Most Group Support Systems (GSSs) have been designed to provide structure and process support for decision-making groups, but individuals and groups may have preferences for structuring group work that are not always compatible with the assumptions of GSS designers. This research reports a laboratory experiment which manipulated the degree of restrictive structure in a GSS and the preference for procedural order of the group. Performance was generally better when groups used the nonrestrictive GSS, although they were more satisfied with the restrictive environment. The results of this research suggest that preference for procedural order and restrictiveness moderates the manner in which technology-supported decision processes are used and perceived. These results have implications for the organizational implementation of current GSS configurations and for future GSS design.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Dennis, A. R. , & Gallupe, R. B. (1993). Ahistory of GSS empiricalresearch: Lessons learned and future directions. In L. Jessup & J. Valacich (Eds.), Group Support Systems: New perspectives (pp. 59-77). New York: Macmillan.
2.
Dennis, A. R. , Nunamaker, J. F., Jr., & Vogel, D. R. (1991). A comparison of laboratory and field research in the study of electronic meeting systems. Journal of Management Information Systems, 7, 107-135.
3.
DeSanctis, G. R. , D'Onofrio, M. J., Sambamurthy, V., & Poole, M. S. (1989). Comprehensiveness and restrictiveness in group decision heuristics: Effects of computer support on consensus decision making. In J. DeGross, J. Henderson, & B. Konsynski (Eds.), Proceedings from the Tenth Annual International Conference on Information Systems (pp. 131-140). Boston: ICIS.
4.
DeSanctis, G. R. , & Poole, M. S. (in press). Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: Adaptive structuration theory. Organization Science.
5.
Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Boston, MA: D.C. Heath.
6.
Green, S. G. , & Taber, T. D. (1980). The effects of three social decision schemes on decision group process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 25, 97-106.
7.
Hirokawa, R. Y. (1987). Why informed groups make faulty decisions: An investigation of possible interaction-based explanations. Small Group Behavior, 18, 3-29.
8.
Hirokawa, R. Y. , Ice, R., & Cook, J. (1988). Preference for procedural order, discussion structure and group decision performance. Communication Quarterly, 36, 217-226.
9.
Limayem, M. (1992). Automating decision guidance: Design and its impacts in a group decision support environment. Unpublished doctoral dissertafion, University of Minnesota.
10.
Mennecke, B. E. , Hoffer, J. A., & Wynne, B. E. (1992). The implications of group development and group history for GSS theory and practice. Small Group Research, 23, 524-572.
11.
Mennecke, B. E. , & Wheeler, B. C. (1993). Task matters: Modeling group task processes in experimental CSCW research. In J. Nunamaker & R. Sprague (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 149-157). Los Alamos, CA: IEEE Society Press.
12.
Nunamaker, J. F., Jr. , Dennis, A. R., Valacich, J. S., Vogel, D. R., & George, J. F. (1991). Electronic meeting systems to support group work. Communications of the ACM, 34, 41-61.
13.
Pinsonneault, A. , & Kraemer, K. L. (1989). The impact of technological support on groups: An assessment of the empirical research. Decision Support Systems, 5, 197-216.
14.
Poole, M. S. , & DeSanctis, G. (1989). Use of group decision support systems as an appropriation process. In J. Degross, R. Blanning, & D. King (Eds.), Proceedings of the TWenty-Second Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 149-157). Los Alamos, CA: EEEE Society Press.
15.
Poole, M. S. , & DeSanctis, G. R. (1990). Understanding the use of group decision support systems: The theory of adaptive structuration. In C. Steinfield & J. Fulk (Eds.), Theoretical approaches to information technologies in organizations (pp. 173-193). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
16.
Putnam, L. L. (1979). Preference for procedural order in task-oriented small groups. Communication Monographs, 46, 193-218.
17.
Putnam, L. L. (1982). Procedural messages and small group work climates: A lag sequential analysis. Communication Yearbook, 5, 331-350.
18.
Silver, M. S. (1990). Decision support systems: Directed and nondirected change. Information Systems Research, 1, 47-70.
19.
Silver, M. S. (1991). Systems that support decision makers: Description and analysis. New York: Wiley.
20.
Stasser, G. (1992). Pooling of unshared information during group discussion. In S. Worchel, W. Wood, & J. A. Simpson (Eds.), Group process andproductivity (pp. 48-67). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
21.
VanGundy, A. B. (1988). Techniques of structuredproblem solving. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
22.
Wagner, G. R. , Wynne, B. E., & Mennecke, B. E. (1993). Group Support Systems facilities and software. In L. Jessup & J. Valacich (Eds.), Group Support Systems: New perspectives (pp. 8-55). New York: Macmillan.
23.
Wheeler, B. C., & Mennecke, B. E. (1992). The school of business policy task manual: Working paper #92-524. Unpublished manuscript, Indiana University Graduate School of Business, Bloomington.
