Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Group decision support systems have been advocated as mechanisms for facilitating conflict management in groups. Two noted shortcomings of research on GDSS effects motivate this study: (i) Most researchers have compared the effects of computer-based and manual delivery of structures for supporting group decision making. By treating the GDSS as a “black box,” researchers have neglected attention toward examining the effects of specific capabilities delivered by a GDSS. (ii) Despite the volume of accumulated research, scant attention has been paid to examining GDSS impacts on the group interaction process itself. This research proposes a conceptual view of a GDSS as providing communication and consensus capabilities for supporting the cognitive conflict management process in group decision making. Through a manipulation of the delivery of communication and consensus structures to groups working on a strategic planning task, several exploratory research questions were examined. The GDSS used in this study was the SAMM system. Key results obtained were: (a) despite using the same GDSS structures, groups exhibited a variety of patterns of conflict management processes; (b) the delivery of communication and consensus structures together, as opposed to primarily communication structures, however, did result in higher confrontiveness, or the ability of groups to confront their conflicts and resolve them in positive ways; (c) higher confrontiveness resulted in higher levels of post-meeting consensus; and, (d) computerization of structures enabled groups to confront their conflict and resolve it more positively than when groups were provided with equivalent manual structures. The results demonstrate the value of process-oriented methodological approaches to investigating effects of GDSS designs.
Sambamurthy et al. (Tue,) studied this question.