoidance of dominant behavior. Said a participant in case 6: "Especially in meetings that traditionally last a long time, you have a tendency to keep your mouth shut." The assumptions appeared to hold especially when "orientation" was a primary goal of the meeting. One participant in case 4: "GSS is good for climbing to cruising level. I now have a feeling of the standpoints and possible solutions of everybody. However, the real work [i.e., decision making,] must still begin."

Meeting Process Should Be Open The assumptions regarding an electronic meeting record score overwhelmingly positive (see table 4). Feedback from the participants suggests that they often accepted the openness of the process in all sessions simply because the facilitators introduced it as a rule of the game. At the same time, some participants indicated that the process of wheeling and dealing during the creation of a package deal does not match the openness during the meeting. They stated that openness harmed the negotiation process. In one case, some participants were clearly unwilling to input their ideas and suggestions to the system. The views of these parties - - which we knew as a result of preliminary conversations m were not contributed because (1) they would undermine too much the negotiating position of the party concerned or (2) would have a negative impact on the desired partnership. In another case, certain opinions were specified very cautiously or not entered at all because they were expected not to go down well with the European Commission. It also occurred that certain ideas and suggestions were not intended for all participants present but only for those with whom the sender wanted to make a deal.

Meeting Process Should Be Rational Overall, the assumptions with respect to the rational nature of the GSS meeting process score very poorly (see Table 4). The idea of a rational process with a focus on content appeared to clash in almost all cases with the power relations and the nature of the decision making process in a network. Power relations appeared to be of great importance for the participants. Being proved right (sufficient support from the other participants) was more important than being right (a


119

good idea in terms of content). The assumptions proved to be inappropriate in a number of ways. First, it occurred often that more and more issues were introduced in order to make a package deal During a session, the parties sought a package deal, resulting in unexpected issues occasionally being added to the agenda. As a result, it appeared to be difficult in a number of cases (especially cases 5, 7, and 8) to structure the agenda in advance. During such sessions, the participants introduced a number of new issues which appeared to be conducive to the creation of a package deal but which were not on the original agenda. Moreover, these issues were introduced in the final part of the session and at that moment there was no longer a possibility to brainstorm on them. For example, in case 8 the participants were, at the end of their session, in danger of not reaching consensus on a number of agreements concerning the way they would cooperate and the most important issues of their partnership. In order to reach consensus, new agreements had to be added. These new agreements had not been part of any of the preceding meeting activities. Second, we experienced that content structuring can be very difficult because sometimes the outcome of a session cannot be determined in advance. Negotiation may lead to a result that by nature is never entirely predictable. The parties can make a "content" deal; but if this fails, "process" deals can also be made or it can merely be agreed that the parties will meet again. For example, in case 5 the parties were going to develop an integral strategy (consisting of the topics "research," "education," and "management") but in the end they could not reach consensus. Said one participant: "A number of additional sessions are needed to reach consensus." Third, winners and losers start to behave strategically. In some cases, a pattern of winners and losers became visible. Both parties assumed their stereotypical behavior patterns. The winners were inclined to trivialize all arguments that were contrary to the package deal. The losers were inclined to magnify these arguments. Sometimes the loser was even inclined to frustrate the whole session: "Better a disrupted session than a session where I end up as loser," is what seemed to be the tenet. In case 1, environmental issues were threatened

120

to lose from the other issues on the table. From that moment on, the defenders of the environmental issues were exceedingly critical of every other suggestion. They attempted to block the creation of a compromise because they were on the verge of losing. Only when the other participants gave in a little and made several environmental issues a part of the compromise, was the blockade lifted. In these situations, participants displayed a tendency to go back to oral interaction. Feedback from participants suggests that in this way (1) they felt more in control of the process and (2) they thought to stand a better chance of having their interests accommodated. This was illustrated by frequent remarks during interviews such as "1 would like more oral discussion" and "There was too little personal contact." Also the anonymity features appeared to get in the way. "For me, anonymity is not an issue," explained one participant who also stated that he would have felt more at ease with identified communication during the session. Notable exceptions to the above considerations were cases 6 and 9. Here the assumptions appeared appropriate. Based on our observations, the most likely explanation is that the parties were at the start of the negotiation process. The participants felt and expressed that there still was no need for decision making. The Facilitator In many cases, the assumptions with respect to the facilitator appeared to apply (Table 4). Assumption 2 applied in all cases. Assumption 1 did not hold in cases 7 and 8, in which there were large conflicts of interest and the parties had to reach a decision. A likely explanation is that a facilitator may be regarded as a biased party. When there are winners and losers, consensus is no longer possible. The winners will support a package and the potential losers will block this package. It was clear from participants' feedback that a facilitator who attempts to force a decision in such a situation (e.g., because the agenda prescribes this) is considered to be taking sides with the winners or losers. A facilitator may then get reproached; one party may need a scapegoat and choose the facilitator to fulfill that role. An important assumption is that a change of the agenda is a decision taken by the facilitators or


the group (assumption 3). However, this assumption did not apply in a number of cases in which (1) there were conflicts of interest, (2) the parties had to reach a decision in the form of a package deal, and (3) the process of wheeling and dealing produced a different result than initially foreseen. However, only winners or only losers desired changes in the agenda; the winners because, for instance, a change is conducive to the creation of a package deal and the losers because they want to frustrate a package deal. If this situation occurs and the facilitator makes a choice, again he risks being reproached for taking sides.

Groups Should Exchange as Much Information as Possible The picture with respect to the assumptions on information exchange is varied (see Table 4). On the one hand, a number of cases scored positively for all assumptions. These were cases in which final decision making was not yet on the agenda (cases 2, 6, and 9) or in which the final decisionmaking activities represented a very small part of the whole process (cases 1 and 4). In these cases, it was obvious that rnore information makes the possibilities for a package deal clear. Based on the participants' feedback, extensive information exchange appeared to be useful and conducive to the creation of a package deal. The shared information contained several solutions which the parties had never considered and which simplified the making of a package deal. For example, in case 2 the parties from the waste processing chain appeared to have all sorts of ideas which the initiator of the process had never considered. This simplified the making of a package deal. On the other hand, cases 3, 5, 7, and 8 scored negatively for the listed assumptions. The explanations based on our observations and participants' feedback are twofold. First, it appeared that in the final decision-making phase too much information can be disruptive. These sessions were attended by the parties who had already gone through a negotiation process and hoped to make a package deal in the near future. However, during the meeting process various ideas came up that had been ruled out previously by the negotiating parties. The parties involved felt this frustrated the process. Said one disappointed participant: "Few new ideas were generated." The impression arose that the entire process could

start all over again and that earlier decisions could be re-negotiated. What these parties needed was a limitation on information. Some participants got frustrated because the amount of generated information blurred the process: "When there are 100 to 140 statements, I loose overview. In my opinion it should be limited to 60 to 80 statements" and "We had little time. Hence we could not read everything which prevented us from getting an overview." Second, it appeared that information was not divulged because of strategic behavior. Although information exchange seems to be a prerequisite for the creation of package deals, the strategic behavior of the parties appeared to be such that they were not always willing to divulge information. For example, the municipalities in case 8 held certain views about the role of central planning. However, they did not want to broadcast these views because this would solve the problems of the central government and they wanted to make a package deal without the central government.

People Are Cooperative Not surprisingly, the assumptions about the cooperative nature of meeting participants appeared not to be very appropriate (see Table 4). A number of remarks have been made in the preceding sections that are also valid here. In addition, the nature of networks, involving parties with conflicting interests, contradicts the nature of the assumptions. One participant hinted at this, saying "The impact of the session will be limited as long as the relationship between [Party X] and [Party Y] remain underdeveloped." The exceptions to this were cases 6 and 9. As mentioned before, in these cases the parties were at the very beginning of the process and were behaving cooperatively in order to support their own orientation. An additional explanation of why most of the assumptions did not apply in most cases is the following: Over time, participants appeared to learn to behave strategically. It was striking that participants who attended a number of sessions began to behave strategically over time. For example, they generated ideas which they did not advocate but which could strengthen their negotiating position. Some participants generated ideas in the style of one of the other parties in the


121

hope that this would mislead other parties. Certain organizations at one time also sent representatives with insufficient commitment power; they were not allowed to make agreements on behalf of their organizations but were fully informed at the session. In other words, participants consciously behaved uncooperatively during various occasions. • Discussion

and Reflection

This section is devoted to the "reflect" phase of our study. First, we look back at the results of the "observe" phase from our study and distinguish between three phases of decision making in networks. Second, we compare and contrast our findings with earlier research. A Closer Look: Three Phases of Decision Making From the data that we collected, it appeared that the extent to which certain assumptions with respect to group behavior and GSS application applied depended on the phase of the decision making process in which the network found itself in each case. We propose that a distinction can be made between three moments in the decisionmaking process: 1. An orientation phase. Here the parties come together and find out about each other's positions, goals, requirements, etc. 2. A separation phase. In this phase, it becomes clearer that the process is going to result in winners and losers. Based on the argumentation and preferences expressed by the various parties in the network, each party itself can assess where it is likely to end up at the conclusion of the decision making process: the winning or the losing end. 3. A package deal phase. Once the winners in the process are obvious, the losers are left aside. In the last phase, the winners together try to make a package deal. The 9 cases that we investigated can be characterized in terms of these three phases. Cases 2, 6, and 9 were in the orientation phase. Cases 3, 5, 7, and 8 were in the separation phase. Cases 1 and 4 were in the package deal phase. If we now take another look at the extent to which the various assumptions applied in each case, organized according to the phase of each case, we get the

122

results presented in Table 5 (assumption "x.y" refers to assumption y in category x, see Table 1). The results in Table 5 show an interesting picture. It appears that there is a distinct difference in the extent to which the assumptions apply for each of the three types of cases. In general, the assumptions apply very well in the orientation phase of decision making in networks, and very poorly during the separation phase. In the package deal phase, there appears to be more balance between assumptions that apply and those that do not. Network sessions in the orientation phas e appear to be good candidates for effective GSS application. It is recommended to qualify a GSS session in this phase as a "power free" session in which only the generation of ideas is put on the agenda. When the parties in a network are at the start of a decision-making process, openness, content focus, and equality can be attractive meeting characteristics. The observations in the cases studied show that because the final decision will be a package deal, the parties are, in this phase, interested in as many problem definitions and solutions as possible. In this way, they obtain an insight into the room available for concluding a package deal later on in the process. On the contrary, network sessions in the separation phase appear to be very poor candidates for GSS support. Here GSS seem to have a very limited role to play. As was apparent in the cases that were included in our study, the strategic behavior of the parties involved will be very strong at this point in the decision making process. It represents the stage in which processes of power formation occur. If GSS are introduced into this arena, it can lead to a situation in which none of the assumptions apply. Assumptions such as openness, rationality, and cooperation simply do not hold during this phase. Finally, in the package deal phase there appears to be potential for the effective application of GSS. During this phase the parties involved have indicated that they want to conclude a package deal. GSS may be functional at several moments in the process of achieving this deal: • When the discussions have reached a stalemate, interaction can take place about possible solutions.


"Orientation"

"Separation"

2

6

9

%+

%-

+ + + +

+ + + +

+ + + +

100 100 100 100

0 0 0 0

+ + +

+ + +

+ + +

100 100 100

0 0 0

+ + + +

+ + + +

67 67 100 67

33 33 0 33

+ + +

+ + +

+ + +

100 100 100

0 0 0

5.4

+ + + +

+ + + +

+ + + +

100 100 100 100

0 0 0 0

6.1

4-

6.2

4-

+ + + + +

+ + + + +

100 0 100 0 67 33 67 33 67 33 91.4 8.6

Assumption 1.1 1,2 1.3 1.4 2.1 2.2 2.3 3.1 3.2 3.3

4-

3.4 4.1 4.2 4.3 5.1 5.2 5.3

6.3 6.4 6.5 Average%

3

Comparison

to Earlier Research

The main difference the between the three phases in the decision-making process that we distinguished above are the activities that the groups

7

+ -

+ +

+ +

T a b l e 5. T h e E x t e n t To W h i c h A s s u m p t i o n s

• The parties can brainstorm and vote on all kinds of process aspects of the meetings, for instance, the sequence in which they bring up issues for discussion (e.g. first the "heavy" issues and then the "light" issues). The facilitator can make several draft packages and ask the parties to indicate which changes must be introduced to each of the packages before they become acceptable to the parties concerned. This can give each party a feeling of the available room for negotiations. • The parties can use voting methods that offer the possibility of impassioned voting in order to give a feeling of what the "heavy" points are for specific parties.

5

+ +

+ + +

+ +

+

"Package

Deal"

8

%+

%-

1

4

%+

%-

+ +

50 25

50 75

+ -

+ +

100 50

0 50

-

0

100

-

+

50

50

-

0

100

-

+

50

50

+ +

100 100

0 0

+ +

+ +

100 100

0 0

-

0

100

+

+

100

0

-

0

100

-

0

100

-

0

100

-

+

50

50

-

0

100

-

+

50

50

-

0

100

-

0

100

+ -

50 100 25

50 0 75

+ +

+ +

100 100

0 0

-

+

50

50

-

0

100

-

0

100

-

0

100

-

0

100

+ + + +

+ + + +

100 100 100 100

0 0 0 0

-

0

100

-

+

50

50

-

0

100

-

+

50

50 100

-

0

100

-

0

-

0

100

-

0

100

-

0

100

-

0

100

19.6 Were Appropriate

80.4

60.9

39.1

in E a c h T y p e o f C a s e

execute. Group activities or tasks represent one of the most important sources of variation in the interaction process and thus in group performance (DeSanctis & Poole, 1994; Hollingshead & McGrath, 1995; Zigurs & Buckland, 1998). Hence, it is worthwhile to take a closer look at the nature of tasks that are carried out in each of the three phases. McGrath's (1984) group task circumplex is widely used in GSS research as a task taxonomy. In terms of the task circumplex, the activities in the orientation phase are predominantly creativity tasks (task type 2, generating ideas). In the separation phase, the focus shifts to both creativity and preference tasks (task types 2 and 4). Preference tasks involve deciding on issues for which there is no right answer. Finally, in the package-deal phase, groups predominantly carry out mixed motive tasks to resolve conflicts of interests (task type 6). It has to be noted that tasks


123

carried out by natural groups are sometimes difficult to project on the task circumplex because "natural" tasks are much more complex or have characteristics of more than one task (Nunamaker et al., 1989; Mennecke & Wheeler, 1993). This also holds true in the context of policy networks. Our experience suggests that the execution of creativity tasks and preference tasks is often informed by the anticipated negotiation tasks later on in the process. Individuals carefully consider an idea's content, its framing, and its moment of submission, bearing in mind the subsequent negotiations. For example, people may not submit a certain idea that they fear will alienate another person that they need later on during the negotiations. Our experiences with respect to the orientation phase are consistent with other GSS studies. Nunamaker et al. (1991) argued that it is important to have negotiation activities be preceded by generative activities to formulate ideas and opinions. In other words, an orientation phase is key for successful negotiations. Their evidence from a combination of lab and field studies illustrates the added value of GSS to support this phase in terms of productivity and user satisfaction (Nunamaker et al., 1991). During a case study on labor negotiations, Carmel et al. (1993) used GSS to support a number of activities that represented both an orientation and a package-deal phase. (In their study, a separation phase cannot be distinguished because the situation involved only two parties that had to reach an agreement together.) Consistent with our results, they report that participants were more satisfied with the GSS use in the orientation phase than in the package-deal phase (Carmel et al., 1993). Moreover, in the package-deal phase (bargaining activities) there was very little GSS use; the participants choose to spend most time in oral discussions (Carmel et al., 1993). This tendency could also be noted in the cases reported in the previous section. In terms of choice tasks, network groups predominantly execute preference tasks. Research suggests that in this task environment, influence is more even distributed in GSS groups than in manual groups (Zigurs et al., 1988). This is consistent with participants' feedback in the network sessions. Indeed, they felt that influence was more even distributed over the group. However, as

124

described in the previous section, they did not always appreciate this as they welcomed uneven influence if it was in their favor, in this sense, in some cases it turned out to be more important to address issues of political feasibility than equal influence. This is consistent with some observations in the group decision making context of a single organization (see e.g., Ackermann & Eden, 1997). in order to complete preference tasks or mixed motive tasks successfully, groups have to achieve consensus. Various studies have looked at GSS support for achieving consensus. An overview by Salisbury et al. (1997) suggests that few studies have demonstrated GSS having a positive impact on group consensus. The experiences with the network groups in the separation and packagedeal phase confirm this view. If parties were looking for agreements, the GSS was often considered rather an obstacle than a supporting tool. The GSS was merely used to elicit points of view and reactions to proposal. The discussions that were aimed to achieve consensus were mostly done orally. One way to attempt to increase group consensus is to facilitate the group process (Clawson et al., 1993). Facilitation has been researched in a number of GSS studies to assess its impact on group consensus. For example, Dickson and colleagues performed a series of experiments in which they investigated the effect of facilitated GSS use on group consensus in a preference task environment (Dickson et al., 1996). They found that when using a flexible facilitation approach, GSS may enhance group consensus. Similar findings are reported by (Anson et al., 1995). These findings indicate that the way in which groups are facilitated in a separation and package-deal phase may be key to the successful employment of GSS technology. It may therefore be fruitful to investigate the application of GSS that are specifically designed to support facilitated discussions on interests and viewpoints and to stimulate commitment to act on the part of the participants, such as Group Explorer (Eden, 1995; Eden & Ackermann, 1998). Compared to GroupSystems, which is primarily designed to allow groups to generate and vote on extensive lists of ideas, Group Explorer focuses on representing limited amounts of information in such a way that


a process facilitator can help groups to assign meaning to it and gain additional insights (Wagner et al., 1996). We propose that both GSS can be complementary in the context of a complete policy network decision making process, focusing GroupSystems on the orientation phase and Group Explorer on the separation and package deal phase.

Conclusion During our study, we applied an action research approach to investigate the application of GSS in the context of inter-organizational policy networks. Our study reveals some areas in which the application of the technology has to be carefully planned and evaluated before entering the electronic meeting arena. Often unsuccessful applications of GSS originate in the process with which GSS are applied and not in the GSS itsel (see e.g., Herik, 1998; Vreede & Muller, 1997). The interventions we applied in the cases were limited to facilitation support for the groups involved. These interventions were consciously prepared to match what were believed to be the groups' needs. Our study shows that (1) it is paramount to structure the use of GSS to meet the group's needs, but also that (2) conscious preparations are no guarantee for meeting success. This is an important message for most (prospective) facilitators as they are often presented with showcases of GSS use and commercial information about the advantages of the technology.

have to be cautious when comparing our findings to those in North American GSS research. Second, following an action research method, we were both researchers and facilitators during the study. This interplay between roles may present a problem. During the sessions we stayed mostly focused on the session itself, because the topics were often sensitive, while the discussions, both electronic and oral, were very rich. We found it too hard to facilitate the session process and write up research observations simultaneously. Hence, most of our observations were written up during breaks in the process or immediately after a session. As a result we may have missed a few important observations. Third, the cases were all supported with GroupSystems. The findings of our study may therefore be limited to this type of GSS. Finally, the list of assumptions that we used as a reference point for our analysis is based on two distinct GSS, GroupSystems and Meeting-Works. Other types of GSS are likely to have different underlying assumptions that guided their development (Eden & Ackermann, 1996). More-over, because the development of GSS is an ongoing process, assumptions are not constant. Although a different list of assumptions would not have changed the way in which the groups in the cases used GroupSystems, it could have changed the focus of our analysis (Eden & Ackermann, 1996).

Implications and Applicability Also, the results show that lessons can be learned from situations in which the application of GSS is not straightforward and surrounded by "procedural and technological pitfalls." In this concluding section, we first elaborate on the limitations of our study. Then we describe the implications and applicability of our findings.

Limitations The limitations of our study are threefold. First, our observations relate to Dutch groups using GSS. Most GSS research involved North American groups (Watson et al., 1994). Although culturally North America and The Netherlands bear many similarities, there are significant differences as well, for example, in the way people seek compromises (Hofstede, 1991). Hence, we

From the results of our study, it appears to be especially important that the facilitator and the network parties involved ascertain in which phase of the decision-making process they are. This may provide the basis upon which a decision to use GSS and, if so, in what way, can be made. Our findings suggest that GSS seem to provide sufficient support for the orientation phase of a decision making process to be effective. Meetings in the separation phase are unlikely candidates for effective GSS application. With respect to meetings in the package-deal phase, GSS have to be applied with caution as successful GSS application does not seem to be straightforward here. Below, we offer a number of GSS meeting-design guidelines for network meetings in the package-


125

deal phase. We stress that these guidelines are meant as a proposal, based on the results and insights from the cases that we studied. It remains to be seen in future cases whether the guidelines are appropriate and effective. In other words, these guidelines can be seen as the "plan" phase of a new action research cycle: 1. Gather commitment power at the meeting table. The facilitator should become informed of the commitment power of the participants. They must have the ability to bind their own organization, because during the package-deal phase, the meeting process involves negotiations and decision making, not noncommittal brainstorming. 2. Assist with facilitation AND negotiation skills. The facilitator should not only possess GSS facilitation skills but also negotiation skills. It is conceivable that two process facilitators are involved in sessions in a package deal phase: one for the GSS process and one for negotiations. 3. Use an open agenda. The agenda used in these GSS sessions should be open, as the meeting process is only partly predictable. For example, a brainstorm may result in a deadlock situation, which can be followed by another GSS session, oral discussions, or an adjournment of the meeting. Hence, the meeting agenda should be prepared in such a way that unexpected activities can be accommodated. 4. Make process agreements concerning GSS use. In order to achieve some structuring of GSS sessions, the parties make a number of process agreements prior to the package deal phase concerning the use of GSS. For example, "When four of the six parties want to use GSS during the negotiations, a GSS session is organized in which all the parties participate." 5. Make no deadline and process agreements concerning the end of a session. GSS sessions in this context should not have a predetermined deadline for the negotiations are difficult to plan and so are the GSS activities. The date and length of GSS meetings should not irrevocably be determined beforehand. Instead, process agreements must once more be made. For example, "At the start of a GSS session the parties indicate at which moments during the session they may decide to end it." 6. Offer GSS support for sub-groups. There should be room for GSS activities involving a limited number of participants, e.g., the mem-

126

bers of one of the delegations. Process agreements must also be made about this, for example: "When a number of parties make it known that they want to hold a GSS session in which several parties do not participate, this session is organized if the non-participating parties do not object to this. The results are only available to the participants." The applicability of our findings may extend beyond the network context in which our research was carried out. The meeting phases we distinguish as well as the design guidelines that we propose may be helpful in other meeting arenas as well. The characteristics of networks (multiple independent parties with different but interrelated interests) are not uncommon. Often meeting participants, even within a single organization, bring their own interests to a meeting, pursuing their accommodation. In other words, meetings often can be considered as a process in which participants assess the feasibility of certain package deals while maximizing the accommodation of their own interests and, at the same time, trying to conform as much as possible to the overall goal of their group or organization.

References Ackermann, F., and Eden, C. (1996). "Contrasting GDSSs and GSSs in the Context of Strategic Change: Implications for Facilitation," Journal of Decision Systems, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 221250. Anson, R.G., Bostrom, R.P., and Wynne, B. (1995). "An Experiment Assessing Group Support System and Facilitator Effects on Meeting Outcomes," Management Science, Vol. 41, No. 2, pp. 189-208. Argyris, C., and Sch6n, D.A. (1989). "Participatory Action Research and Action Science Compared - A Commentary," American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 32, No. 5, pp. 612623. Argyris, C., Putnam, R., and McLain Smith, D. (1982). Action Science - Concepts, Methods and Skills for Research and Intervention, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bannon, L.J. (1997). "Group Decision Support Systems: An Analysis and Critique," Proceedings of ECIS'97, Cork, Ireland, pp. 526-539. Benbasat, I., and Lim, L.H. (1993). "The Effects of Group, Task, Context and Technology


Variables on the Usefulness of Group Support Systems: A Meta-Analysis of Experimental Studies," Small Group Research, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 430-462. Briggs, R.O., and Vreede, G.J. (1997). "Measuring Satisfaction in GSS Meetings," Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Information Systems, Atlanta, GA, pp. 483484. Bruijn, J.A. de, and Heuvelhof, E.F. ten (1995a). Netwerkmanagement, Utrecht: Lemma. (In Dutch). Bruijn, J.A. de, and Heuvelhof, E.F. ten (1995b) "Policy Networks and Governance," in D. Weimer (Ed.), Institutional Design, Boston. Carmel, E., Herniter, B.C., and Nunamaker, J.F. Jr. (1993). "Labor-Management Contract Negotiations in an Electronic Meeting Room: A Case Study," Group Decision and Negotiation, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 27-60. Clawson, V.K., Bostrom, R.P., Anson, R. (1993). "The Role of the Facilitator in ComputerSupported Meetings," Small Group Research, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 547-565. Cohen, M.D., March.~J.G., and OIsen, J.R (1972). "A Garbage Can Model of Organizational Choice," Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 1-25. Dennis, A.R., Haley, B.J., and Vandenberg, R.J. (1996). "A Meta-Analysis of Effectiveness, Efficiency, and Participant Satisfaction in Group Support Systems Research," Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Information Systems, Cleveland, OH. Dennis, A.R., Nunamaker, J.F. Jr., and Vogel, D.R. (1991). "A Comparison of Laboratory and Field Research in the Study of Electronic Meetings Systems," Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 107-135. Dennis, A.R., and Gallupe, R.B. (1993). "A History of Group Support Systems Empirical Research: Lessons Learned and Future Directions," in Jessup, L.M., Valacich, J.S. (Eds), Group Support Systems - New Perspectives, New York: Macmillan Publishing Company. DeSanctis, G., and Poole, M.S. (1994). "Capturing the Complexity in Advanced Technology Use: Adaptive Structuration Theory," Organization Science, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 121-147.

Dickson, G.W., Limayem, M., Lee Partridge, J.E., and DeSanctis, G. (1996). "Facilitating Computer Supported Meetings: A Cumulative Analysis in a Multiple Criteria Task Environment," Group Decision and Negotiation, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 51-72. Dickson, G.W. (1995). Personal Communication. Eden, C., and Ackermann, F. (1998). Making Strategy, London: Sage. Eden, C. (1995). "On Evaluating the Performance of 'Wide-Band' GDSS's," European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 81, pp. 302-311. Eden, C., and Ackermann, F. (!996). "Horses for Courses: A Stakeholder Approach to the Evaluation of GDSSs," Group Decision and Negotiation, Vol. 5, pp. 501-519. Herik, C.W. (1998). Group Support for Policy Making, published doctoral dissertation, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands. Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and Organisations: Software of the Mind, London: McGraw-Hill. Hollingshead, A.B., and McGrath, J.E. (1995). "Computer-Assisted Groups: A Critical Review of the Empirical Research," in Guzzo, R.A., and Salas, E. (Eds.), Team Effectiveness and Decision Making in Organizations, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 46-78. Kickert, W.J.M. (1997). Managing Complex Networks, London: Sage. Marin, B., and Mayntz, R. (1991). Policy Networks: Empirical Evidence and Theoretical Considerations, Frankfurt am Main. McGrath, J.E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and Performance, Englewood Cliff, NJ: PrenticeHall. McLeod, P.L. (1992). "An Assessment of the Empirical Literature on Electronic Support of Group Work: Results of a Meta-Analysis," Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 7, pp. 257280. Mennecke, B.E., and Wheeler, B.C. (1993). "Tasks Matter: Modeling Group Task Processes in Experimental CSCW Research," Proceedings of the 1993 Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii, pp. 71-80. Nunamaker, J.F. Jr., Dennis, A.R., Valacich, J.S., Vogel, D.R., and George, J.F. (1991). "Electronic Meeting Systems to Support Group Work," Communications of the ACM, Vol. 34, No. 7, pp. 40-61. Nunamaker, J.F. Jr., Briggs, R.O., Mittleman, D.D., Vogel, D.R., and Balthazard, P.A. (1997). "Lessons from a Dozen Years of Group


127

Support Systems Research: A Discussion of Lab and Field Findings," Journal of MIS, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 163-207. Nunamaker, J.F. Jr., Dennis, A.R., Valacich, J.S., and Vogel, D . R . (1991). "Information Technology for Negotiating Groups: Generating Options for Mutual Gain," Management Science, Vol. 37, No. 10, pp. 1325-1346. Nunamaker, J.F. Jr., Vogel, D.R., and Konsynski, B., (1989). "Interaction of Task and Technology to Support Large Groups," Decision Support Systems, Vol. 5, pp. 139152. O'Toole, L.J. (1997). "Treating Networks Seriously: Practical and Research-Based Agendas in Public Administration," Public Administration Review, Vol. 57, No. 1, pp. 45-52. Salisbury, W.D., Gallupe, B., and Parent, M. (1997). "To Agree or Not to Agree: Do GSS Help or Hinder Group Consensus?" Proceedings of the third Americas Conference on Information Systems (AIS), Indiana. Shaw, G.J. (1998). "User Satisfaction in Group Support Systems Research: A Meta-Analysis of Experimental Results," Proceedings of the 31st Hawaiian International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii. Strauss, A., and Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques, (2nd Edition), Newbury Park: Sage. Van de Ven, A.H., and Delbecq, A. (1974). "The Effectiveness of Nominal, Delphi, and Interacting Group Decision Making Processes," Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 17, pp. 605-621. Vreede, G.J. de, and Muller, P.C. (1997). "Why Some GSS Meetings Just Don't Work: Exploring Success Factors of Electronic Meetings," Proceedings of the 7th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), Cork, Ireland, pp. 1266-1285. Wagner, C., Vogel, D.R., and Eden, C. (1996). "'Wide-and-Open' versus 'Narrow-and-Deep' Group Support: Which Approach is Better?," Group Decision and Negotiation, Vol. 6, pp. 109-111. Watson, R., Ho, T., and Raman, K. (1994). "Culture: A Fourth Dimension of Group Support Systems," Communications of the ACM, Vol. 37, No. 10, pp. 45-55.

128

Zigurs, I., and Buckland, B.K. (1998). "A Theory of Task/Technology Fit and Group Support Systems Effectiveness," MIS Quarterly, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 313-334. Zigurs, I., Poole, M.S., and DeSanctis, G. (1998). "A Study of Influence in Computer-Mediated Group Decision Making," MIS Quarterly, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 625-644. Zuber-Skerrit, O. (1991). Action Research for Change and Development, AIdershot: Gower Publishing.

About the Authors Gert-Jan de Vreede is an associate professor on systems engineering at the Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management of Delft University of Technology in The Netherlands. He received his Ph.D. in 1995 in systems engineering from the same university. His main research interests include the application of collaborative technologies to facilitate organizational design activities, and the adoption and diffusion of GSS in both Western environments as well as developing countries. He is responsible for the Group Support Systems research program at his school. E-mail: [email protected] Hans de Bruijn is a professor on organization and

management at the Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management of Delft University of Technology in The Netherlands. He hold a Ph.D. in 1990 from Erasmus University Rotterdam in The Netherlands, on financial incentives in technology and energy policy. His research interests include inter-organizational policy networks, strategy development, and collaboration between public and private organizations. E-mail: [email protected]


Appendix A. Background Information on the Cases This appendix briefly describes each case that was included in the study: • Case 1: Ministerial Strategy Development. The Ministry of Housing, Physical Planning, and the Environment had to develop a long-term strategy. There were conflicts of interest among the departments of the ministry (environment vs. physical planning vs. housing). In addition, strong conflicts of interest existed with respect to important external stakeholders, such as industry and other governmental authorities. • Case 2: Optimization o f waste~recycling chains. A number of waste processing organizations wanted to optimize the waste/recycling chain. There was strong opposition from waste disposal companies, waste transport companies, and certain municipalities. • Case 3: Inter-municipal cooperation. A municipality wanted to take a stand with respect to regional cooperation with other municipalities. Conflicts of interest existed among these municipalities, and within the organizing municipality, about the most desired form of cooperation. • Case 4: Oil and Gas Supply I n d u s t ~ The Oil and Gas Supply Industry had to bring forward a unified standpoint for the European Commission about the impact of this industry on the European economy and environment. The supply industry consists of dozens of different branches that have diverging interests. • Case 5: Strategy development university board. The board of a university had to develop a longterm strategy. Among the key players in this process there were many different opinions about the desired and potential topics of this strategy. • Case 6: Environmental Law Enforcement. A national province had to enforce environmental laws. A new strategy had to be developed in order to improve the efficacy of the law enforcement efforts. Important stakeholders included the conservation movement, the companies in the region, and competing enforcement bodies. • Case 7: National physical planning. The national government wanted to restructure the physical planning of a country. This lead to new roles for municipalities and provinces. However, the latter two did not agree with the national government. In addition, conflicts of interest among municipalities and provinces were evident. • Case 8: Provincial working procedures. A number of departments of a province wanted to change their working procedures. The intention was to arrive at a more participative approach to work instead of a hierarchical top-down approach. The departments involved had extensive autonomy, but were forced to start working together. They had to reach agreement on the changes that were going to be made in the organization. • Case 9: Prison privatization. Representatives of various ministries had to take a stand on the privatization of the prison system. In the country concerned, this is a very sensitive topic with passionate advocates and opponents.

Appendix B. Interview Questions The questions in the semi-structured ex-post interviews were aimed at obtaining overall insight into the respondent's perception of the process and technology. Also, they were focused on the assumption categories in particular: 1. Is this the first time you've participated in an electronic meeting? 2. What did you hope to produce in this meeting? 3. Did you meet the objectives you had for this meeting? 4. Did you feel comfortable with "open" nature of this meeting? 5. Did you feel comfortable with the "fair" nature of this meeting? 6. Would GSS adequately support your usual meetings? 7. If given the choice, would you prefer other tools and methods over GSS tools and methods? 8. What is your perception on the role of the facilitator? Did he/she support the process well? 9. Are you satisfied with the work process used today? 10. Are you satisfied with the outcome of this meeting?


129

11. What do you think will be the impact of this meeting? 12. Do you have any other remarks or observations?

Appendix C. Satisfaction Questionnaire The satisfaction questionnaire used in this study consists of 18 five-point Likert questions that relate to the four constructs of a causal model of individual satisfaction with team effort (Briggs & Vreede, 1997). Analyzing 173 questionnaires from US meeting participants (non-students) showed Cronbach alphas between 0.90 and 0.91.

Interest Accommodation 1. Today, my interests were (not accommodated - accommodated) 2. Thinking about what I needed from this meeting (I did not get it - I got it) 3. In this meeting I personally (lost - gained) 4. The outcome of today's activities (does not meet my personal needs - meets my personal needs) Product Value 5. The work we accomplished today was (not worth - worth) the effort. 6. The results of this meeting are worth the resources it cost to produce them. (disagree - agree) 7. The value of the meeting's outcomes justifies our efforts. (disagree - agree) Process Satisfaction 8. I was satisfied with the way we did things today to achieve our goals. (disagree - agree) 9. The meeting methods we used today (did not meet - met) my expectations. 10. Today's meeting process was (inadequate - adequate) to meet our goals. 11. How satisfied were you with the work process we used today? (dissatisfied - satisfied) 12. The group used its time well, devoting enough attention to the important issues. (disagree - agree) 13. How satisfied are you with the design of the session in the sense that the agenda items followed one another logically? (dissatisfied - satisfied) Product Satisfaction 14. The product of this meeting (did not meet - met) my expectations. 15. The outcome of today's activities (does not meet the meeting's objectives - meets the meeting's objectives) 16. With respect to the outcome of today's meeting, I have (many complaints - no complaints at all) 17. The outcome of today's meeting is (unsatisfactory - satisfactory) 18. The results of today's meeting are (inadequate - adequate)

130

The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems - Summer-Fall 1999 (VoI. 30, No. 3,4)

Exploring the Boundaries of Successful GSS Application: Supporting ...

Exploring the Boundaries of Successful GSS Application: Supporting ...

Suggest Documents

Exploring the Boundaries of Successful GSS Application: Supporting ...

Sandwich Complexes: Exploring the Boundaries

Exploring the Boundaries of Compassion Organizing

Exploring the Genome of Trypanosoma vivax through GSS and In ...

Crisis Communication Exploring the Boundaries of Crisis ...

AUC IGB GSS IGB+C GSS+C IGB+CDM GSS+CDM IGB 0.648 GSS ...

Exploring the Usability of Mobile Apps Supporting

GSS - GEOCITIES.ws

Successful application of entomopathogenic nematodes for the ...

Successful Application of the Gamma-Interferon

Why Some GSS Meetings Just Don't Work: Exploring

SSS gSS

User Requirements Elicitation with GSS Design and Application of a ...

exploring the boundaries of transcreation in specialized ... - Edipuglia

Writing a Successful Application

Exploring the boundaries of a light-driven molecular motor design

TaskposÃ©: Exploring Fluid Boundaries in a Task

exploring disciplinary boundaries between ethnomusicology ... - Jyx

Exploring determinants of a successful tourism ...

exploring motivational strategies of successful teachers

Application supporting work of librarian

A Cross-Cultural Comparison of GSS and Non-GSS ... - CiteSeerX

Pushing the boundaries or overstepping the mark? Exploring ... - Avetra

EXPLORING THE APPLICATION OF CASE ... - Semantic Scholar