1.The anonymity and proximity factors in group decision support

Ng b a ICS Dept, KFUPM, Box 1779, Dhahran 31261, SaudiArabia Dept of Commerce, La Trobe University, Bundoora 3083, Australia Abstract A group decision support system GDSS is an intera

E L S E V I E R Decision Support Systems 14 (1995) 75-83

Deam'nSuppo

Short note The anonymity and proximity factors in group decision support

systems

M.C E r a , , , A.C Ng b

a ICS Dept, KFUPM, Box 1779, Dhahran 31261, SaudiArabia Dept of Commerce, La Trobe University, Bundoora 3083, Australia

Abstract

A group decision support system (GDSS) is an interactive computer-based information system which combines the capabilities of communication technologies, database technologies, computer technologies, and decision tech- nologies to support the identification, analysis, formulation, evaluation, and solution of semi-structured or unstruc- tured problems by a group in an user-friendly computing environment Following the completion of GDSS facilities, preliminary results on the effects and effectiveness of GDSSs on the group decision making process have been reported This paper sets forth to critically evaluate recent literature on anonymity of proponents and proximity of group members in connection with the use of GDSSs in group meetings It questions the assumptions made and research methodologies used in laboratory experiments Some of the experimental results are found to be inconclusive and contradictory It points out why some of the experiments are unrealistic, and thus the experimental results cannot be generalized It is argued that group dynamics, organizational settings, social contexts, and behavioral aspects are all important ingredients in shaping the outcomes of using GDSSs at group meetings, and therefore cannot be ignored by GDSS researchers

Keywords: Group decision support system (GDSS); Anonymity; Proximity; Group decision making process; Com- puter-mediated communication; Impact of information technology

1 I n t r o d u c t i o n

The advents of information technologies and

transnational communication networks have on

the one hand made the world smaller, and on the

other hand globalized businesses and markets

The fierce competition for business survival and

advantages means that many business decisions

* Corresponding author

have to be made more frequently, more promptly and with better quality The rapid falling prices of information technologies and the increased per- formance of low-cost personal computers have opened up untried avenues for information sys- tems planners to extend the capabilities of infor- mation systems to support top-level executive de- cision making In the last two decades, the em- phasis of information systems has been shifted from supporting routine transaction-based infor- mation processing to supporting semi-structured 0167-9236/95/$09.50 © 1995 Elsevier Science B.V All rights reserved

SSDI 0167-9236(94)00013-I

76 M.C Er and A.C Ng / Decision Support Systems 14 (1995) 75-83

or unstructured decision making at top-level

management, as reflected in the change of termi-

nology from management information systems

(MISs) to decision support systems (DSSs) [10]

In large corporations, important decisions, such

as strategic plans, are seldom made by a single

person; more commonly, they are made by a

group of senior executives It is natural that group

decision support systems (GDSSs) have been de-

veloped in the past one decade in response to the

needs of executive decision makers [21]

Although the concept of computer-aided group

decision making had been around for quite some

time [19], physical constructions of modern facili-

ties for supporting group decision making only

occurred five years ago [13,23] Extensive experi-

ments on the effects and effectiveness of group

decision support systems on group behaviour only

carried out in the past few years; this explains the

rarity of experimental results [2,6,9] Even so,

most experiments are concentrated on some very

small aspects of GDSS, such as anonymity of

participants and computer-mediated communica-

tions Within such a small set of experimental

results, some contradictions of findings already

exist For instance, in [5], it was found that a

GDSS used in a face-to-face decision making

context resulted in higher quality decisions com-

pared with those not supported by a GDSS; but

such a finding was not supported by a subsequent

experiment [6] In another example, Lewis [14]

and Steeb and Johnston [22] found that GDSS

group members were more satisfied than non-

GDSS group members in face-to-face meetings,

but the results were contradicted by Gallupe [5]

and Watson [24], who found that the use of a

GDSS led to less satisfaction when compared to

non-GDSS group

The contradictions add more confusion to the

current state of the field of group support deci-

sion systems This paper sets forth to critically

examining the current literature on group sup-

port decision systems dealing with the issues of

anonymity and proximity at group meetings, and

offers suggestions and criticisms to experimental

assumptions and research methodologies used It

also summarizes the current state of knowledge,

and pinpoints future research directions in GDSS

In particular, it is argued that research on the effects and effectiveness of GDSSs on the group decision making process cannot be carried out in isolation - group dynamics, organizational set- tings, social contexts, and behavioral aspects are all important ingredients in shaping the outcomes

of using GDSSs at group meetings

2 Group decision support systems

Part of the inconclusive experimental results stems from the confusion about the definition of group support decision systems Some of the ex- perimental setups have nothing to do with GDSS

at all

A group decision support system is defined as

an interactive computer-based information sys- tem which combines the capabilities of communi- cation technologies (LAN, WAN, telecommuni- cation), database technologies (relational, hierar- chical, and network models), computer technolo- gies (mainframe computer, minicomputer, micro- computer, personal computer, VLSI system, su- percomputer), and decision technologies (linear programming, integer programming, goal pro- gramming, compromise programming, multi-ob- jective linear programming, sequential optimiza- tion, dynamic compromise programming, AHP, Electre, multi-attribute utility theory, Q-analysis, risk analysis, simulation, forecasting, statistical analysis, decision tree, etc.) to support the identi- fication, analysis, formulation, evaluation, and so- lution of semi-structured or unstructured prob- lems by a group A schematic diagram of GDSS is shown in Fig 1 It is clear that a group decision support system is more than just a communica- tion system; it involves decision modelling as well Decision modelling, of course, requires utiliza- tions of a model base and a database for alterna- tive assumptions and choice analyses

One of the key factors in GDSS, apart from decision modelling, is to facilitate the exchange of information, ideas, opinions, and options leading

to decision making during group deliberations Such communications can be verbal and com- puter-mediated, within the constraints of commu- nication technologies For face-to-face meetings

M.C Er and A.C Ng / Decision Support Systems 14 (1995) 75-83 77

I Decisi°n M°del J <~'~ ~ ~

Interactive User Interface

I-AN

Fig 1 A schematic diagram for a group decision support

system

of a g r o u p , or m e e t i n g s w i t h i n close proximity, a

l o c a l - a r e a n e t w o r k , c o u p l e d with e l e c t r o n i c m a i l

facilities, is t h e s t a n d a r d t e c h n o l o g y u s e d for

a c h i e v i n g g r o u p c o m m u n i c a t i o n

T h e m a i n p u r p o s e of G D S S s is to facilitate the

so-called collective i n t e l l i g e n c e d u r i n g g r o u p

m e e t i n g s T h e g r o u p p r o b l e m solving p r e c e d e s

t h e g r o u p d e c i s i o n m a k i n g , b o t h a r e c o m p o n e n t s

of t h e g r o u p d e c i s i o n m a k i n g process Specifi-

cally, t h e g r o u p d e c i s i o n m a k i n g p r o c e s s involves

i d e n t i f y i n g p r o b l e m a t i c s y m p t o m s , a n a l y s i n g

c a u s e s of a p r o b l e m f r o m its s y m p t o m s , g e n e r a t - ing possible s o l u t i o n s to t h e p r o b l e m , e v a l u a t i n g

a l t e r n a t i v e s o l u t i o n s , d e c i d i n g which s o l u t i o n to

a d o p t , a n d f o r m u l a t i n g a strategy to i m p l e m e n t

t h e a d o p t e d solution D u r i n g this c o m p l e x pro- cess of g r o u p d e c i s i o n m a k i n g , m a n y forms of

i n f o r m a t i o n s e e k i n g / g i v i n g a n d o p i n i o n ex-

c h a n g e take place, such as initial e x p l o r a t i o n , analysis of proposals, e x p r e s s i o n of p r e f e r e n c e ,

a r g u m e n t a t i o n , s o l u t i o n d e v e l o p m e n t , a n d i m p l e -

m e n t a t i o n n e g o t i a t i o n S o m e a u t h o r s [1,3] p r e f e r

to take a n i n f o r m a t i o n e x c h a n g e p e r s p e c t i v e to this phase

H o w e v e r , a g r o u p m e e t i n g is m o r e t h a n a

f o r m a l way of solving p r o b l e m s a n d m a k i n g deci- sions It is also a f o r u m for a c h i e v i n g a n d m a i n -

t a i n i n g p e e r r e c o g n i t i o n s in a n o r g a n i z a t i o n Par-

t i c i p a n t s n o t only carry o u t collective tasks of

g r o u p p r o b l e m solving, b u t also fulfil t h e p e r s o n a l

n e e d s of social i n t e r a c t i o n s with peers T h i s as-

p e c t is p e r h a p s the most n e g l e c t e d o n e in the

G D S S l i t e r a t u r e W e shall r e t u r n to a discussion

of this later

Table 1

The pros and cons of making participants anonymous a t group meetings with the help of GDSSs

- Enhance equal participation

(especially of junior or shy members)

- Expression of unpopular, novel, heretical

opinions

- C r i t i c i s m is addressed at ideas, not person

- Sensitive issues can be d i s c u s s e d

- A decision is based on merit rather than

compromise

- Don't know who favours what

- Avoid embarrassing

- Avoid hostility

- Avoid conformity to pressure

- Avoid fear of punishment

- Avoid dominance

- Avoid extreme influence of high-status

member

- Avoid lack of acknowledgment of low-

status member

Avoid low tolerance of minority

- Deindividuation leads to deviant, harmful, or socially undesirable behaviour

- Social consequences are less positively

or negatively experienced

- Controversial views may surface but would otherwise subdue

W a s t e t i m e on unworkable ideas which have known from experience

- Flaming - uninhibited comments, and use of strong language

- Lack of social-emotional support

78 M.C Er and A.C Ng / Decision Support Systems 14 (1995) 75-83

F o r theories and conceptual frameworks of

GDSSs, the r e a d e r is r e f e r r e d to [3,18,8,15]

and o p e n expression of opinions at group discus- sions, which would be healthier than those with- out the assistance of GDSS technology

3 Anonymity of participants

O n e of the widely studied aspects of GDSSs is

the anonymity of p r o p o n e n t s and its impact on

the outcomes of group decision m a d e [5,2,23,9]

T h e results are inconclusive and contradictory

T h e pros and cons of making participants

anonymous at group meetings may be s u m m a -

rized in Table 1 T h e details are discussed below

3.1 The pros of having anonymity

Those who p r o p o s e the use of GDSSs take a

positive view of the anonymity of p r o p o n e n t s at

group meetings that are s u p p o r t e d by G D S S

technology Typically anonymity at group m e e t -

ings (including face-to-face meetings) is achieved

via the use of electronic mail on a local-area

network At the time of electronic brainstorming,

idea generation, or idea solicitation, the associa-

tion b e t w e e n an idea or an opinion and its p r o p o -

nent can be suppressed by a computer T h e per-

ceived or suggested b e n e f i t s / a d v a n t a g e s can be

summarized as follows

(i) Enhance equal participation

T h e e n h a n c e m e n t of equal participation by

group m e m b e r s , regardless of seniority, at a group

meeting has b e e n cited as one of the key ingredi-

ents of G D S S [3,16] This is especially so for

junior or shy m e m b e r s , who are nervous about

speaking at a group meeting, for fear of e m b a r -

rassment or punishment because of saying some-

thing wrong or offensive Sometimes saying some-

thing wrong in public can be traumatic to junior

members, whose p e r f o r m a n c e and c o m p e t e n c e

are being judged at all time On the other hand,

the lack of acknowledgment of an idea attributed

to a low-status m e m b e r can be avoided as its

source is no longer traceable, as a good idea may

be mistaken to come from a senior m e m b e r T h e

anonymity of p r o p o n e n t s thus contributes to the

improved a t m o s p h e r e of free exchange of ideas

(ii) Avoiding dominance by some members

G r o u p s meetings generally dominated by high-status, m o r e experienced or senior members

As a result, group meetings tend to endorse their proposals It is suggested that the extreme influ- ence of high-status m e m b e r s can be avoided if contributions of ideas and opinions are m a d e anonymous F u r t h e r m o r e , this approach makes group m e m b e r s don't know who favours what, thus reducing the pressure to conform at group meetings To some extent, it also reduces the danger of group-think

(iii) Criticism is addressed at an idea, not a person

If the link between a person's n a m e and an idea or an opinion is suppressed, criticisms at an idea or an opinion can be levelled without hurt- ing the feelings of the proponent It thus allows free expression of unpopular, novel, or heretical opinions without fear of hostility subsequently In some cases, sensitive issues can be discussed be- fore a corporation's authority It opens up m o r e opportunities for discussing sensitive issues, which would otherwise not discussed at all Further- more, it also avoids the low tolerance of minority

at a group meeting

(iv) Secret voting encouraging decisions based on merit

Electronic voting is a direct implementation of the p a p e r ballot system If the n a m e of a voter, but not the vote itself, is suppressed, secret voting

in respect of an issue can be achieved Secret voting is considered p a r a m o u n t important in achieving voter independence, which is a pre-re- quisite for encouraging decisions based on merit

A G D S S with its c o m p u t e r communication facili- ties can support rapid vote tallying, and thus can have m o r e frequent preliminary votes to have a feel about the majority of group m e m b e r s ' feel- ings before the final decision, assisting a m o r e rapid convergence toward consensus based on merit

M.C Er and A.C Ng / Decision Support Systems 14 (1995) 75-83 79

3.2 The cons of having anonymity

T h e impact of a G D S S with anonymity of

p r o p o n e n t s on the group decision making process

is not always positive, unfortunately Some of the

noted b a d influences can be summarized below

social interactions with peers F u r t h e r m o r e , so- cial consequences are less positively or negatively experienced with the use of anonymity mecha- nism at group meetings

3.3 Critical evaluation of research methodologies

(i) Deindividuation

Deindividuation occurs when an individual

loses his sense of self-identity and self-awareness

in a group context, and b e c o m e s s u b m e r g e d in a

group It can lead to deviant, harmful, or socially

undesirable behaviour, including lynch mobbing

and " m a s s hysteria" Sometimes it manifests as a

p r o b l e m of flaming, i.e uninhibited comments,

and use of strong language at a group meeting

Flaming can divert the attention of a group m e e t -

ing f r o m its original objectives to a war of words,

even though group m e m b e r s c o m m u n i c a t e to each

other anonymously If a war of words would b r e a k

out, the a t m o s p h e r e of a group m e e t i n g would

b e c o m e hostile, thus damaging any prospect of

fruitful discussion A reduction of normal inner

restraints due to deindividuation generally leads

to undesirable social behaviour

Following the completion of G D S S facilities [23], experimental results start to e m e r g e from the use of the G D S S technologies Two recently

r e p o r t e d experiments [2,9] involve the use of anonymity factor with a G D S S in group decision settings In both cases, students were used as subjects to solve the university's parking problem

T h e reason given for using student subjects was that "it was difficult to recruit executive groups

to participate in a field e x p e r i m e n t " [9, p 269] Although the reason given was genuine, the ex- perimental results obtained were too restrictive that their validity cannot be generalized Students were called upon to a group meeting for the sole

p u r p o s e of experimentation, they were tempo- rary, low-stake, and generally stranger-to-stranger type of relationship Several shortcomings can be identified, and are summarized below

(ii) Controversial views and unworkable ideas may

surface

D u e to the lack of individual identity u n d e r

the anonymity situation, controversial views may

surface but would otherwise be subdued Some-

times a group may waste time on unworkable

ideas which have b e e n known f r o m past experi-

ence of some senior m e m b e r s that they were

unworkable, but they must now be explained at a

group m e e t i n g because some junior m e m b e r s raise

the issues T h e s e are some of the side-effects of

entertaining the anonymity of proponents

(iii) Lack of social-emotional support

People come to a group meeting to complete

some tasks assigned to the group However, peo-

ple are not machines; they n e e d social and emo-

tional support as well, either to share the same

thoughts or to comfort one's feelings T h e use of

electronic mail and anonymity of p r o p o n e n t s at

group meetings takes away the satisfaction of

(i) No personal relationships

A r a n d o m assembly of students m e a n s that personal relationships among t h e m do not exist

T h e lack of such a social web of personal rela- tionships also means that the experimental results cannot be generalized to a corporate context in which such working relationships generally exist

a m o n g group members F u r t h e r m o r e , the lack of personal histories in a specific context means that the experimental results obtained are not realis- tic

(ii) No political power structures

In an organizational context, the hierarchical relationships a m o n g employees m e a n that there exists a power structure a m o n g group members Within a r a n d o m assembly of students, such a power structure generally does not exist Thus the commonly seen activities within a group, such as political agenda setting, personal interests, etc., also do not exist It is known that power relation-

80 M.C Er and A.C Ng /Decision Support Systems 14 (1995) 75-83

ships sometimes can alter group decisions made

The lack of power structure again means that the

experimental results obtained are not realistic

(iii) Alliances among group members

On real contentious issues that come with per-

sonal attachment, people generally try to influ-

ence other group members formally or infor-

mally, perhaps to form an alliance with a view to

tipping group meetings to their favour Thus

group decisions are sometimes influenced by tasks

undertaken T h e use of university's parking prob-

lem as a task for the group problem solving

purpose may not be representative enough for

the experimental results to be generalized to other

task situations In other words, the issue of tasks

is an added dimension for consideration

4 Proximity and computer-mediated communica-

tion

T h e proximity of participants in using group

decision support systems with or without com-

puter-mediated communications may be further

face-to-face meeting using a GDSS without com-

puter-mediated communication; (ii) face-to-face

meeting using a GDSS with computer-mediated

communication; (iii) dispersed group meeting us-

ing a GDSS with computer-mediated communica-

tion T h e first two types are known as decision

room or legislation session, whereas the third one

is known as local-area decision network or com-

puter-mediated conference [3] The experimental

results are less controversial, but still some con-

tradictions have been noted [6,9] The findings

are summarized below

(i) Face-to-face meeting using a GDSS without

computer-mediated communication

Face-to-face group meetings supported by

GDSS technology without computer-mediated

communication are more apt to reach consensus,

but no relationship between decision quality and

consensus is found G r o u p members working in

this context tend to agree more explicitly

(ii) Face-to-face meeting using a GDSS with com- puter-mediated communication

At face-to-face group meetings supported by GDSS technology with computer-mediated com- munication, members tend to participate more equally and also more inhibitedly T h e contents

of computer-mediated communications are more

of opinion-giving type The impersonal communi- cations among group members, however, increase the perceived distance among them In respect of high quality decision made, contradictory empiri- cal results were obtained [5,6]

(iii) Dispersed group meeting using a GDSS with computer-mediated communication

For dispersed-group meetings supported by GDSS technology with computer-mediated com- munication, interpersonal conflict was found to

be increased [20] Communication is less efficient because of the need to type messages at key- boards, but the perceived distance among group members is decreased Generally, decision takes longer to reach in this context than those of face-to-face group meetings supported by GDSS technology with computer-mediated communica- tion As a result, overall participants' satisfaction declines Surprisingly, it was found that a GDSS did not significantly aid the dispersed-group situ- ation in decision making [6, p 10] Finally, in respect of choice shift, contradictory experimen- tal results were obtained [12,6]

The computer-mediated communication used

in GDSSs is not without its faults It is known that written texts, either via the electronic mail or other means, formalize interpersonal exchange

T h e use of electronic mail at a group meeting shifts the attention to tasks with increased imper- sonal communication, because social cues are lost which would otherwise be present in a direct face-to-face voice communication As a result, the emphasis is moved towards high quality deci- sions, but less towards social-emotional type of communications

5 Combination of anonymity and proximity

A combination of anonymity and proximity factors at group meetings using GDSS technolo-

M C Er and A C Ng / Decision Support Systems 14 (1995) 75-83 81

z

<

PROXIMITY

Face-to-face Dispersed

o

More critical

comments

Least but long

comments

Most but short comments

More critical comments

Fig 2 Experimental results on a group decision support

system with a combination of anonymity and proximity fac-

tors

gies has also b e e n tried out [9] T h e experimental

results are s u m m a r i z e d in Fig 2

U n d e r the anonymous and dispersed condi-

tions, group meetings generate most but short

comments, which are concerned with p r o b l e m

definitions and clarifications In contrast, u n d e r

the identified and face-to-face conditions, group

meetings g e n e r a t e least but long comments On

the other hand, u n d e r the anonymous and face-

to-face conditions, group m e m b e r s utter m o r e

critical comments; likewise for the case u n d e r the

identified and dispersed conditions

Generally, group m e m b e r s who were present

in the same r o o m were m o r e satisfied with their

experience, and the anonymous group saw a

G D S S as a m o r e effective tool than the identified

group felt [9, p 276] It is however not known

how the task complexity would affect the group

behaviour

6 Concluding remarks

T h e needs of business organizations and other

entities to solve p r o b l e m s and m a k e decisions

involving m o r e than one person naturally result

in group meetings, which provide the required

collective wisdom T h e e m e r g e n c e of group deci-

sion support systems is a direct response to the

needs of group meetings in improving the effi-

ciency and effectiveness of the group decision

making process On the one hand, G D S S s with

their c o m p u t e r technologies can rapidly search

and retrieve information f r o m internal and exter- nal databases to assist group m e m b e r s in reach- ing timely and informed decisions On the other hand, the provision of various decision technolo- gies in the form of software does formalize some

of the decision procedures Thus GDSSs offer a unique opportunity, unprecedential in history, to impact on the quality and timeliness of decisions made

T h e preliminary experimental results on the effects and effectiveness of the group decision making process, as r e p o r t e d in the literature, are still sketchy, not to mention about some of the inconclusive and contradictory findings A m o n g

m a n y other outstanding and unsolved issues in connection with GDSSs, we point out the follow- ing notable ones, which require research atten- tion

- T h e p o p u l a r a p p r o a c h of using student sub- jects in laboratory experiments should be aban- doned T h e use of student subjects carries with

it m a n y unrealistic experimental parameters:

no prior personal relationships, no complex personal histories, no power structures, no so- cial web of interconnections, no alliances, no political agendas, no hierarchical relationships,

no organizational contexts, no real contentious issues with personal attachment, no conflict of interests, etc All in all, it makes the results impossible to generalize, and in some cases, proving nothing

- O n e of the key factors repeatedly ignored by all researchers is that people do talk before and after group meetings outside a meeting room These extra channels of communication can sometimes alter decisions m a d e at group meetings F u r t h e r m o r e , these extra channels also m a d e anonymity in small-group meetings not possible

- T h e H a w t h o r n e effect of assessing the impact

of GDSSs cannot be overlooked Subjects learn how to o p e r a t e GDSSs afresh and thus carry with t h e m the initial excitement and enthusi- asm R e p e a t e d and long-term use of GDSSs may yield different results Self-reported as- sessment has b e e n known to be unreliable, as

it lacks objective m e a s u r e for many perfor- mance criteria of real-world interests

82 M.C Er and A.C Ng /Decision Support Systems 14 (1995) 75-83

- R e s e a r c h e r s have overlooked the fact that

stake-holders can decide whether or not to use

GDSSs at all If one's influence and interests

are eroded as a result of using GDSSs, one can

try to influence the adoption of GDSSs at

group meetings

- The group dynamics aspect has been entirely

ignored by GDSS researchers Issues such as

norms, leadership, power, role model, group

cohesion, group stability, personal attraction,

social and emotional support, motives, atti-

tude, etc., which are well-known in organiza-

tional behaviour literature [4], have not been

addressed by GDSS researchers

- The use of anonymity of proponents at group

meetings to reduce the dominance of high-

status members may not be appropriate Some-

times it is the experience, expertise, knowl-

edge, information and clever argumentation

that win the dominance of an individual mem-

ber at group meetings, not his seniority in an

organization

- Anonymity of proponents at group meetings

can lead to undesired effects, such as social

loafing (free riding) [11,7] and cognitive loafing

(subjects who expect their works to be pooled

with other's contribute less mental effort than

others at group discussions)

- GDSSs with their access to databases can pro-

vide more information at group meeting How-

ever, more information does not imply better

consensus reached by the group To the con-

trary, more information sometimes can result

in fewer agreements reached, more conflict at

group discussions, less satisfaction experienced

by group members, though it can generate

more and better solutions to diagnostic and

problem-finding tasks It should be noted that

consideration of more alternatives and more

in-depth analyses of those alternatives can lead

to the reverse effect: group members are less

sure that they have made the best decision

after a long deliberation In general, high deci-

sion quality does not imply high user satisfac-

tion

- Some trivial matters also require special atten-

tion The use of electronic mail at face-to-face

meetings in order to achieve anonymity neces-

sitates that executives type at the keyboards for messages to be sent In some circles, typing is considered as a secretary's job [17]; and thus executives may view this activity as distasteful and down-grading, not to mention that some executives have no keyboarding skills - the whole process can be time wasteful Further- more, for those group members who are com- puter illiterate, the pressure and demands to learn GDSSs may lead to techno-stress

From the above discussions, it appears that a change of research methodology is required in order to assess the impact of GDSSs on real-world group decision making To obtain realistic results,

a longitudinal study involving real executives in actual organizational settings will be mandatory Nevertheless, the critical evaluation of recent ex- perimental results as discussed in this paper does shed some light on future research directions that should be undertaken

A c k n o w l e d g e m e n t s

The use of K F U P M ' s and L T U ' s facilities in undertaking this research and in preparing this paper is gratefully acknowledged

R e f e r e n c e s

[1] H Bedau, Ethical Aspects of Group Decision Making,

in: W.C Swap, Ed., Group Decision Making, Sage Publi- cations, Beverly Hills (1984), pp 115-150

[2] T Connolly, L.M Jessup and J.S Valacich, Effects of Anonymity and Evaluative Tone on Idea Generation in Computer-Mediated Groups, Management Science 36 (1990), 689-703

[3] G DeSanctis and R.B Gallupe, A Foundation for the Study of Group Decision Support System, Management Science 33 (1987), 589-609

[4] A Elbing, Behavioral Decisions in Organizations, Second edition (Scott, Foresman and Co., Glenview, IL, 1970) [5] R.B Gallupe, The Impact of Task Difficulty on the Use

of a Group Decision Support System, PhD Dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, (1985)

[6] R.B Gallupe and J.D McKeen, Enhancing Computer- Mediated Communication: An Experimental Investiga- tion into the Use of a Group Decision Support System for Face-to-face versus Remote Meetings, Information and Management 18 (1990), 1-13

M.C Er and A.C Ng / Decision Support Systems 14 (1995) 75-83 83

[7] S.G Harkins and R.E Petty, Effects of Task Difficulty

and Task Uniqueness on Social Loafing, Journal of Per-

sonality and Social Psychology 43 (1982), 1214-1229

[8] M.T Jelassi and R.A Beauclair, An Integrated Frame-

work for Group Decision Support Systems Design, Infor-

mation and Management 13 (1987), 143-153

[9] L.M Jessup and D.A Tansik, Decision Making in an

Automated Environment: The Effects of Anonymity and

Proximity with a Group Decision Support System, Deci-

sion Sciences 22 (1991), 266-279

[10] P Keen and M.S Scott Morton, Decision Support Sys-

tems: An Organizational Perspective (Addison-Wesley,

Reading, Massachusetts, 1978)

[11] N.L Kerr and S.E Bruun, Ringelman Revisited: Alter-

native Explanations for the Social Loafing Effect, Per-

sonality and Social Psychology Bulletin 7 (1981), 224-231

[12] S Kiesler, J Siegel and T.W McGuire, Social Psycholog-

ical Aspects of Computer-mediated Communication,

American Psychologist 39, No 10 (1984), 1123-1134

[13] K.L Kraemer and J.L King, Computer-based Systems

for Cooperative Work and Group Decision Making, ACM

Computing Surveys 20 (1988), 115-146

[14] F.L Lewis, Facilitator: A Micro-computer Decision Sup-

port System for Small Groups, PhD Dissertation, Univer-

sity of Louisville (1982)

[15] M.A Nour and D Yen, Group Decision Support Sys-

tems: Towards a Conceptual Foundation, Information

and Management 23 (1992), 55-64

[16] J.F Nunamaker, L.M Applegate and B.R Konsynski,

Facilitating Group Creativity: Experience with a Group

Decision Support System, Journal of Management Infor-

mation Systems 3, No 4 (1987), 5-19

[17] J Otway and M Peltu, New Office Technology: Human

and Organizational Aspects (Frances Pinter, London,

1983)

[18] V.S Rao and S.L Jarvenpaa, Computer Support of

Groups: Theory-based Models for GDSS Research, Man-

agement Science 37 (1991), 1347-1362

[19] W.B Rouse and T.B Sheridan, Computer-aided Group

Decision Making: Theory and Practice, Technological

Forecasting and Social Changes 7 (1975), 113-126

[20] J Siegel, V Dubrovsky, S Kiesler and T.W McGuire, Group Processes in Computer-mediated Communication, Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Pro- cesses 37 (1986), 157-187

[21] R.H Sprague, A Framework for the Development of Group Decision Support Systems, MIS Quarterly 4, No

4 (1980), 1-26

[22] R Steeb and S.C Johnston, A Computer-based Interac- tive System for Group Decision Making, IEEE Transac- tions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics 11, No 8 (1981), 544-552

[23] D Vogel and J Nunamaker, Group Decision Support System Impact: Multi-methodological Exploration, Infor- mation and Management 18 (1990), 15-28

[24] R.G Watson, The Impact of a Computer System on Individual Behaviour and Collective Decision Making in

a Group Meeting, PhD Dissertation, University of Min- nesota, Minneapolis (1987)

M.C Er is a full professor at KFUPM

An author of more than 100 refereed journal papers, Dr Er is active in research in artificial intelligence, neu- ral networks, algorithms, software en- gineering, information systems, deci- sion support systems, and strategic planning for information systems He

is currently an editor of Journal or

Information Science and Technology

A.C Ng teaches at La Trobe Univer- sity, where she joined in 1991 Dr Ng

is active in research in human infor- mation processing, decision making, prediction of corporate failure, deci- sion support systems, accounting in- formation systems, and use of com- puters in accounting curriculum She

is a Fellow of the Australian Society

of Accountants