An experimental investigation of automated versus manual support for stakeholder identification and assumption surfacing in small groups.
AuthorEaston, Annette Cecilia.
Committee ChairNunamaker, Jay
MetadataShow full item record
PublisherThe University of Arizona.
RightsCopyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.
AbstractThe increasing complexity of decision situations has required organizations to integrate more types of expertise and consider more criteria for effective group decision making. Researchers have begun to examine how computer based support in the form of a Group Decision Support System (GDSS) can enhance the process and outcomes of decision making groups. This dissertation investigated the impact of GDSS for strategic planning impact analysis. The GDSS was based on the Stakeholder Identification and Assumption Surfacing Model. A controlled laboratory experiment was used to compare the process and outcomes of 4-person groups which had GDSS support, comparable manual support, and no support. The experimental task was a policy statement requiring undergraduates to have a personal computer for admittance to a business college. Groups were asked to determine a list of the most critical stakeholders who would be impacted by the policy, and their assumptions regarding the policy statement. Measures were taken on decision outcomes (decision quality, decision time, and satisfaction with the outcomes) and decision process variables (quantity of unique alternatives, distribution of individual participation, and satisfaction with the process). Additionally, observational data was recorded through the use of videotape recordings of the sessions. The major findings of the study are: (1) Decision quality is enhanced when groups use a structured methodology; (2) Decision time was shortest in the unstructured groups, with GDSS groups finishing somewhat faster than manual structured groups; (3) Satisfaction with the outcomes was not different between structured and unstructured groups, however it was higher in the GDSS groups compared to the structured manual groups; (4) Quantity of unique alternatives was much higher in the groups using a structured methodology; (5) Distribution of individual participation was more equal in groups using a structured methodology; and (6) Satisfaction with the process was not different between structured and unstructured groups, however the GDSS groups were more satisfied than the structured manual groups.
Degree ProgramBusiness Administration