The VC Model: A Universal Pragmatic Framework for GSS-Enabled ...

Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2004

The VC Model: A Universal Pragmatic Framework for GSS-Enabled Strategic Planning Jim Sheffield University of Auckland [email protected]

Abstract

This paper has two broad objectives: (i) To develop a model of GSS-enabled strategic planning based on Habermas’ theory of communicative action, (ii) To apply the model as a problem-structuring device to the conceptual problem of designing the strategic evaluation of a comprehensive urban plan. The model, known as the VC or validity-claims model, provides separate evaluative criteria for personal, social and technical aspects. The criteria for successful GSS-enabled strategic planning may be summarized as: “personal commitment validated by personal truthfulness or sincerity to a social consensus validated by rightness for informed action validated by objective truth”. Detailed criteria (viz., goal, strategy, procedure, issues, problems) are developed for each type of validity claim and matched to the technologies available. The result is a detailed brief for the design of GSS-enabled strategic urban planning interventions, including a sample agenda for the GSS-supported meeting and the GSS tools that will be employed. Key Words: Communicative action, group support systems (GSS), strategic urban planning, universal pragmatics, validity claims. 1. Introduction The GSS literature is a rich source of empirical research results describing the impact of group support systems technology and/or facilitation on group negotiation and decision. Yet this literature pays only occasional attention to: (i) The theoretical frameworks necessary for a principled and comprehensive discussion of the design of GSS sessions, (ii) The use of such a comprehensive, theoretical framework to evaluate GSS design and GSS supportiveness or instrumentality. This paper seeks to redress the first issue by describing a framework for critical analysis of the design of GSS-enabled interventions. The application of the framework to

evaluate GSS-enabled strategic urban planning process will be addressed in a subsequent paper. This paper employs a universal pragmatic, process-oriented framework to guide practical inquiry into the empirical, interpretive and critical aspects of GSS-enabled strategic planning [19]. The paper seeks to make a contribution by: (i) Developing a comprehensive theoretical framework for the design of GSSenabled strategic planning; (ii) Demonstrating its application to the strategic evaluation of a comprehensive urban plan. The remaining sections of the paper are organised as follows. Section two grounds the research objectives in a review of the literature. Section three develops the VC (Validity Claims) Model. Section four applies the VC Model to design the strategic evaluation of a comprehensive urban plan. Section five provides a detailed brief for GSS-enabled strategic urban planning. Section six discusses key themes and concludes by identifying avenues for further research. 2. Literature review and research objectives Section two briefly reviews the GSS literature and identifies the objectives of this research. Some initial goals for the design of GSS-enabled interventions are developed. 2.1 Literature review The GSS literature is a rich source of the results of empirical research. Six findings relevant to the present study are presented: (i) The process support and process structuring capabilities of GSS may enhance the gains while reducing the losses typically associated with interacting groups [14, 15, 16, 35]; (ii) The simultaneous use of keyboards and the automatic sharing of the group work product increase efficiency [23]. This effect is especially noticeable as group size increases [24, 48]; (iii) Group support systems are useful in managing both cognitive conflict and conflicting interests [6, 39, 43, 45, 46]; (iv) The availability of a variety of communication media aids process

0-7695-2056-1/04 $17.00 (C) 2004 IEEE

1


design. Choice of communication medium enables a selective focus on strategies designed either to reduce uncertainty or to reduce equivocality [13, 39, 53]; (v) The role of the facilitator is important in both GSS facilitation [1, 10, 36] and GSS-enabled interventions [20, 21]; (vi) GSS-enabled interventions are ‘messy’ phenomena that require a multi-disciplinary and multi-methodological approach [8, 32, 33, 53]. 2.2 Research objectives This sampling of the literature, while brief, is sufficient to support the following comments. The GSS literature is centered on empirical concerns. The earlier literature emphasizes experimentation with technology and employs theory from small group research. More recently research has focused on the facilitator and the design of design of organisational interventions. Multi-methodological research that includes empirical, interpretive and critical perspectives is largely absent. This paper is motivated by two questions: (i) In strategic planning, how may we conceptualize the process by which personal, social and technical issues can be approached, framed and evaluated? (ii) Can a universal pragmatic framework be employed to reconcile strategic intentions and outcomes with the design and evaluation of GSS-enabled interventions? The paper has two broad objectives: (i) To develop a model of GSS-enabled strategic planning based on Habermas’ theory of communicative action [26, 27]; (ii) To apply the model as a problem-structuring device to the conceptual problem of designing the strategic evaluation of a comprehensive urban plan. Design is understood broadly. It encompasses meeting design, meeting facilitation (including the use of electronic meeting software) and meeting follow-up. The application of the model, which will be called the VC or validity claims model, to the evaluation of the meeting (including the use of the Groupsystems software tool) and meeting follow-up are to be reported in a subsequent paper. 3. Developing the VC (Validity Claims) Model This section briefly describes two existing models, the V Model [44] and Habermas’ theory of communicative action [26, 27], then combines them to develop the VC (Validity Claims) Model of GSS-enabled strategic planning.

3.1 The V Model The V Model [44] is a universal and pragmatic model. It employs a small number of general systems concepts to develop human understanding of system structure, function, and the linkages among components (Figure 1). 1. THE IDEA Why will pursuing this idea add value?

UNSTRUCTURED 1

6

Reduce equivocality about the multiple ways in which the idea may be approached, stabilized and framed 2 2. THE OBJECTIVE What is our (my? your?) objectives?

Reduce uncertainty about the multiple ways in which the objective can be instantiated

6. THE PAYOFF Why did pursuing this idea add value?

Reduce equivocality about the context in which the results are meaningful 5 SEMISTRUCTURED

3

4

3. THE ACTION PLAN How will we meet each subobjective?

5. THE RESULTS What is the evidence that we have met our (my? your?) objectives?

Reduce uncertainty about the multiple ways in which the outputs can be evaluated 4. THE PLAN IN ACTION How strong is the evidence that we have met each sub-objective?

STRUCTURED INTENTIONS

OUTCOMES

Figure 1. The V Model The vertical axis of the V measures inclusiveness (hierarchy). The upper two points of the V represent high levels of inclusiveness (e.g., the ‘personal visions’ and the ‘big picture’). The lowest point of the V represents a low level of inclusiveness (e.g., the analysis of technical detail). The horizontal axis measures the links among intentions and outcomes. The left half of the V Model contains process steps associated with intentions (e.g., developing ideas, objectives and activities). The right half of the V Model contains process steps associated with developing outcomes (e.g., doing thoughtful activities to achieve results that payoff). Steps one to three successively refine and narrow intentions while steps four through six successively aggregate and expand outcomes. The terminology employed is based on research by Daft and Lengel [13] into organizational (i.e., interpersonal) information requirements, media richness and structural design. The two concepts to be employed here (equivocality or conceptual confusion and uncertainty or lack of empirical data) have been the focus of studies in the social psychology of organizing [50], electronic media [38, 53], and GSS [43]. In the V Model activities that link levels one and two reduce equivocality while activities that link levels two and three reduce uncertainty. Development of intentions and outcomes produce a Wittgenstein ‘language game’ in

0-7695-2056-1/04 $17.00 (C) 2004 IEEE

2


which success is measured by cohesion of the ‘chain of evidence’ [52] linking adjacent process steps, and the coherence of the ‘web of inferences’ as a whole [12, p. 119]. For example, success may be described in terms of objectives and results (level 2) that combine relevance (level 1) with rigor (level 3). In summary, the purpose of the V Model is to develop and test the coherence among intentions and outcomes at three levels of inclusiveness. In providing a set of concepts to aid problem structuring, the V Model overlaps the work of many other authors. The V Model is what Churchman [8] calls an inquiring system in the Singerian tradition. Other writers in this tradition [32, 33, 34, 40] explicitly recognise three perspectives or levels in a value hierarchy personal, organisational and technical. The V Model may provide a useful multi-disciplinary and multi-methodological approach to the problem-structuring aspects of GSS-enabled strategic planning (Figure 2). For example, steps one to three develop strategic intentions; steps four to six develop strategic outcomes. All six steps are important to a critical review of the design of the planning process. Experience suggests that the design objective for each level is: (i) personal commitment, (ii) social consensus, (iii) informed action. PHASE 1. ENVISIONING 1 Goal: Expression of concerns and issues motivating each stakeholder

Personal commitment to..

PHASE 2. OBJECTIVE SETTING Goal: Obtain social consensus on (SMART) objectives

a social consensus

PHASE 3. GENERATING OPTIONS FOR MUTUAL GAIN Goal: Surface many different possible actions to achieve objectives

..for 3 informed action4

..

PHASE 6. ENACTING 6 Goal: Expressions of degrees of commitment to action by individuals and project groups PHASE 5. EVALUATING 5 ALTERNATIVE SCENARIOS Goal: Obtain social consensus on the best performing scenario PHASE 4. GENERATE ALTERNATIVE SCENARIOS Goal: Establish well-defined packages of policy options and criteria for choosing among them

primarily on Habermas’ Knowledge and Human Interests [25] to create a conceptual foundation for critical research in information systems. In linking critical social theory to the action science change process, Ngwenyama [37] describes how reflection leads to a decision that in turn leads to practical action and experience. Experience is seen as the end of one cycle in the change process and the precondition for the reflection that initiates the next cycle. As demonstrated below these findings may be extended by the use of the V Model. In the V Model (Figure 1) reflection and experience reduce conceptual confusion (equivocality), while decision and action reduce empirical confusion (uncertainty). In addition reflection and decision develop intentions while action and experience develop outcomes. These lead to the following conclusions: (i) reflection reduces equivocality about the multiple ways in which an idea may be approached, stabilized and framed; (ii) decision reduces uncertainty about the multiple ways in which the objective can be instantiated; (iii) practical action reduces uncertainty about the multiple ways in which outputs can be evaluated; (iv) experience reduces equivocality about the context in which the results are meaningful (Figure 3). 1. THE IDEA Why will pursuing this idea add value?

UNSTRUCTURED 1

6

1. Reflect on intentions

4. Experience outcomes

2 2. THE OBJECTIVE What is our (my? your?) objectives?

6. THE PAYOFF Why did pursuing this idea add value?

5 SEMISTRUCTURED

2. Decide

5. THE RESULTS What is the evidence that we have met our (my? your?) objectives?

3. Act 3

4

3. THE ACTION PLAN How will we meet each subobjective?

4. THE PLAN IN ACTION How strong is the evidence that we have met each sub-objective?

STRUCTURED

INTENTIONS

OUTCOMES

INTENTIONS

OUTCOMES

Figure 2. Three design objectives and six phases of GSS-enabled strategic planning

Figure 3. Applying action science to research in information systems

3.2 Habermas theory of communicative action

Mingers [32, 33] develops a model from Habermas’ Theory of Communicative Action [26, 27] and applies it to structure and integrate multiple soft systems methodologies. Habermas sees communicative action as action oriented to the attainment and reproduction of mutual understanding. In an essay on universal pragmatics published in 1976 and reproduced in Outhwaite [41] as reading 10, Habermas

Jurgen Habermas’ prolific writings in critical social theory have informed research in information systems for some time [30, 31]. More recently Ngwenyama and Lee [38] apply Habermas’ critical social theory to explain how social context affects the use of electronic mail. In a 2002 book chapter, Ngwenyama [37] draws

0-7695-2056-1/04 $17.00 (C) 2004 IEEE

3


describes the rationality of communication from three perspectives, each of which constitutes a world of knowledge. These perspectives are: (i) My world of internal nature, i.e., the personal or subjective world that is the totality of the experiences to which the speaker has privileged access, (ii) Our world of society, i.e., the social world that is the totality of all legitimately regulated interpersonal relations, (iii) The world of external nature, i.e., the technical world of material fact that is the totality of all entities about which objectively true statements are possible. Habermas [26, 27] describes the evolution of knowledge in broad terms as a movement: (i) from an objective material world devoid of life and therefore meaning, (ii) to a social world where some living beings achieve a measure of interpersonal understanding and the ability to control aspects of their world, and (iii) to a subjective world where reflection provides human beings (at least) with the power to reconstruct, and learn from, their experiences.

Habermas argues that: (i) Knowledge claims in the technical world are validated by objective truth, (ii) Knowledge claims in the social world are validated by rightness, and (iii) Knowledge claims in the personal world are validated by personal truthfulness or sincerity. In summary: (i) Previous research applies Habermas to some aspects of information systems research; (ii) Habermas’ theories have not yet been applied to research or practice in GSS. The latter is surprising in that Habermas’ three worlds provide an over-arching theoretical framework for recognizing, balancing and integrating the multiple viewpoints associated with group decisions – see Nutt [40], ch. 12. The current paper has taken an initial step in this direction by extending the Ngwenyama [37] conceptual foundation (for applying critical social theory to research in information systems) by linking it to the V Model. The next step is to apply Habermas’ theory of communicative rationality to inform the objectives of GSSenabled strategic planning (Table 1).

Table 1. Applying Habermas to the objectives of GSS-enabled strategic planning Habermas criteria or validity-claims

General functions of speech

Modes of communication: basic attitudes

Three domains of reality/ knowledge worlds

GSS objectives

Personal truthfulness or sincerity

Disclosure of speaker’s subjectivity

Expressive: expressive attitude

‘My’ world of internal nature (Personal)

Personal commitment to..

Rightness

Establishment of legitimate interpersonal relations

Interactive: performative attitude

‘Our’ world of society (Social)

..a social consensus for..

Objective truth

Representation of facts

Cognitive: objectivating attitude

‘The’ world of external nature (Technical)

..informed action

Table 2. Comparison of two theoretical models V Model

Theory of Communicative Action

Basis of knowledge claims

Coherence of an argument or method of practical inquiry

Validity claims underlying rational communication

Disciplinary base

Action science: Link between theory-based intentions and practical outcomes

Social justice and communicative competence

Model structure

Three domains/levels of inclusiveness (hierarchy)

Three domains/knowledge worlds

Epistemology

Universal pragmatics

Universal pragmatics

0-7695-2056-1/04 $17.00 (C) 2004 IEEE

4


3.3 The VC (validity claims) model for GSS-enabled strategic planning As indicated in Table 2, Habermas’ theory of communicative action [26, 27] and the V Model [44] are universal and pragmatic, processoriented models. They may be combined as shown in Figure 4. The result is the VC (Validity Claims) Model for GSS-enabled strategic planning. In summary, section 3.1 briefly described the V Model [44], section 3.2 described Habermas’ theory of communicative action [26, 27], and section 3.3 combined them to develop the VC (Validity Claims) Model of GSS-enabled strategic planning. PHASE 1. ENVISIONING 1 Goal: Expression of concerns and issues motivating each stakeholder

Personal commitment (validated by personal truthfulness or sincerity) to..

PHASE 6. ENACTING 6 Goal: Expressions of degrees of commitment to action by individuals and project groups

PHASE 2. OBJECTIVE SETTING Goal: Obtain social consensus on (SMART) objectives

a social consensus (validated by rightness)..

PHASE 5. EVALUATING 5 ALTERNATIVE SCENARIOS Goal: Obtain social consensus on the best performing scenario

PHASE 3. GENERATING OPTIONS FOR MUTUAL GAIN Goal: Surface many different possible actions to achieve objectives

..for 3 informed action4 (validated by objective truth)

PHASE 4. GENERATE ALTERNATIVE SCENARIOS Goal: Establish well-defined packages of policy options and criteria for choosing among them

INTENTIONS

OUTCOMES

Figure 4. The VC or Validity Claims Model for GSS-enabled strategic planning

4. Applying the VC model to strategic urban planning Section four applies the VC (Validity Claims) Model to GSS-enabled strategic urban planning. The objective is the strategic evaluation of a comprehensive urban plan - phases four to six of the steps in the VC Model (Figure 3). The VC Model criteria are explored in the context of the GSS-enabled intervention identified below. Detailed criteria (viz., goal, strategy, procedure, issues, problems) are developed for each type of validity claim (objective truth, rightness and personal truthfulness or sincerity) and matched to the technologies available. The design for objective truth is presented in section 4.1, the design for rightness in section 4.2, and the design for personal truthfulness or sincerity is presented in section 4.3.

The Context for the GSS-enabled Intervention In 1997 planners for a regional authority in New Zealand engaged in collaborative action research with a local university. The regional authority, known as the Auckland Regional Council, or ARC, has statutory authority to develop comprehensive plans for an urban area. The latter comprises a population of one million persons living in an area administered by six territorial authorities - four cities and two counties. The Auckland Regional Council constructed a planning model, known as Auckland Strategic Planning Model II or ASPII, over the period 1990-1997. The action research brief was to design, implement and evaluate a workshop process as part of the strategic evaluation of a comprehensive plan for the Auckland region to the year 2021. The planning, implementation and follow-up of the workshop would mark the end of a seven-year planning cycle. ASPII assumed that the population would grow by 50% to 1.5m by the year 2021. Alternate futures were investigated via scenario planning. The ARC, in consultation with planners from the six territorial authorities, identified three scenarios for the year 2021. From 1990 to 1997 consultants were employed to flesh out the implications of each scenario. For example, traffic engineers focused on access and transportation and developed estimates of trip times under each scenario. Biologists studied coastal water quality and developed estimates of pollutants in parts per million. Accountants focusing on economic values developed quantitative estimates of costs. Other planning consultants developed qualitative assessments of amenity, landscape values and housing choice. At the onset of the action research project experts had made studies in many areas and the ARC owned what the chief planner described as ‘a small library’ of reports. Sixteen criteria and their supporting indicators had been developed so that the estimates from separate studies could be compared. Progress had been made in aggregating the results so that a comprehensive evaluation could proceed. ARC planners intended that the key outcome of the GSSenabled meeting was personal commitment from planners in the six territorial authorities to a social consensus for action informed by the performance of each scenario against a comprehensive yet manageable set of strategic criteria (Figure 5).

0-7695-2056-1/04 $17.00 (C) 2004 IEEE

5


requirements of the strategic urban planning exercise. Table 3. Design for objective truth: Detailed criteria

Figure 5. Strategic evaluation comprehensive urban plan

of

a

The communication surrounding the GSSenabled meeting is complex [9]. Each communicative act is likely to address issues that are richly connected to many other issues. Meaning is to be reconstructed by reflecting on the degree to which many communicative acts support emergent validity claims. The VC Model (Figure 3) guides a focus on qualitatively different themes or perspectives. It is not intended as a linear sequence of discrete steps that can be applied in a mechanistic manner. It is primarily for ease of exposition that the VC Model detailed criteria are presented in three separate sections. Each of the three sub-sections focuses on validity claims associated with one of Habermas’ three knowledge worlds. The first of these sub-sections explores designing for objective truth.

4.1 Design for objective truth Design for objective truth drives phases three and four of the VC Model of (Figure 3). The goal is rational decisions based on studies by subject matter experts who reduce uncertainty via exhaustive studies within each planning subspecialty (Table 3). Linked computer-supported quantitative sub-models provide a key aspect of the technology for discovering objective truth. As indicated above, technical experts in many relevant areas analysed performance of three scenario options against predetermined, objective criteria. These experts employed rigorous procedures to measure, for example, trip times in minutes, pollutants in parts per million, and the costs of implementing each scenario. The latter total more than ten billion dollars - an amount comparable to the annual GNP of New Zealand. Such a decision has broad implications. The remainder of section 4.1 identifies the degree to which design for objective truth satisfies the

Goal

Rational decisions based on studies by subject matter experts

Strategy

Reduce uncertainty via exhaustive studies within each planning sub-specialty

Procedure

Analyze performance of well-defined options against predetermined, objective criteria

Issues

Passive, neutral role of expert. Validity and reliability of measuring instruments. Replicability of findings. Rigor.

Problems

Discovery of an analytically sound method of combining knowledge from different subspecialties. Management of cognitive conflict.

Available technology

Linked computer-supported quantitative submodels

The experts provided sub-models in subdisciplines of urban planning that Banville and Landry [4] would describe as ‘lacking conceptual integration’. Measures such as trip times, pollutants and implementation costs cannot rigorously be compared. Claims to objective truth are diminished by the lack of an analytically sound method of combining knowledge from different sub-specialties. The urban planning community well understands the limitations of designing for objective truth [2, 3]. Habermas’ communicative rationality is the key theoretical component in Healey’s Collaborative Planning [28]. Stakeholders have multiple perspectives [22] and planners need multiple approaches to reconcile them. Innes [29] describes how planning occurs through building consensus. She argues that: (i) Multiple disciplines have contributed techniques such as the nominal group technique (Van der Ven and Delbecq 1971) that are useful in reconciling multiple perspectives; (ii) In total, these techniques support the sort of ‘good conversation’ [42] or strategic discourse [5] that is capable of generating momentum for strategic change [17]. In summary, the urban planning community expects that design for objective truth to be pursued in conjunction with design for rightness and design for personal truthfulness or sincerity. Section 4.2 explores designing for rightness.

0-7695-2056-1/04 $17.00 (C) 2004 IEEE

6


4.2 Design for rightness Design for rightness drives phases two and five of the VC Model (Figure 3). The ultimate goal is the enactment of the public interest via face-to-face meetings (Table 4). This is expected to be a complex and iterative process that will test the relationships among stakeholders. Agreement must be reached on what should emerge from a process that attempts to aggregate and evaluate the ‘small library’ of conceptually unrelated consultancy reports. Planners from the ARC and the six territorial authorities worked on this over a period of seven years. Facilitated, electronically supported dialogue in a GSSenabled intervention is the technology chosen by ARC planners to complete the task. Table 4. Design for rightness: Detailed criteria Goal

Enactment of the public interest via face-toface meetings

Strategy

Reduce equivocality by means of sensibly interlocked behaviors of stakeholders. Generate and real-ize options for mutual gain.

Procedure

Craft consensus in a face-to-face dialogue of stakeholder representatives

Issues

Trustworthiness and authenticity. Establishing legitimate interpersonal relations. Ecological validity of group. Power. Structure and content of interaction. Medium of communication. Interpretation of cognitive clues, social clues, expression of affect.

Problems


Creation of a socially and politically acceptable method of surfacing, recording and analysing the diverse interests of stakeholders. Management of conflicting interests. Ensuring attendance by parties who are weak and/or intransigent. Facilitated, electronically supported dialogue

Scenario planning decision problems are conventionally represented on a grid or balance sheet format (Table 5). The performance of welldefined options (presented in columns) is evaluated against predetermined, objective criteria (presented in rows). In the context of urban planning, this appears an idealized fiction of the positivist imagination [40]. Establishing legitimate interpersonal relations, and maintaining them over a long period of time, is the key to appreciating and evaluating the complex (recursive) interconnections among the elements

of the ASPII model [7, 28]. Section 4.3 explores personal issues and designing for truthfulness or sincerity. Table 5. Design for rightness: Idealized decision framework Option 1: Consolidation: (i) more environmental, etc, planning controls, (ii) higher density, (iii)more pass.trans. (buses, light rail)

Option 2: Composite of:

Criterion A: Economic Values

Criterion A: Economic Values Criterion B: Amenity and Landscape Values Criterion C: Housing Choice Criterion D: Access and Transportation

Criterion B: Amenity and Landscape Values Criterion C: Housing Choice Criterion D: Access & Transportation

(i) consolidation, (ii) expansion options

Option 3: Expansion: (i) less environ-mental, etc, planning controls; (ii) lower density (iii) more private transport (cars) Criterion A: Economic Values Criterion B: Amenity and Landscape Values Criterion C: Housing Choice Criterion D: Access and Transportation

Table 6. Design for personal truthfulness or sincerity: Detailed criteria Goal

Disclosure of speaker’s subjectivity, unconstrained by the structure of the model and unrestrained by social agreements

Strategy

Each individual writes a personalized account of what it will be like to live in Auckland in 2021 under each of options 1, 2 and 3, then reads other’s accounts to identify the most valuable visions.

Procedure

A 50-minute envisioning exercise in which each account is identified only by a code. Anonymity is almost complete.

Issues

Transparency. Authenticity. Relevance. To what extent do the personalized accounts reflect: 1. Personal truthfulness and sincere, emancipatory desire? 2. Practicality? 3. Vested interests? 4.Empathy? 5. The life experiences of the broader community?

Problems

Speaker’s claims to authenticity may be: 1. Distorted by their power-oriented relations with others, such as developers, who are not present, yet whose actions are important to the outcome. 2. Based on personal and institutional bias and an incomplete understanding of options, their acceptability and likely outcomes.


Facilitated, electronically supported dialogue

0-7695-2056-1/04 $17.00 (C) 2004 IEEE

7


4.3 Design for personal truthfulness or sincerity Design for personal truthfulness or sincerity drives phases one and six of the VC Model (Figure 3). The goal is the disclosure of speaker’s subjectivity, unconstrained by the structure of the ASPII model and unrestrained by social agreements. Strategy, procedure, issues and problems are summarized in Table 6. Facilitated, electronically supported dialogue in a GSS-enabled intervention is available to support the design for personal truthfulness or sincerity. In summary, the VC (Validity Claims) Model for GSS-enabled strategic urban planning developed in section three has been applied to the design of the strategic evaluation of a comprehensive urban plan. Detailed criteria (viz., goal, strategy, procedure, issues, problems) have been identified for each type of validity claim (objective truth, rightness and personal truthfulness or sincerity) and matched to the technologies available.

5. The brief for GSS-enabled strategic urban planning This section builds on the preceding sections to provide a sample design for a GSS-enabled intervention in strategic urban planning. The design detail includes an agenda for the GSSsupported meeting and the GSS tools that will support it. The brief is as follows. The prerequisite for the strategic evaluation of a comprehensive urban plan is empirical data to drive the conceptual hierarchy shown in Figure 5. The scenario planning approach dictates that a decision framework like that shown in Table 5 is central to this process. Each row of the decision matrix is the subject of a 50-minute session using the Groupsystems Topic Commenter tool. This 50-minute session includes the ordering by each participant of their preference for each option. The restriction to a single one-day meeting means that only five criteria (or classes of criteria) can be examined. In this case the ‘small library’ of consultant’s reports revolve around 16 criteria. These criteria are assigned to five classes and a 150-page briefing document prepared and distributed. Table 7 shows the resulting agenda for the GSS-enabled meeting. The meeting will be attended by 22 people, including the facilitator. Sixteen have voting rights. Ten of these are planning executives, two from each of the four cities plus one from each

of the two counties or districts in the urban area. The six other voting participants are Auckland Regional Council planners and consultants. The remaining five participants are the Auckland Regional Council planners responsible for the seven-year planning cycle. Their role is to ‘host’ the meeting and to provide information as required. Table 7. Agenda for the GSS-enabled meeting 1. Introduction (including initial invocation of each participant’s individual views on the three options and the differences among them) 2. Performance of Options 1, 2 and 3 against Criterion A: Economic Values 3. Performance of Options 1, 2 and 3 against Criterion B: Amenity and Landscape Values 4. Performance of Options 1, 2 and 3 against Criterion C: Housing Choice 5. Performance of Options 1, 2 and 3 against Criterion D: Access and Transportation 6. Performance of Options 1, 2 and 3 against Criterion E: Coastal Water Quality 7. Provide each participant with the aggregated group relative assessments (i.e., preferences) for the performance of Options 1, 2 and 3 against each of Criteria A, B, C, D & E 8. Rank the interpretive power of these five criteria 9. What is it like to live in Auckland under Option 1, Option 2, and Option 3? Compose own vision, read others, assimilate, value. 10.Feedback (free-form and questionnaire) on the strategic evaluation meeting 11.Conclusion (including incentive awards for ‘best’ vision statements, thanks)

Table 8. GSS-enabled dialogue on each criterion: Overview Individual Activity

Tangible Outcome

1. Construction of individual views of the performance of the three options against a criterion (½ page per participant)

1. Raw aggregation of individual views. A common framework may/may not emerge. (8 pages total from 16 participants)

2. Individual construction of issues important to the group as a whole

2. Group consensus on a non-redundant list of key issues (1 page)

3. Ranking of key issues

3. Group consensus on a prioritized list of key issues (1 page)

4. Relative assessment of the performance of the three options against a criterion

4. Preference ordering of the three options against a criterion (1 line)

0-7695-2056-1/04 $17.00 (C) 2004 IEEE

8


Table 9. GSS-enabled dialogue on each criterion: Details Individual Activities

Typical Duration

Tangible Outcomes

1a. Silent reflection interleaved with 1b. Silent typing (½ page per participant)

8 minutes total

1a. Construction of individual responses 1b. (8 pages total from 16 participants)

2a. Silent reading of the comments of all other participants to identify key issues

12 minutes

2a. Individual construction of group’s response

2b. Oral statement to surface a key issue not yet identified by other participants

8 minutes

2b. Consensus on a non-redundant list of key issues (1 page)

3a. Silent and individual preparation of relative importance of top five key issues (5 = most important, .., 1 = 5th most important)

5 minutes

3a. Construction of individual responses (5 lines)

3b. Facilitator aggregates the votes and reorders the issues in descending order by importance

5 minutes

3b. Consensus on a prioritized list of approx. 20 key issues (1 page)

4a. Participation in an oral discussion on the interpretation of patterns, linkages, issue structures, lessons learned, etc.

5 minutes

4a. Construction of individual and group responses

4b. Relative assessment (either ++, +, 0, -, or –) of the performance of options 1, 2 and 3

1 minute

4b. Construction of individual responses (1 line)

4c. Facilitator aggregates the relative assessments and reorders them (left-->right) in ascending order of preference

1 minute

4c. Preference ordering of 3 options on a criterion (1 line)

5. Break

5 minutes _________ 50 minutes

Typical time spent on each agenda item =

The use of the Groupsystems Topic Commenter tool by the 16 voting members is designed to produce the dialogue shown in Table 8 on each of the five criteria. The elements of this dialogue are detailed in Table 9. It is anticipated that: (i) Ten pages of material, carefully structured to support the micro-level decision process will be produced and discussed every 50 minutes; (ii) Meeting outputs will include an 80-page macro-level document that is the joint work-product of stakeholders who hold strong and divergent opinions on contentious issues.

6. Conclusion Section six has three objectives: (i) to discuss key themes, (ii) to identify the contribution of the research and (iii) to identify opportunities for further research. The key themes are reflected in the two questions which motivated this research: Q1: In strategic planning, how may we conceptualize the process by which personal, social and technical issues can be approached, framed and evaluated? Q2: Can a universal

Mental sharpness & enthusiasm retained throughout the meeting _______ 10 pages

pragmatic framework be employed to reconcile strategic intentions and outcomes with the design and evaluation of GSS-enabled interventions? The short answer to the first question is: “Strive for: (i) personal commitment to (ii) a social consensus for (iii) informed action validated by: (i) personal truthfulness or sincerity (ii) rightness and (iii) objective truth.” The short answer to the second question is: “Yes, previous sections in this paper (i) develop a universal pragmatic, process-oriented framework to guide practical inquiry into the empirical, interpretive and critical aspects of GSS-enabled strategic planning (ii) demonstrate its application to the strategic evaluation of a comprehensive urban plan. The contribution of the research is two-fold: (i) The development of the VC (Validity Claims) Model for GSS-enabled strategic planning; (ii) The application of the VC Model to the design of the strategic evaluation of a comprehensive urban plan. The application of the VC Model to the evaluation of the meeting (including the use of the Groupsystems software tool) and meeting follow-up are to be reported in a subsequent

0-7695-2056-1/04 $17.00 (C) 2004 IEEE

9


paper. Opportunities for further research stem from the possibility that the VC Model may prove useful to the GSS facilitator in designing and evaluating other GSS-enabled interventions. The VC Model may provide a broad theoretical framework integrating multi-disciplinary and multi-methodological approaches to GSSenabled interventions. Insomuch as the V Model is a universal and pragmatic framework, it may provide a robust and intuitive framework for inquiry into the impact of other collaboration systems and technology. The latter include knowledge management, collaborative learning, and web-based teaching.

7. References 1. Ackerman, Fran. (1996), “Participants’ Perceptions on the Role of Facilitators using Group Support Systems,” Group Decision and Negotiation 5(1), 93-112. 2. Altschuler, Alan. (1965a), The City Planning Process: A Political Analysis. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. 3. Altschuler, Alan. (1965b), “The Goals of Comprehensive Planning,” Journal of the American Institute of Planners 31(3), 186-197. 4. Banville, Claude, and Maurice Landry. (1989), “Can the field of MIS be Disciplined?” Communications of the ACM 32(1), 48-60. 5. Barry, David and Michael Elmes. (1997) “Strategy Retold: Toward a Narrative View of Strategic Discourse,” Academy of Mgt Review, 22(2), 429-452. 6. Benbasat, Izak, Francis Lim, and Srinivasan Rao. (1995), “A Framework for Communication Support in Group Work with Special Reference to Negotiation Systems,” Group Decision and Negotiation, 4(2), 135158. 7. Checkland, Peter and Sue Holwell. (1998), Information, Systems and Information Systems. Wiley. 8. Churchman, C. W. (1971), The Design of Inquiring Systems: Basic Concepts of Systems and Organizations, Basic Books, Inc., New York, NY. 9. Cilliers, Paul (1998), Complexity and postmodernism: Understanding complex systems. London and New York: Routledge. 10. Clawson, Victoria, and Robert Bostrom. (1996), “Research-Driven Facilitation Training for ComputerSupported Environments,” Group Decision and Negotiation 5(1), 7-30. 11. Courtney, J.F. (2001), “Decision making and knowledge management in inquiring organizations: A new decision-making paradigm for DSS”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 31, No. 1, pp. 17-38. 12. Crystal, David. (1997), The Cambridge Encyclopaedia of Language Second edition. Cambridge University Press.

13. Daft, Richard, and Robert Lengel. (1986), “Organizational Information Requirements, Media Richness, and Structural Design,” Management Science 32(5), 554-571. 14. Dennis, Alan, Joey George, Leonard Jessup, Jay Nunamaker Jr, and Douglas Vogel. (1988), “Information Technology to Support Electronic Meetings” MIS Quarterly 12(4), 591-624. 1988. 15. Dennis, Alan, Craig Tyran, Douglas Vogel, and Jay Nunamaker Jr. (1997), “Group Support Systems for Strategic Planning,” Journal of MIS 14(1), 155184. 16. DeSanctis, Geradine, and Brent Gallupe. (1987), “A Foundation for the Study of Group Decision Support Systems,” Management Science 33(5), 589-609. 17. Dutton, Jane E. and Robert B. Duncan. (1987), “The Creation of Momentum for Change Through the Process of Strategic Issue Diagnosis,” Strategic Management Journal, 8, 279-295. 18. Forsyth, Ann. (1997). “Five Images of a Suburb: Perspectives on a New Urban Development,” Journal of the American Planning Association, 63(1), 45-60. 19. Earl, M. J. (1993), “Experiences in Strategic Information Systems Planning,” MIS Quarterly, March, 1-24. 20. Eden, Colin and Fran Ackermann. (2001a), “SODA – The Principles,” In Rosenhead, Johnathan and John Mingers, Editors. Rational Analysis for a Problematic World Revisited: Problem Structuring Methods for Complexity, Uncertainty and Conflict, Second Edition, Wiley. 21. Eden, Colin and Fran Ackermann. (2001b), “SODA – Journey Making and Mapping in Practice,” In Rosenhead, Johnathan and John Mingers, Editors. Rational Analysis for a Problematic World Revisited: Problem Structuring Methods for Complexity, Uncertainty and Conflict, Second Edition, Wiley. 22. Forsyth, Ann. ‘Five Images of a Suburb: Perspectives on a New Urban Development.’ Journal of the American Planning Association, 63(1), 45-60. Winter 1997. 23. Gallupe, Brent, Lynne Bastianutti, and William Cooper, (1991). “Unblocking Brainstorms,” Journal of Applied Psychology 76(1), 137-142. 24. Gallupe, Brent., et al. (1992), “Electronic Brainstorming and Group Size,” Academy of Management Journal 35(2), 350-369. 25. Habermas, J. (1968), Knowledge and Human Interests. Beacon Press: Boston. 26. Habermas, J. (1984), The Theory of Communicative Action Volume 1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society, Translated by Thomas McCarthy. Beacon Press: Boston. 27. Habermas, J. (1987), The Theory of Communicative Action Volume 2: Lifeworld and System, Translated by Thomas McCarthy. Beacon Press: Boston. 28. Healey, Patsy. (1997), Collaborative Planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies, Palgrave New York.

0-7695-2056-1/04 $17.00 (C) 2004 IEEE

10


29. Innes, Judith E. (1996). “Planning Through Consensus Building,” Journal of the American Planning Association, 62(4), 460-472. 30. Lyytinen, K. and H.K. Klein. (1985), “The critical theory of Jurgen Habermas as a basis for a theory of information systems,” in Mumford, E., R.A. Hirschheim, G. Fitzgerald and T. Wood-Harper (Editors) Research methods in information systems, North-Holland, Amsterdam. 31. Mingers, J. (1981), “Towards an appropriate social theory for applied systems thinking: Critical social theory and soft systems methodology”, Journal of Applied Systems Analysis, 7, 41-49. 32. Mingers, John. (2001a), “Multimethodology – Mixing and matching methods”. In Rosenhead, Johnathan and John Mingers, Editors. Rational Analysis for a Problematic World Revisited: Problem Structuring Methods for Complexity, Uncertainty and Conflict. Second Edition. Wiley 2001. 33. Mingers, John. (2001b), “Combining IS Research Methods: Towards a Pluralist Methodology”. Information Systems Research Vol 12, No. 3, September 2001. 34. Mitroff, I.I. and Linstone, H.A. (1993), The Unbounded Mind, Oxford University Press, Oxon, UK. 35. Nagasundaram, Murli, and Robert Bostrom. (1995), “The Structuring of Creative Processes Using GSS: A Framework for Research” Journal of MIS, 11(3): 87-114. 36. Neiderman, Fred, Catherine Beise, and Peggy Beranek. (1996), “Issues and Concerns About Computer-Supported Meetings: The Facilitator’s Perspective,” MIS Quarterly 20(1), 1-22. 37. Ngwenyama, Ojelanki K. (2002), “The critical social theory approach to information systems: Problems and challenges”. In Qualitative research in information systems: A reader, Myers, Michael D, and David Avison (Editors). 38. Ngwenyama, Ojelanki K, and Allen Lee. (1997), “Communication Richness in Electronic Mail: Critical Social Theory and the Contextuality of Meaning” MIS Quarterly, 145-167. 39. Nunamaker Jr, Jay, Alan Dennis, Joseph Valacich, and Douglas Vogel. (1991), “Information Technology

for Negotiating Groups: Generating Options for Mutual Gain,” Management Science 37(10), 1325-1346. 40. Nutt, Paul C. (1989), Making Tough Decisions, Jossey-Bass Ltd, San Fransisco, CA. 41. Outhwaite, W. (1996), The Habermas Reader, Polity Press: Cambridge. 42. Quinn, John J. (1996). “The Role of “Good Conversation” in Strategic Control,” Journal of Management Studies, 33(3), 381-394. 43. Sheffield, James. (1995), “The Impact of Communication Medium on Negotiation Performance,” Group Decision and Negotiation 4(2), 159-179. 44. Sheffield, James. (2002), Introducing the V Model: A tutorial guide. Dept of Management Science and Information Systems Working paper #242, University of Auckland. 45. Sheffield, James, and Brent Gallupe. (1994), “Using electronic meeting technology to support economic policy development in New Zealand: Shortterm results,” Journal of MIS 10(3), 97-116. 46. Shepherd, Morgan, Robert Briggs, Bruce Reinig, Jerome Yen, and Jay Nunamaker Jr. (1995), “Invoking Social Comparison to Improve Electronic Brainstorming: Beyond Anonymity,” Journal of MIS 12(3), 155-170. 47. Valacich, Joseph, and Alan Dennis. (1994), “A Mathematical Model of Performance of ComputerMediated Groups During Idea Generation,” Journal of MIS 11(1), 59-72. 48. Van de Ven, A.H., Delbecq, A.L. (1971). ‘The effectiveness of nominal, Delphi, and interacting group decision making processes.’ Academy of Management Journal, 17, 605-621. 49. Wilber, Ken. (2000), The Collected works of Ken Wilber Vol 6: Sex, Ecology, Spirituality. Shamballah. 50. Weick, K.E. (1979), The Social Psychology of Organising. Random House. 51. Weick, K. (2001), Making Sense of the Organization, Blackwell, Oxford UK. 52. Yin, Robert. (1994), Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Second edition. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. 53. Zack, Michael H. (1993), “Interactivity and Communication Mode Choice in Ongoing Management Groups.” Information Systems Research 4(3): 207 - 239.

0-7695-2056-1/04 $17.00 (C) 2004 IEEE

11