Issues and Concerns About Computer-Supported Meetings: The ... · Issues and Concerns About...

Computer-Supported Meetings

Issues and ConcernsAbout Computer-Supported Meetings:The Facilitator’sPerspective

By: Fred NiedermanUniversity of Baltimore1420 N. Charles StreetBaltimore, MD 21201U.S.A.fniederman @ ubmail.ubalt.edu

Catherine M. BeiseComputer Science and Information

SystemsP.O. Box 444Kennesaw State CollegeMarietta, GA 30061-0444U.S.A.cbeise@ kennesaw.edu

support systems (GSS) for the same reason.The two approaches can be taken separatelyor together. In this study, in-depth interviewswith 37 practicing facilitators provided their per-spectives on critical factors that influence meet-ing success and potential benefits and con-cerns with the use of GSS. Respondentsfocused on a core of communication and groupprocess skills as critical for facilitator success.Overall, the respondents observed or anticipat-ed more efficient and effective task perfor-mance as benefits of GSS technology. Theirconcerns focused on technology-relatedissues: participant anxiety, systems inflexibility,and systems reliability. Views of facilitators withhigh and low levels of GSS experience arelargely consistent. High-experience GSS facili-tators viewed technical issues as more centralto meeting success, while low-experience GSSfacilitators focused more heavily on attributesof the group. The paper concludes by offeringsuggestions for identifying and training GSSfacilitators and comments on key issues ofimportance to GSS designers, based on thefacilitator’s perspective.

Keywords: Group support systems, electronicmeetings

ISRL Categories: HA0301, HA0302

Peggy M. BeranekComputer Information SystemsP.O. Box 4015Georgia State UniversityAtlanta, GA 30303U.S.A.cismmb@gsusgil .gsu.edu

Abstract

In an effort to boost meeting productivity andsuccess, managers may employ trained groupfacilitators. They may also implement group

Introduction

Face-to-face meetings serve as a venue tobring together organizational leaders for deci-sion making, issue tracking, policy setting, anda variety of activities aimed at adding reliabilityand flexibility in response to the ever-changingbusiness environment. Although managers areknown to spend a great deal of their time inmeetings (cf., Ives and Olson, 1981; Mintzberg,1973; Panko, 1992), there is a high level of dis-satisfaction with meeting productivity (Kayser,1990; Monge, et al., 1989).~

Group support systems (GSS) technologies areintended to increase the efficiency and effec-tiveness of group meetings by providing a ricl~variety of tools to aid the group in handling data,

MIS Quarter/y/March 1996 1


modelling decisions, structuring activities, andenhancing communication channels(DeSanctis, 1988). Laboratory and field studieshave shown that under some conditions GSScan stimulate positive effects in group work.1

Although in some circumstances GSS might aida group to overcome group process difficulties,in general, adding technology to the meeting isbest done in combination with other beneficialmeeting practices. Good meetings require sig-nificant management or organization (3M,1987). Where little planned managementoccurs, meetings tend to be chaotic, and muchtime can be wasted. "

One strategy for managing meetings involvesdelegating a variety of tasks to a meeting man-ager or facilitator. Facilitation is a set of func-tions or activities carried out before, during, andafter a meeting to help the group achieve itsown outcomes (Bostrom, et al., 1991). In prac-tice, facilitation of face-to-face meetings is a dif-ficult, multi-faceted task. The facilitator mustconsider individual personalities, emerginggroup norms, and political realities in eachaction. GSS technology, although intended toaid the facilitator, may at the same time interactwith these other group dimensions to increasethe complexity of the domain in which the facili-tator acts.

Background

The role of facilitator is generally viewed asinfluential in GSS success. Considerable anec-dotal evidence suggests that facilitation in com-puter-supported meetings is a key success fac-tor.2 Some commercial GSSs, such as VentanaCorporation’s GroupSystems and IBM’sTeamFocus, require at least one facilitator tomanage transmission and processing of infor-mation during the meeting. Others, such asSAMM (DeSanctis, et al., 1987) and SAGE(Watson, et al., 1994), allow for optional facilita-tion. However, even when optional, facilitation isan important factor in successful implementation.

Researchers have explored other factorsthought to influence GSS-supported meetingoutcomes, such as anonymity (Connolly, et al.,

1990; Nunamaker, et al., 1991) and group size(Gallupe, et al., 1992), with mixed results.Facilitation, however, has received less atten-tion. Higher levels of performance, in terms ofsignificantly higher assessment of group out-comes, group process, and cohesion werefound when GSS groups had facilitation avail-able (Anson, et al., 1995; Reagan-Cirincione,1994). A more active process facilitation com-pared favorably with a more technologically ori-ented "chauffeur-driven" facilitation in terms ofpost-meeting consensus (Dickson, et al.,1993).~ In contrast, little support for facilitatorimpacts was found in another series of studies(George et al., 1990; 1992).4

Research Questions

The definition and measurement of success inrneetings is quite difficult, yet essential for dis-tinguishing between productive and unproduc-tive group facilitation strategies. Difficulties indefining and measuring meeting success comefrom several sources. Groups perform a widevariety of tasks, some of which have no demon-strably correct answer (McGrath, 1984). Thisrnakes it difficult to directly measure outcomequality across tasks. Satisfaction with variousmeeting elements (e.g., performance, process)is particularly important. It may influence thelong-term effectiveness of the group or itsenthusiasm in implementing a solution.However, in laboratory studies of GSS, satisfac-tion is sometimes negatively correlated withtask performance (Gallupe, et al., 1988).Moreover, group participants may bring a vari-ety of personal objectives to a meeting and mayjudge meeting success based on different crite-ria. In spite of these difficulties, facilitators in theorganizational setting are likely to require someoutcome measurement. To interpret facilitators’comments on influences of meeting success, itis important to understand how they define andmeasure success as well as whether there aredifferences between high-experience and low-experience GSS facilitators.

Research Question #1. How do facilitatorsmeasure meeting success, and how does this

2 MIS Quarterly/March 1996


vary between high-experience and low-experi-ence GSS facilitators?

Strategic facilitative communication has threeparts: substantive, procedural, and relational(Hirokawa and Gouran, 1989). The substantiverole is concerned with facilitating acquisition,manipulation, and use of information needed forproblem solving or decision making, thus focus-ing on meeting content. The procedural dimen-sion is process-oriented, concerned with main-taining task focus via specific steps and tactics.Another aspect is the relational dimension, whichinvolves management of interpersonal and groupsocial interaction, in fact, minimizing problemsarising from such interaction in order to maintainfocus on task (Hirokawa and Gouran, 1989). It expected that elements of each of these dimen-sions are critical to facilitator success.

Facilitators identified and ranked the 16 mostfrequent categories of facilitator behavior, thetop six of which are: (1) plans/designs meet-ings, (2) listens/clarifies/integrates, (3) demon-strates flexibility, (4) keeps outcome focused,(5) creates open environment, and (6)selects/prepares technology (Clawson, 1992).These findings can be expanded by focusing onthe skills and/or characteristics that bring aboutsuccessful facilitation, particularly by examiningwhether there is a contrast between high-expe-rience and low-experience GSS facilitators.

Although past studies indicate that facilitation isan important element in successful meetings, itis not clear how facilitation combines with othermeeting characteristics to influence success.Adding GSS technology increases the complex-ity of the facilitation task. It requires the facilita-tor to determine how and when to employ tech-nology in addition to performing traditional facili-tation tasks. It is important to consider not onlythe critical factors contributing to successfulfacilitation but also the broader issue of suc-cessful meetings. Since high-experience andlow-experience GSS facilitators may differ intheir views, these issues should be consideredfrom both perspectives.

Research Question #2a. What are the criticalfactors for successful performance of the facilita-tion task, and how do these vary between high-experience and low-experience GSS facilitators?

Research Question #2b. What are the criticalfactors for successful meetings and how dothese vary between high-experience and low-experience GSS facilitators?

Critical to integrating GSS into the arsenal avail-able to facilitators is an understanding of boththe advantages and risks involved in use of thetechnology. Knowing the sources of benefitand/or cost of using GSS can help developersand users find ways to expand benefits andreduce costs. Group process can be a source ofboth benefits and costs in terms of meeting out-comes. Process gains can be derived from hav-ing more total information available, synergyamong group members, more objective evalua-tion of ideas, stimulation of group members, andlearning from one another. In contrast, the groupcan experience process losses due to limited

"air time" for members to express their opinions,production blocking -- where a group memberforgets an idea while waiting his or her turn --free-riding, pressures to conform, and a varietyof other mechanisms (see Table 1) (Jessup Valacich, 1993). The formulation of processgains and losses quite specifically highlightsimpacts of group process on meeting outcomes.GSS may also affect meeting outcomes directlyas well as through its influence on groupprocess. From high-experience GSS facilitators,we can learn what benefits and costs, includingthose related to process, GSS has generated.From low-experience GSS facilitators, we canlearn what benefits they would want to receivefrom using GSS and what costs they wouldanticipate. These insights could in turn suggestdirections for GSS designers and highlight areasfor GSS facilitator training.

Research Question #3a. What do facilitatorsperceive to be the benefits and costs of usingGSS?

Research Question #3b. To what extent doperceived benefits and costs of using GSSreflect concerns with process gains and losses?

Research Question #3c. How do the per-ceived benefits and costs of using GSS varybetween high-experience and Iow-experier~ceGSS facilitators?

MIS Quarterly/March 1996 3


Table 1. Important Sources of Group Process Losses and Gains

Common Process Losses Sources of Group Process LossesAir timeProduction blockingFailure to rememberConformance pressureEvaluation apprehensionFree ridingCognitive inertiaSocializing

DominationInformation overloadCoordination problems

Partitioning available speech timeForgetting ideas while listening to others’ contributionsMissing or forgetting others’ contributionsReluctance to criticize due to politeness or fear of reprisalWithholding comments for fear of negative evaluationWithholding participation out of reliance on others to do the jobReluctance to present ideas tangential to current discussionNon-task discussion, beyond what is necessary for effectivefunctioningSome group member(s) monopolizing the group’s timeInformation presented faster than it is processedInability to blend participants’ actions into a cohesive activity

Common Process Gains Sources of Group Process Gains

More informationSynergy

More objective evaluationStimulationLearning

Each group member adds new information for the groupThe group has more total skills and may have emergent benefitsfrom the combining of abilitiesColleagues can catch errors made by individualsBeing part of a group may stimulate enthusiasmMembers may learn positive behaviors from one another

Adapted from Jessup, L.M. and Valacich, J.S., 1993, pp. 128 and 129.

Method

This study gathered data by interviewing 37 prac-ticing facilitators with a range of GSS experience.Open-ended questions were used to elicit therespondents’ views in their own terms. Closed-ended questions were used for gathering demo-graphic information. Each respondent was inter-viewed by one of the authors either in person orby telephone.S Most of the interviews ranged from60 to 90 minutes, although the shortest was about40 minutes, and one lasted over two hours.

Data analysis was performed in two steps. First,each of us [authors] extracted one or more issuesor points from each comment and grouped likeissues for each question into classes. Second,during a face-to-face meeting we discussed eachcomment, issue, and class until consensus wasreached regarding (1) the issue(s) represented each comment and (2) the placement of issuesinto classes. These issues and classes Were thenused to prepare tables; analysis of these tablesled to the discussion of themes presented belowin the results section of this paper.

Thirty-five percent of the respondents were female(thus 65 percent male). The geographic distribu-tion of respondents was: Southeast, 40 percent;Midwest, 30 percenet; Northeast, 22 percent; andWest, 8 percent. The respondents had eclecticeducational backgrounds, including undergradu-ate majors in French, German, medical technolo-gy, and political science. Most respondents hadmasters’ degrees (81 pement), and a majority hadPh.D.s (62 percent). About half of the respondents(51 percent) were from academia, 16 percentwere from government and other non-profit organi-zations, while 33 percent were from industry. Thisdistribution reflects the fact that GSS is still in theeady stages of adoption outside of research anddevelopment environments. Nearly all respon-dents, across the range of GSS usage, use com-puters at least for word processing.6

"rhe sample was comprised of 37 participants.Seventeen of these rated themselves as GSSfacilitators. These facilitators are referred to as"high experience" GSS facilitators. Eighteen partic-ipants rated themselves as facilitating primarilywithout GSS. These facilitators are referred to as

4 MIR Quarterly/March 1996


"low experience" GSS facilitators. The two remain-ing respondents classified themselves as GSSfacilitators. However, one had such a low numberof total meetings and the other such a low per-

centage of field experience that in our judgment,they were more accurately categorized with the"low experience" group (see Tables 2a and 2b formore data regarding respondents’ backgrounds).

Table 2a. High-GSS Facilitator Attributes

# % Years Facil. PractJ Highest Facil.Meeting Field* Facil. Envment. Acad. Educ, Field Gender Age Code

1000 100 7 I nd P BA Econ M 35-39 104500 100 21 Gov P MBA Finance M 45-49 313250 80 12 Aca A PhD MIS M 40-44 109200 100 Aca A PhD MIS M 40-44 207200 50 Aca A PhD MIS M 35-39 205100 100 15 Aca A PhD ChemEng M 45-49 306100 100 5 P PhD-cand Mgt M 25-29 206100 100 4 Aca A MBA MIS M 300100 100 4 Ind P MS MIS F 50-54 305100 50 5 Aca A PhD-cand MIS M 30-34 203100 50 5 Aca A PhD MIS M 40-44 20480 100 2 I nd P BA French F 30275 80 5 Aca A PhD-cand MIS M 25-29 102

70 86 4 Aca A PhD MIS M 30-34 10350 100 1 Ind P MS IndPsych M 25-29 10750 60 4 Aca A PhD MIS F 30.34 30950 50 3 Aca A PhD-cand MIS M 25-29 200

* This column indicates the percentage of group meetings facilitated by the individual that were conducted with gen-uine organizational groups performing real tasks in contrast to groups operating under controlled, experimental con-ditions. Note that physical location is not considered here.

Table 2b. Low-GSS Facilitator Attributes

# % Years Facil. PractJ Highest FacihMeeting Field* Facil, Envment, Acad. Educ. Field Gender Age Code

1000 100 23 Gov P MA IndRel M 45-49 3151000 100 20 Ind P PhD Educ F 45-49 1121000 100 20 Gov P BA CityPIng F 40-44 314250 100 20 Aca A PhD Mgt M 40-44 108200 100 12 Ind P MS OD F 40-44 111100 100 17 Aca A PhD I ndPsych M 45-49 310100 100 15 I nd P MS Counsel. F 35-39 106100 100 7 Ind P AA F 30-34 201100 100 7 Gov P PhD PA M 40-44 202100 80 23 Aca A PhD Urban M 30175 100 Ind A MS HumanBe M 50-54 11075 100 6 Ind P PhD Stats F 45-49 31260 83 6 Gov P MPA PA F 30-34 30350 60 8 Gov P MA AfroAm F 40-44 10150** 20 4 Aca A PhD-cand MIS M 25-29 208

40 75 12 Aca A PhD OB F 35-39 30825 20 2 Ind P PhD History M 40-44 31115 100 2 Aca A PhD OR/MSS M 50-54 30710"* 100 2 Gov A MA Educ F 35-39 10510 100 2 Aca A Ph D QM M 40-44 304

* This column indicates the percentage of group meetings facilitated by the individual that were conducted with gen-uine organizational groups performing real tasks in contrast to groups operating under controlled, experimental con-ditions. Note that physical location is not considered here.

**Unlike other low-experience GSS facilitators, the bulk of meetings facilitated by this individual used GSS but did nottotal to 30 meetings.

MI,~ OtJRrtartv/MRr~.h 1,q.cl6 R


This exploratory study is aimed at better under-standing the conditions under which GSS canbe successfully used. It examines the views ofpracticing facilitators to identify difficulties andpotentially helpful approaches as GSS technol-ogy becomes available to more organizationalgroups.

Findings

Meeting evaluation

Facilitators generally used three categories ofcdteria for evaluating meeting success. Theseare: (1) meeting outcomes, or potentially direct-ly measurable results of the meeting; (2) mem-bers’ overall satisfaction or satisfaction with par-ticular aspects of the meeting; and (3) long-termimpacts of the meeting (see Table 3). The firsttwo factors roughly correspond to "task-orient-ed" and "socioemotional" outcomes discussedby Zigurs (1992). The third category evaluatesmeeting results in an organizational context.

Facilitators were concerned with the quality oftask outcomes. This concern was evidentamong both high-experience (9/15 --60 per-cent) and low-experience (15/23- 65 percent)GSS facilitators.7 More comments directlyaddressed this aspect of meeting outcomesthan all other comments related to meeting out-come. Facilitators also noted concern with: (1)efficient use of time or finishing the agenda; (2)commitment to results; (3) maintaining intactrelationships among group members at the endof the meeting; and (4) increased understandingor learning about the problem/task by the group.It is surprising how few facilitators evaluatedsecondary issues such as amount of learningand meeting efficiency. Each of these factors,though, would be difficult to measure, and theirimportance might vary greatly depending on thetask and the values of the group participantsand organization.

High-experience and low-experience GSS facili-tators did not appear to differ significantlyregarding key indicators of successful meetings.Assessing whether the technology added valueto the meeting was noted by one high-experi-

ence GSS facilitator. This might be important tofacilitators in the GSS setting particularly wherethere was a significant:’price for using GSS orwhere groups use facilitation only when alsousing GSS technology.

Although a majority of facilitators’ commentsfocused on meeting outcomes, 34 percent(25/73 -- 34 percent) addressed group attitudesor satisfaction about the meeting. The largestnumber of these addressed a holistic groupfeeling about the meeting (10/25- 40 percent).However, a significant number more specificallyaddressed satisfaction with outcome (6/25 --24 percent) or with process (5/25 -- 20 per-cent). It is not surprising that facilitators woulddistinguish outcome and process considering along history of research on small groups orga-nized around that distinction. More interesting,though, is the relatively large number of facilita-tors concerned with overall meeting satisfactionwho do not distinguish between process andoutcome. Comfort with the technology wasmentioned only once and by a low-experienceGSS facilitator.

Two facilitators pointed out that there might bean inverse relationship between task accom-plishment and satisfaction. For example, ifgroup members worked hard, accomplished alot, and were exhausted by the end of the meet-ing, their satisfaction level might be low fromweariness rather than high from accomplish-ment. Several facilitators evaluate both tangibleoutcomes and group satisfaction to get a richeroverall picture of meeting results.

Finally, high-experience and low-experienceGSS facilitators differed in measuring long-termmeeting impacts. All respondents who indicatedfollow-up of this type were in the low-experienceGSS category. Specific measures of long-termmeeting impacts include: following up on meet-ing results; assessing repeat business; andobserving publicity in the in-house newspaper."These measures imply a view that meetingresults are important largely in their impact onprojects or the organization. Few facilitatorsnoted attention to this category of measures,perhaps due to high cost or lack of access.’There may also be concern that, "Linking the"goodness’ of outcomes to particular decisionprocesses is extraordinarily difficult . . ."



Table 3. Facilitators’ Measures of Success

Comments High GSS Low GSS Total

Meeting OutcomeTask outcome/effectivenessFinish agenda/task completion/efficiencyCommitment to resultsRelationships intactLearning/understandingAction planAdded value of technologyAgreement/consensusConflict addressedFacilitator adaptation to emergent objectives

Subtotal

Satisfaction/PerceptionsAccomplishment/group feeling*Satisfaction/comfort with outcomeSatisfaction/comfort with processComfort with technologySatisfaction with efficiencySatisfaction with facilitiesSatisfaction with facilitation

Subtotal

Long-Term ImpactsFollow-up on meeting results**Want to return/repeat businessPublicity in internal newspaper

Subtotal

9 15 241 2 31 1 20 2 21 1 20 1 11 0 10 1 11 0 11 0 1

15 23 38

4 6 102 4 63 2 50 1 11 0 10 1 10 1 1

10 15 25

0 5 52 2 41 0 13 7 10

TOTALS 28 45 73

* Note that the general answer "satisfaction" was counted under this category.** Includes behavioral change and organizational change.

(Reagan and Rohrbaugh, 1990, p. 21) given thedifficulty of testing whether other alternate deci-sions could have done as well or better in thesame circumstances.

In addition to indicating meeting success crite-ria, several facilitators noted the methods theyused for collecting data on these criteria (seeTable 4). Surveys and immediate verbal andnon-verbal feedback were most frequentlynoted. A number of facilitators mentioned infor-mal methods, anecdotes, or relying solely onthe facilitator’s own subjective evaluation. Other

aspects of meeting evaluation emerging fromthe data were: (1) differences at the time which meetings were evaluated (immediatelyafter the meeting was most frequently men-tioned; later follow up was also noted) and (2)the constituencies evaluated (meeting partici-pants were most frequently mentioned; groupleader, outside sponsor, and the facilitator orfacilitation team were also noted).

In summary, high-experience and low-experi-ence GSS facilitators differed very little overallin their criteria for assessing meeting success.

MIS Quarterly~March 1996 7


Table 4. Facilitators’ Measurement Approaches


Survey/questionnaire 3 5 8Verbal/non-verbal feedback 3 5 8Facilitator reflection 2 3 5Informal 1 2 3Group assessment session 2 1 3Interviews 1 1 2Post-meeting debriefing 2 0 2Anecdote 0 1 1Peer review 1 0 1Telephone surveys 0 1 1TOTALS 15 19 34

This may be due to relatively little difference ingeneral facilitation experience between high-experience and low-experience GSS facilitators.Low-experience GSS facilitators, however,more frequently measured long-term impacts ofmeeting decisions. Both groups focused heavilyon task outcome and satisfaction (holistic, out-come, and process).

CSFs for facilitators

Personal abilities and characteristics of facilita-tors, such as communication skills and ego neu-trality, comprised most of the comments byrespondents (127/172 -- 74 percent) (seeTable 5). These characteristics affect the abilityof the facilitator to maintain positive relationsamong people, to state, clarify, and enact stepsor procedures, and to move the task along.These fit well with Hirokawa and Gouran’s(1989) procedural and relational dimensions (orwhat Zigurs (1992) called "socio-emotional").Task/outcome-related characteristics were alsocited by facilitators (36/172 -- 21 percent).These fit well into the "substantive" dimensionproposed by Hirokawa and Gouran.Surprisingly, facilitators seemed less concernedabout technical knowledge, referring infrequent-ly to "knowledge of tools" (9/172 -- 5 percent).

In general, facilitator characteristics frequentlycited by high-experience GSS facilitators werealso frequently cited by low-experience GSSfacilitators. Communication skills, group dynam-

ics knowledge, and ego neutrality were fre-quently noted by both high-experience (19/73-- 26 percent) and low-experience (31/99 -- percent) GSS facilitators. Task/outcome focuswas also frequently stated by both high-experi-ence (5/17 -- 29 percent) and low-experience(8/20 -- 40 percent) GSS facilitators.

Facilitator characteristics and abilities included:(11) effective information exchange, (2)theoreti-cal and practical experience with how groupsbehave, (3) concentration on the group and itstask, and (4) perception of deeper levels meaning from verbal and non-verbal groupcommunication. These characteristics are prob-ably often found together and reinforce oneanother. Although the frequency of citing theseitems varied somewhat from high-experience tolow-experience GSS facilitators, it would be rea-sonable to view the range of characteristics asa necessary core of skills for meeting facilitationwith or without GSS.

High-experience and low-experience GSS facili-tators, however, referenced other characteris-tics with differing frequency. More high-experi-ence GSS respondents (8/53 -- 15 percent)compared to low-experience GSS respondents(3/74 -- 4 percent) noted "flexibility" as a criticalfactor. This may reflect a concern with technicalreliability (if the system goes down, you hadbetter have a back-up plan). Another interpreta-tion might be that groups appropriate the tech-nology differently, thus requiring the facilitator topromote technology use in some cases, whilehaving to restrict or channel it in others.


Table 5. Facilitator Critical Success Factors


Personal Abilities and CharacteristicsCommunication skills 8 11 19Group dynamics knowledge 6 11 17Ego neutrality 5 9 14Reading the group 7 6 13Humorous/energetic/motivating 7 5 12Flexibility 8 3 11Listening skills 2 7 9Self-knowledge/self-awareness 4 5 9Confrontive 3 4 7Appreciation of group/people 0 6 6Cognitive skills 1 3 4Real-time performance 2 1 3Patience 0 2 2Experience 0 1 1

Subtotal 53 74 127

Substantive (Outcome)Task/outcome focus 5 8 14Planning skills 5 7 13Problem-solving skills 6 5 11

Subtotal 16 20 36

TechnologyKnowledge of tools 4 5 9

Subtotal 4 5 9

TOTALS 73 99 172

Alternatively, in their current state of develop-ment, GSS may tend toward higher levels ofrestrictiveness (Silver, 1990), which facilitatorflexibility serves to mitigate.

Listening skills and appreciation of group/peo-ple also varied widely, with high-experienceGSS noting both infrequently (2/53 -- 1 percentand 0/53 -- 0 percent) compared to higher fre-quency among low-experience GSS facilitators(7/74 -- 9 percent and 6/74 -- 8 percent). Oneinterpretation might be that this represents moreattention to technology (and therefore less togroup members) among high-experience GSSfacilitators. On the other hand, it may be thathigh-experience GSS facilitators divided skillsinto technical and social and subsumed theseissues into communication skills and relatedcomments, whereas the low-experience GSSfacilitators did not.

In summary, high-experience and low-experi-ence GSS facilitators viewed a cluster of com-munication, group, and task-related skills ascritical to facilitator success. They differed in thefrequency of citing flexibility, listening skills, andappreciation of group/people as CSFs.

CSFs for meetings

Facilitators noted a wide variety of discrete ele-ments influencing meeting success. These weregrouped into six themes: the group, agendadesign, the facilitator, task/goal, technology,and physical environment (see Table 6).

Group attributes comprised almost a third of thecritical factors for meeting success (86/266 --32 percent). This was especially the case



Table 6. Facilitators’ Critical Success Factors for Meeting Success

Comments High GSS Low GSS TotalGroup

Right ParticipantsBuy-inParticipationFlexibilityCommitmentLeader decision-maker involvementWorks togetherHas a common groundMotivated to accomplishNo one dominatesNo one sabotagesOpen positive risk-taking attitudePositive attitude toward technologyUnderstands agendaRight sizeManages conflictNo hidden agendaUnderstands goals/objectivesBrings information with themNo infightingOverall synergyNo difficult individualStake in the resultsRight resourcesProcess efficiencyTask focus

SubtotalAgenda

PlanningRight steps~structureHaving oneClear agendaNot too many itemsAll attend full sessionGood start to meetingStart/end timeBig blocks of timeGroup builds own agendaGroup prioritizes own agendaParticipants free to leave anytimePlan for breaksSufficient timeFull commitment of timeLoose agendaNot too quick to jump to solutionProcess efficiencyFun

SubtotalFacilitators

Good Communication~process skillsUnderstand the groupFlexibleUnderstand the ,qroup’s objectives

5 84 44 33 02 02 32 51 01 21 01 31 01 01 00 60 50 50 20 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 1

29 54

9 85 53 22 12 31 01 21 11 01 01 01 01 00 20 10 10 10 10 1

29 ,29

138732571314111655211111111

83

1710

53513211111211111

58

8 14 224 0 42 2 42 0 2

10 MIS Quarterly~March 1996


Table 6. Continued

Ability to function in facility 1 0 1Egoless 1 2 3Focus on right issues 1 0 1Having technical assistance 1 0 1Know available resources 1 0 1Leadership 1 5 6Task focus 0 2 2Coach for meeting initiator 0 1 1Facilitator legitimacy 0 1 1Understand the group 0 1 1Ability to use tools 0 1 1

Subtotal 22 29 51Technology

Reliability 2 3 5Technology not taking central focus 2 0 2Blending tech./face-to-face communication 1 0 1Documentation 1 1 2Effective technology 1 0 1Efficient technology 1 1 2Flexible software 1 0 1Good screen 1 0 1Not too dependent on technology 1 0 1Parallel/anonymous input 1 0 1Quiet printer 1 0 1Right tools 1 1 2Technology acceptable to the users 1 0 1Tool/task fit 1 0 1Backup plan 0 1 1Appropriate use 0 1 1Group familiarity 0 1 1

Subtotal 16 9 25

Task/GoalClear objectives/purpose 4 8 12Expectation management 4 2 6Real problem/need to meet 2 6 8Closure/action steps 1 1 2Implementing outcomes/follow-up 1 1 2Information available 1 1 2Setting boundaries 1 0 1Track record of follow-through 1 0 1Management support 0 1 1No external politics 0 1 1

Subtotal 15 21 36Physical Environment

Facility 4 5 9Off-site 1 0 1Set up 1 0 1No distractions 0 1 1No heavy lunch 0 1 1

Subtotal 6 7 13TOTALS 117 149 266



among low-experience GSS facilitators (54/147-- 37 percent). Most frequently mentionedamong the group attributes were: (1) having theright participants, particularly the ultimate deci-sion makers, attending the session; (2) buy-inor group "ownership" of the process; (3) partici-pation by group members without an individualdominating or sabotaging the process; (4) groupflexibility concerning its procedures and activi-.ties; (5) group size; (6) conflict managementskills; and (7) working together cooperatively.

Planning meetings thoroughly and having agood agenda (or any agenda) were frequentlymentioned. The agenda should be clear andconcise, and get the meeting off to a good start.A higher percentage of high-experience GSSfacilitators’ comments (29/117- 25 percent)were about agenda than those of low-experi-ence GSS facilitators (29/149 -- 19 percent).This could be due to the design of some GSSsthat require a pre-established meeting agenda.

Also frequently mentioned were key facilitatorcharacteristics including: (1) good communica-tion/group process skills; (2) understanding thegroup; (3) egoless facilitation; (4) flexibility; understanding the group’s objectives; (6) lead-ership; and (7) task focus. Interestingly, onlyone high-experience GSS facilitator (1/22 -- percent) mentioned leadership skills, althoughfive low-experience GSS facilitators (5/29 -- 17percent) did. Perhaps the GSS channels groupmembers’ participation through a common tech-nology, thereby displacing the facilitator’s lead-ership role to some extent.

Unexpectedly, some facilitators stressed usinga flexible agenda. One facilitator in particulardescribed agenda-building with the group as away of reinforcing group ownership of theprocess: "... [it is important to be] doing thingsthat build a sense of their ownership. [I have]them building the agenda, [I have] them makingdecisions about which [agenda item] is mostimportant on the agenda and which do we takefirst. [However, I am] always, checking to makesure that what is going into the record is theirown words, putting things up on the walls sothere is a constant memory of where they havebeen and what they have accomplished."

"l’he task or goal of the meeting was mentioneda bit less frequently by both high-experience(15/117- 13 percent) and low-experience(21/172 -- 12 percent) GSS facilitators.Specifically targeted were: (1) clearobjectives/purpose; (2) managing realisticexpectations; and (3) addressing real problemsor organizational needs. This observation ofequivocal support for a link between stated goaland small group performance is consistent withprior research (O’LearyoKelly, et al., 1994).Surprisingly, freedom from organizational poli-tics and/or top management support were infre-quently noted. Not surprisingly, technologicalissues were more frequently mentioned by high-experience GSS facilitators (16/117 -- 14 per-cent) than by low-experience GSS facilitators(9/152 -- 6 percent). Physical environment wasmentioned least often by both groups, includingone facilitator who noted that of the variousinfluences on meeting success, this was theone most easily dealt with.

In summary, the largest number of meeting suc-cess comments pertained to group attributes.rhis was particularly true with low-experienceGSS facilitators. High-experience and low-expe-rience GSS facilitators did not differ significantlyin mentioning either agenda design or facilitatorcharacteristics, although primarily low-experi-ence GSS facilitators mentioned leadership.The task or goal was mentioned less frequently,but about equally by both groups of facilitators.Naturally, technology issues were most oftenmentioned by high-experience GSS facilitators.Physical environment was noted, but less often.

GSS benefits and concerns

Facilitators identified a wide variety of benefitsand concerns regarding use of GSS that includeand go beyond those specifically targeted togroup process. Table 7 shows gains or benefits,and Table 8 displays losses or concerns.Benefits and concerns are grouped into five cat-egories: task-related, group process, organiza-tional, contingencies (applies only to concerns),and technology (applies only to concerns).

The majority of benefits experienced or-expect-ed by facilitators related to the meeting task



Table 7. Facilitators’ Perceived or Expected Benefits


TaskEfficiency 9 12 21Documentation 5 8 13Idea generation 5 5 10Implementation of meeting results 4 3 7Analysis/quantitative problem solving 2 3 5Organizing data 1 4 5Modeling/graphics/display 1 2 3

Subtotal 27 37 64

OrganizationalEnforced meeting planning/structuring 6 6 12Anonymity 6 4 10Consensus building 1 2 3Novelty (Hawthorne effect) 1 1 2General contribution 1 0 1Better management of attention 0 1 1

Subtotal 15 14 29

Group ProcessParticipation 10 10 20Task focus 2 2 4Avoid dysfunction~non-confrontation 1 1 2General group-related benefit 1 1 2

Subtotal 14 14 28

TOTALS 56 65 121

(64/126 -- 51 percent). Almost one third of thetask-related comments focused on improvedmeeting efficiency (21/64 -- 33 percent).Comments related to group issues (29/126 --23 percent) were a subset of the process gainsidentified by Jessup and Valacich (1993). these comments, more than half (15/29 -- 52percent) dealt with increased and more evenlybalanced participation by group members: "amore egalitarian view of getting out ideas."Influence of GSS on distribution of group mem-ber participation was demonstrated in theexperimental setting (Zigurs, et al., 1988).

Over half of the concerns expressed by all facili-tators focused on the technology (48/86 -- 56percent) and on group members’ potentiallynegative responses to technology. Facilitatorsnoted specific examples of negative impacts ofthe technology on the group, including one facil-itator who experienced people turning their

chairs away, "because they didn’t want to seethe screen." Another respondent pointed outthat facilitators moving to the GSS environmentwould risk taking on process models that weretoo complex, then "blame the technology forfailure." Concern was also expressed that theGSS might overshadow the task or groupprocess during, the meeting, or that it might beused whether or not it is appropriate for a giventask.

Raw numbers indicate a great deal of consis-tency between high-experience and low-experi-ence GSS facilitators. However, high-experi-ence GSS facilitators were more impressed withthe ability of GSS to increase anonymity andsubsequent participation than low-experienceGSS facilitators. This may be due to low-experi-ence GSS facilitators using other techniques toincrease participation. Alternatively, GSS facili-tators may have observed differences in partici-



Table 8. Facilitators’ Perceived or Expected Limitations


TechnologyTechnology anxiety/resistance 5Inflexible design constraints 4Tool/task misfit 3Reliability 2Technology-driven meetings 2Distraction 1Technology learning curve 0

Subtotal 17

Group ProcessInterpersonal group/dynamics 5Change group characteristics 1

Subtotal 6

OrganizationalAccountability 1Manipulation 1Can’t overcome negative organization 1Cost 0Privacy 0Time constraints and boredom 0

Subtotal 3

TaskInformation overload 2Incomplete discussion 0

Subtotal 2

Contingent/NoneLong-term groups perform anyway 1None -- unless limited models 1None 1

Subtotal 3

8 136 102 54 63 56 72 2

31 48

9 145 6

14 20

2 31 20 12 21 11 17 10

0 23 33 5

0 10 10 10 3

TOTALS 31 55 86

pation with and without GSS and formulated aclear comparison.

Low-experience GSS facilitators commentedmore frequently about interpersonal issues,technology costs, and potential resistance oranxiety about technology. This raises an inter-esting question of direction of influence.Perhaps facilitators less inclined toward GSSsee these as greater issues or are more con-cerned about risks in using technology; on theother hand, it may be that until some of these

issues (particularly cost) are resolved, facilita-tors will not have the opportunity to use GSSextensively.8

Several low-experience GSS facilitators notedcontingencies or specific conditions underwhich GSS might be successful. They pointedout that both success or failure of GSS usedepends on additional factors, including thetask for which it is used, the desired outcome,and the manner in which it is introduced and uti-lized by the group.



In summary, both low-experience GSS andhigh-experience GSS facilitators noted morebenefits than limitations associated with GSS.Low-experience GSS facilitators indicated bothmore benefits and more limitations than didhigh-experience GSS facilitators. Benefitsfocused primarily on efficient and effective taskperformance, whereas limitations focused pri-marily on technology-oriented anxiety of partici-pants, inflexibility of the technology, and issuesof reliability.

Discussion

This study elicited a great deal of informationfrom the facilitator’s perspective regardingmeasurement of meeting success, critical fac-tors for facilitator success, and the benefits andlimitations of GSS in support of organizationalmeetings.

Measuring success

Facilitators are concerned with a wide variety offactors in the measurement of successful meet-ings. Measuring task outcomes, group learning,meeting efficiency, participant satisfaction, andlong-term success can provide a multidimen-sional evaluation distinguishing successful,partly successful, and unsuccessful meetings.Such measures can be performed at the end ofthe meeting and/or during follow-up sessionsproviding different temporal views of meetingsuccess. Measurement can focus on the facili-tator, group members, a group leader, or out-side stakeholders. It is not surprising that mostfacilitators concentrate on a subset of potentialmeasures. It is surprising that quite a few useonly intuitive or self-generated mechanisms.Perhaps this tendency recognizes the difficultyof validly assessing objective outcomes(Reagan and Rohrbaugh, 1990) or a warinessof self-report questionnaires that do not alwayscorrelate well with objective outcome findings inlaboratory situations (Connolly, et al., 1990, p.700). From a practical perspective, given timeand energy constraints in real-world situations,it may be difficult for the facilitator to get lengthyfeedback from the group. An array of measures

can provide valuable feedback regarding theimpact of facilitation activities given the widevariety of meeting circumstances. However, thevalue of measures needs to be balanced againsttheir cost for facilitators and/or participants.

Critical factors for facilitation success

Responses indicate that a core of communica-tion and group process skills are necessary forfacilitators whether or not they use GSS tools.Participants of this study focused more on com-munication and group process skills and less ontask-oriented skills (planning, task outcomefocus, and tool knowledge), when compared toClawson’s study (1992).

Development of task-oriented and technicalskills is likely to be a separate process from thatof development of group dynamics skills. It maybe rare to find both in the same person. GSSfacilitators who come from a technical back-ground may require additional group processtraining. At the same time, "traditional" facilita-tors in organizations, such as from humanresources, quality improvement, or JAD teams,may provide a good source of GSS facilitators,after acquiring some technical training.

Critical factors for meeting success

Clearly, the major ingredient of perceived meet-ing success emerging from this study is thenature of the group, especially as viewed bylow-experience GSS facilitators. One wouldexpect the nature of the group to provide a highpercentage of challenges and opportunities forsuccessful meeting completion. Prior group his-tory, particularly if filled with animosity or con-flict, will challenge the facilitator who attempts todevelop smooth processes. On the other hand,group members’ skills and know!edge are criti-cal for task completion (Bottger and Yetton,1988). Possible explanations for the importanceof this factor include: (1) the nature of the groupmay be least directly under the control of thefacilitator; (2) concentrating on group processrather than task content may lead the facilitatorto focus on the nature of the group; (3) the



same techniques and activities enacted by thefacilitator produce quite different results at dif-ferent times with the most distinguishably differ-ent factor being the nature of the group; and/or(4) dysfunctional group behavior can be dramat-ic -- particularly sabotage or "torpedoing."

Quality of facilitation was the second most fre-quently cited of six factors fo~" meeting success.Following adaptive structuration theory(DeSanctis and Poole, 1994), the facilitator is a key position to influence (1) behaviors andattitudes of group members; (2) the agenda andmeeting structure; (3) the definition of and focuson group task; (4) selection and use of GSS other meeting technologies; and (5) selectionand use of the physical facilities. However, theinfluence of the facilitator is likewise limited by(1) persistent features of group members; (2)persistent features of the task environment; (3)limitations of GSS or other meeting technolo-gies; and (4) limitations of physical facilities.Nevertheless, the results of this study suggestthat facilitation is a key ingredient in successfulmeetings because of its potential to enhancemeeting benefits and overcome meeting limita-tions. More research is needed for further distin-guishing elements that make for successfulfacilitation, particularly in the GSS environment.

The majority of meetings in organizations arenot guided by agendas (Monge, et al., 1989, p.36-37). However, development of an agendaand clarification of the goal or task may be inti-mately related. Development of an agenda pro-vides an opportunity to consider the desiredmeeting outcomes as well as to partition topicsinto a series of action steps. Moreover, the useof an agenda during a meeting clarifies for par-ticipants both the means of proceeding and theend result. Facilitators in the study emphasizedthe potential disaster when goals are not clear,when there are hidden or conflicting individualagendas, and where the key decision makersare not participants in the process.

Technology, although viewed as highly benefi-cial to some facilitators, appears to be a sec-ondary influence on meeting success. Perhapsthis is because experienced facilitators are soaccustomed to meetings without GSS technolo-gy (Volkema and Niederman, 1995) that theyview it as having limited ability to add value.

Some facilitators’ judgments may also be influ-enced by the potential for technology to beunreliable or to be used inappropriately.Although in some cases physical environmenthas an influence, study results do not supportthis as a major determinant of meeting success.

If the number of comments on a particular topiccan be used as a weak surrogate for relation-ship strength, group was the most influentialfactor on meeting success, but facilitation,agenda and task/goal followed closely.Technology and physical environment werecited less frequently.

Benefits and limitations of GSS

Fxamination of comments by professional facili-tators regarding potential benefits and limita-tions of GSS use in meetings should providesome room for optimism on the part of GSSproponents. Both high-experience and low-experience GSS facilitators noted more benefitsthan limitations, indicating that, at least undersome conditions, technology can aid group per-formance. Limitations focused on anxiety withthe technology. This issue may diminish ascomputer technology increasingly penetrates allaspects of modern life, or it may be remediedwith training and/or practice. Other issues per-tain to the rigidity and reliability of the currentlyavailable systems. Again, with constantadvances in hardware, software, and networkdevices, over time these issues may take careof themselves. Perhaps more subtle, but relat-ed, are the difficulties with blending the technol-ogy into the personality and needs of the partic-ular group. Both at the IRS (DeSanctis, et al.,1991) and at Texaco (DeSanctis, et al., 1993) was found that groups adapted the technologyto their meeting processes with a variety of lev-els of enthusiasm, which led to differences inthe amount of value added by the availability ofthe technology. Facilitators can potentiallyencourage groups to positively embrace GSStechnology through good matching of the toolsto tasks, monitoring group process and interper-¯ ’~onal interactions, and generating meeting anddecision-making efficiencies. However, giventhis assumption of potential influence, a facilita-l:or’s inexperience with such skills and behaviors

16 MIS Quarterlv/March 1996


could inadvertantly discourage GSS use aswell.

Some observations regarding group processthat were expected from the data were, in fact,seldom found. Although highlighted in severalstudies,9 group size (6/269 -- 2 percent ofmeeting critical success factors) and anonymity(10/126 -- 8 percent of expected benefits) werenot frequently mentioned as either potentialproblems or remedies within the group environ-ment. The former could be due to facilitators’either influencing or adjusting to the size of thegroup for a given meeting and, therefore, notexperiencing it as a frequent concern. The lattercould be due to facilitators’ viewing anonymitynot as a benefit in itself but rather, as a mecha-nism to influence participation, quality of ideas,or other factors.

Interestingly, the issue of cost of the GSS tech-nology was seldom directly mentioned in thecourse of these interviews. One facilitator notedthat in passing the cost along to clients, hewould have to clearly demonstrate the technolo-gy’s added value. Perhaps this issue is onefrom which some facilitators are shielded eitherbecause they have already paid for it (thus it isa sunk cost, and continued usage only lowersthe unit cost) or because payment is handled bythe organization or the client and, therefore, ofonly indirect concern to the facilitator. On theother hand, two facilitators pointed to potentialcost savings due to GSS potential to decreasethe need for travel.

Implications for research

This study extends prior literature by highlight-ing the key role of the facilitator in meeting suc-cess. It also links other meeting elements (thenature of the group, agenda, task/goal, andtechnology) with facilitator skills and character-istics and categories of measures of meetingsuccess.

The framework presented here, like that ofPinsonneault and Kraemer (1989), is based an input-process-output model. Inputs in theseframeworks generally include task characteris-tics, technological support, situational factors or

organizational context, group characteristics or"personal factors" such as attitudes and abilitiesof group members, and the nature of the groupincluding norms, cohesiveness, and size. Groupprocess issues are viewed as mediatingbetween inputs and meeting outcomes.Outcomes include decision quality, issues inimplementation of the decision, and attitudes ofgroup members toward the decision and towardthe process used by the group. The frameworkemerging from this study is similar to thePinsonneault and Kraemer (1989) framework most respects. However, this framework (1) ele-vates the role of the facilitator to a central focus(rather than one of several group structure vari-ables), (2) proposes a major influence of presence and quality of the agenda, (3) notesthe meeting environment as an influence, and(4) identifies variables frequently cited as relat-ed to meeting success.

Although this study identifies factors influentialin determining meeting success, it does not pro-pose directionality between facilitation and otherfactors. The nature of the group, the task/goal,the agenda, the technology, and the meetingenvironment influence the ability of the facilita-tor to manage the meeting but are in turn fac-tors over which the facilitator may have varyingdegrees of control. This is not inconsistent withthe spirit of adaptive structuration theory. Groupnorms and tendencies are viewed as both influ-encing and being influenced by available tech-nology and the way that the technology is intro-duced. Similarly, facilitators’ effectiveness willbe influenced by their characteristics and skills,particularly regarding socio-emotional issuesand ability to affect task outcomes. The interac-tion of these varied factors can together affectsuccess as measured by immediate and long-range outcomes, satisfaction of group membersand other stakeholders, and efficiency.

The purpose of this study was investigativerather than confirmatory. It sought to discoverconcerns and approaches rather than to confirmor disconfirm hypotheses. In evaluating the find-ings of this study, the reader must keep in mindthat since facilitators were the subjects of thestudy, it would be only natural for them to seetheir own role as critical to meeting success.Therefore, other meeting stakeholders’ viewsshould be investigated. The quantitative



aspects of this study should be interpreted onlyas broad indicators. For example, a particularmeasure of success mentioned by a facilitatordoes not necessarily mean he or she uses it.Likewise, others who did not mention a particu-lar measure of success may, in fact, use it. Thisinvestigation, like survey research in general,relied on but cannot prove the honesty and thor-oughness of the participants. Because the sub-ject pool was not randomly selected, general-ization of these views to the views of all facilita-tors should not be more than tentatively made.Finally, although no effort was made to track theethnic or cultural origins of responding facilita-tors, all were physically located in the U.S.and/or Canada and, therefore, not necessarilyrepresentative of the variety of cultural groupsthat might use GSS technology (Watson, et al.,1994). This study focused on meetings with specified and designated facilitator. Futureresearch should contrast the value of specifyingone or more individuals as facilitators, with lead-ership emerging from among group members.

edge of tools were also viewed as important.]’he technically oriented GSS designer wouldhave the challenge of learning a great dealabout communication and groups. The low-experience GSS facilitator, on the other hand,may need to learn about the technology to thepoint of personal comfort and should be able toextend that comfort to group members. GSSdesigners should keep in mind that while facili-tators seek assistance in generating positivemeeting outcomes, they remain concerned withgroup process and organizational issues.Issues such as balancing structure and flexibili-ty with use of the technology, creating reliablesystems, and providing low-key technology thatfocuses attention on the group and its task arealso important for GSS designers. Embeddingadditional guidance for users within the system,particularly for more complex decision aids orrnathematical modelling procedures, will beincreasingly important for both face-to-face andphysically dispersed, computer-mediated meet-ings (Limayem and DeSanctis, 1993).

Implications for practitioners

This study has generated implications for prac-ticing facilitators and for GSS designers.Facilitators might ponder that collectively theypresented a broad array of potential measuresof meeting success but individually very fewseemed to have in place more than a slendersystem for measuring outcomes. Developingautomated tools for evaluation of meetingspromises to be a rich area for GSS designers topursue. Clearly the agenda is an important influ-ence on meeting success. Continued refine-ment of aids to help the facilitator not onlydevelop a series of steps but to improve onthose over time would also be a valued additionto the GSS tool kit. Future research could targetidentification of specific sources such as aid ingoal establishment or addition of meeting struc-ture derived from use of an agenda.

Critical success factors for facilitators wereviewed similarly by both high-experience andlow-experience GSS facilitators. Socio-emotion-al factors such as communication skills andgroup dynamics knowledge predominated.However, meeting outcome issues and knowl-

Conclusion

Generating positive meeting outcomes remainsa difficult and complex task. It requires manag-ing a wide array of group, task, organizational,and technology factors. The meeting facilitatorcan potentially play a key role in appropriatelybalancing, moderating, and manipulating thesefactors. The outcome of a meeting is amulti-dimensional construct. Facilitators vary inwho, what, and when they measure in assess-ing meeting outcomes. Linking measurement tooutcome quality and/or improvement over timeis an important future reseamh objective.

Facilitators emphasize communication, groupprocess skills, and characteristics of groupmembers as important factors leading to suc-cessful meeting outcomes and facilitation,whether or not GSS technology is used.Successful implementation of GSS technologymay be linked to a technical facilitator’s ability toincorporate these social dimensions of meetingmanagement. Concerns specific to GSS useinclude reliability of GSS technology and how to.appropriately apply GSS to group goals. The



reliability issue may lessen over time as theunderlying computer-based technologies contin-ue to grow in capacity and sophistication, anddecline in cost, Concerns about appropriate usemay decline as GSS users gain comfort with itand adapt the technology into their own context.

Finally, facilitators with varied GSS experiencehave observed or anticipate a number of bene-fits of GSS use, with respect to their own task offacilitation. They perceive numerous ways thatGSS aids groups in accomplishing their tasksthrough planning, structure, and focus.Facilitators also see how GSS can help themincrease and balance group participation andpotentially increase ownership of outcomes.Convincing facilitators that these benefits canbe realized without allowing the technology todisrupt the meeting process may be an impor-tant factor in widespread GSS acceptance anduse.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Jim Gantt and the ArmyResearch Lab for their support of this paper.

Endnotes

For examples see: DeSanctis, et al., 1993; Hirschheim andMiller, 1993; Dennis, et al., 1991; DeSanctis, et al., 1991;Grohowski, et al., 1990). Extensions of this research arebeginning to specify the conditions under which GSS bene-fits can be consistently attained (e.g., Jessup and Valacich,1993; Bostrom, et al., 1992).For example, see Ackermann, 1993; DeSanctis, et al.,1993; Daniels, et al., 1991; DeSanctis, et al., 1991; Dennis,et al., 1990; Eden and Radford, 1990; Grohowski, et al.,1990; Vogel, 1990; and Kraemer and King, 1988.This study used a non-intellective or value judgement tasl~and distinguished between "facilitated" groups having activeprocess and technology facilitation and "chauffeur-driven"groups where the facilitator implements features of theGDSS system for the group, but does not assist with theprocess. Chauffeur-driven groups showed significantly high-er levels of post-meeting consensus than facilitated groups.The reseamhers proposed that the process facilitation mayhave proven too restrictive and provided too much guidance(following Silver, 1990). in addition, this study used twofacilitators, each taking both chauffeured and facilitatedroles for half of their groups. No significant difference wasfound contrasting the two facilitators nor was there a signifi-cant interaction between facilitators and support modes.

4 These studies found little support for facilitator impacts. Thefirst study investigated the impact of assigning one groupmember as leader during supported and non-supportedmeetings. While finding no main effect of facilitation, thisstudy did find significant interaction of facilitation withanonymity and communication medium (anonymous-leadergroups and non-anonymous-non-leader groups were moresatisfied; manual leader and GSS-non-leader showed high-er levels of participation). Conclusions, though, should betempered because no leadership training nor any check thatassigned leaders actually exhibited leadership behaviorwere provided. The study did not distinguish between theconcepts of "leader" and "facilitator," when, in fact, theremay be significant differences (Clawson, 1992). The secondstudy similarly found no significant effect of facilitation onalternative generation, decision qualify, or satisfaction, andweak support for influence on consensus. Facilitation and astructured (perhaps overly restrictive) procedure in thisexperiment were contrasted to non-facilitated and non-structured procedures.

5 All interviews were tape recorded. Following each interview,that author produced a transcript based on both writtennotes and tape recording. These transcripts were consoli-dated by one of the authors into a master listing of all data.Since no recorded pool of high-GSS and Iow-GSS facilita-tors exists, random selection was not possible. The list ofrespondents came initially from contacts known to theresearchers from industry, academia, and govemment. Atthe end of each interview, the researcher asked the respon-dent to suggest other people who might be appropriate forthe study.

6 Details on the composition of the sample are provided inBeranek, et al., (1993).

7 These numbers show how many comments were maderegarding a particular issue, the number of comments withinthe category, and comments on that particular issue as apercentage of comments within the category.

8An interesting view of "low-cost" GSS rooms is presentedby Roth, et al., 1993.

9See Gallupe, et al., 1992; Nunamaker, et al., 1991; andConnolly, et al., 1990.

References

Ackermann, F. "The Role of Facilitators in GDSSystems," Working Paper 93/1, ManagementScience, Theory, Method, and PracticeSeries, University of Strathclyde, Strathclyde,Scotland, 1993.

Anson, R., Bostrom, R., and Wynne, B. "AnExperiment Assessing Group SupportSystem and Facilitator Effects on MeetingOutcomes," Management Science (41:2),1995, pp. 189-208.

Beranek, P.M., Beise, C.M., and Niederman, F."Facilitation and Group Support Systems," in



Proceedings of the 26th Hawaii InternationalConference on Systems Sciences, Vol. 4,Kona, HI, January 1993, pp. 199-207.

Bostrom, R.P., Anson, Ro, and Clawson, V. K."Group Facilitation and Group SupportSystems," in Group Support Systems: NewPerspectives, LoM. Jessup and J.S. Valacich(eds.), Macmillan, New York, 1991, pp.146-168.

Bostrom, R.P., Watson, R., and Kinney, S.Computer-Augmented Team Work: A GuidedTour, Von Nostrand, New York, 1992.

Bottger, P.C. and Yetton, P.W. "An Integrationof Process and Decision SchemeExplanations of Group Problem SolvingPerformance," Organizational Behavior andHuman Decision Processes (42:2), October1988, pp. 234-249.

Clawson, V. The Role of the Facilitator inComputer-Supported Environments, unpub-lished doctoral dissertation, WaldenUniversity, Minneapolis, MN, 1992.

Connolly, T., Jessup, L.M. and Valacich, J.S."Effects of Anonymity and Evaluative Toneon Idea Generation in Computer-MediatedGroups," Management Science (36:6), 1990,pp. 689-703.

Daniels, R.M., Dennis, A.R., Hayes, G.INunamaker, J.F., and Valacich, J."Enterprise Analyzer: Electronic Support forGroup Requirements Elicitation," InProceedings of the 24th Hawaii InternationalConference on Systems Sciences, Vol. 3,Kihea, HI, January 1991, pp. 43-50.

Dennis, A.R., Heminger, A.R., Nunamaker, J.F.,Jr., and Vogel, D.R. "Bringing AutomatedSupport to Large Groups: The Burr-BrownExperience," Information & Management(18:3), 1990, pp. 111-121.

Dennis, A.R., Nunamaker, J.F., and Vogel, D.R."A Comparison of Laboratory and FieldResearch in the Study of Electronic MeetingSystems," Journal of ManagementInformation Systems (7:2), 1991, pp.107-135.

DeSanctis G. "Small Group Research inInformation Systems: Theory.: and Method,"paper presented at the Harvard BusinessSchool Colloquium on Experimental Methodsin Information Systems, University of BritishColumbia, Vancouver, 1988.

DeSanctis, G. and Poole, M.S. "Capturing theComplexity in Advanced Technology Use:Adaptive Structuration Theory," OrganizationScience (5:2), 1994, pp. 121-147.

DeSanctis, G., Sambamurthy, V., and Watson,R. T. "Computer-supported Meetings:Building a Research Environment," LargeScale Systems (13:1), 1987, 43-59.

DeSanctis, G., Poole, M.S., Desharnais, G.,and Lewis, H. "Using Computing to Facilitatethe Quality Improvement Process: TheIRS-Minnesota Project," Interfaces (21:6),1991, pp. 23-36.

DeSanctis, G., Poole, M.S., Dickson, G.W., andJackson, B.M. "Interpretive Analysis of TeamUse of Group Technologies," Journal ofOrganizational Computing (3:1), 1993, pp.1-30.

Dickson, G.W., Lee-Partridge, J.E., andRobinson, L. "Exploring Modes of FacilitativeSupport for GDSS," MIS Quarterly (17:2),June 1993, pp. 173-194.

Eden, C. and Radford, J. (eds.). TacklingStrategic Problems: The Role of GroupDecision Support, Sage Publications,London, England, 1990.

Gallupe, R.B., DeSanctis, G., and Dickson,G.W. "Computer-Based Support for GroupProblem-Finding: An Empirical Investigation,"MIS Quarterly (12:2), June 1988, pp.276-296.

Gallupe,.R.B,, Dennis, A.R., Cooper, W.H.,Valacich, J.S., Bastianutti, L.M. andNunamaker, J.F. Jr. "Electronic Brainstormingand Group Size," Academy of ManagementJournal (35:2), 1992, pp. 350-369.

George, J.F., Dennis, W.R., and Nunamaker,J.F., Jr. =Experimental Investigation ofFacilitation in EMS Decision Room," GroupDecision and Negotiation (1:1), 1992, pp.71-84.

George, J.F., Easton, G.K., Nunamaker, J.G.,and Northcraft, G.B. "A Study ofCollaborative Group Work with and withoutComputer-Based Support," InformationSystems Research (1:4), 1990, pp. 394.-415.

Grohowski, R., McGoff, C., Vogel, D., Martz, B.,and Nunamaker, J. "Implementing ElectronicMeeting Systems at IBM: Lessons Learnedand Success Factors," MIS Quarterly (14:4)December 1990, pp. 369-383.



Hirokawa, R.Y. and Gouran, D. S. "Faciiitationof Group Communication," ManagementCommunication Quarterly (3:1), 1989, pp.71-92.

Hirschheim, R. and Miller, J. "ImplementingEmpowerment through Teams: The Case ofTexaco’s Information Technology Division,"in Proceedings of the 1993 ACM SlGCPRConference, M.R. Tanniru (ed.), ACM, NewYork, April 1993, pp. 255-264.

Ives, B. and Olson, M.H. "Manager orTechnician? The Nature of the InformationSystems Manager’s Job," MIS Quarterly(5:4), December 1981, pp. 49-63.

Jessup, L.M. and Valacich, J.S. Group SupportSystems: New Perspectives, MacmillanPublishing, New York, 1993.

Kayser, T.A. Mining Group Gold: How to Cashin on the Collaborative Brain. Power of aGroup, Serif, El Segundo, CA, 1990.

Kraemer, K.L. and King, J.L. "Computer-basedSystems for Cooperative Work and GroupDecision Making," ACM Computing Surveys(20:2), June 1988, pp. 115-146.

Limayem, M. and DeSanctis, G. "AutomatingDecision Guidance in a Group DecisionEnvironment," in Proceedings of the 14thInternational Conference on InformationSystems, J. DeGross, R. Bostrom and D.Robey (eds.), Orlando, FL, December 1993,pp. 157-168.

McGrath, J.E. Groups: Interaction andPerformance, Prentice Hall, EnglewoodCliffs, NJ,1984.

Mintzber9, H. The Nature of Managerial Work,Harper and Row, New York, 1973.

Monge, P.R., McSween, C., and Wyer, J. AProfile of Meetings in Corporate America:Results of the 3M Meeting EffectivenessStudy, University of Southern California, LosAngeles, CA, 1989.

Nunamaker,J.F., Dennis, A.R., George, J.F.,Valacich,J.S., and Vogel, D.R. "ElectronicMeeting Systems to Support Group Work:Theory and Practice at Arizona,"Communications of the ACM (34:7), 1991,pp. 40-61.

O’Leary-Kelly, A.M., Martocchio, J.U., andFrink, D.D. "A Review of the Influence ofGroup Goals on Group Performance,!’ TheAcademy of Management Journal (37:5),October 1994, pp. 1285-1301.

Panko, RoR. "Managerial CommunicationPatterns," Journal of OrganizationalComputing (2:1), 1992, pp. 95-122.

Pinsonneault, A. and Kraemer, KoL. "The Impactof Technological Support on Groups: AnAssessment of the Empirical Research,"Decision Support Systems (5:2), 1989, pp.197-216.

Reagan-Cirincione, P. "Improving the Accuracyof Group Judgment: A Process InterventionCombining Group Facilitation, SocialJudgment Analysis, and InformationTechnology," Organization Behavior andHuman Decision Processes (58:2), May1994, pp. 246-270.

Reagan, P. and Rohrbaugh, J. "Group DecisionProcess Effectiveness: A Competing ValuesApproach," Group and Organization Studies(15:1), March 1990, pp. 20-43.

Roth, R.M., Wood, W.C., Hahm, R., and Power,D.J. "Building Group Decision SupportRooms Using "Off-the-Shelf" ComputingResources: Prospects and Issues," DATABASE(24:2), May 1993, pp. 21-31.

Silver, M.S. "Decision Support Systems:Directed and Non-Directed Change,"Information Systems Research (1:1), 1990,pp. 47-70.

The 3M Meeting Management Team. How toRun Better Business Meetings: A ReferenceGuide for Managers, McGraw-Hill, New York,1987.

Volkema, R. and Niederman, F. "OrganizationalMeetings: Formats, Information Requirements,and Technology Support," Small GroupResearch (26:1), February 1995, pp. 3-24.

Watson, R.T., Ho, T.H., and Raman, K.S."Culture: A Fourth Dimension of GroupSupport Systems," Communications of theACM (37:10), October 1994, pp. 45-55.

Zigurs, I. "Methodological and MeasurementIssues in GSS Research," in Group SupportSystems: New Perspectives, L.M. Jessupand J.S. Valacich (eds.), Macmillan, NewYork, 1992, pp. 112-122.

Zigurs, I., Poole, M.S., and DeSanctis, G.L. "AStudy of Influence in Computer-MediatedGroup Decision-Making," MIS Quarterly(12:4), December 1988, pp. 625-644.



About the Authors

Fred Niederman is an assistant professor ofMIS at the University of Baltimor’s MerrickSchool of Business. He received his Ph.D. inMIS at the University of Minnesota and haspublished in MIS Quarterly, Decision Sciences,Decision Support Systems, Joumal of StrategicInformation Systems, Small Group Research,Computer Personnel, and Journal of BusinessCommunications (forthcoming). His researchinterests include group support systems, deci-sion support systems, human resource issuesfor computer personnel, and global informationsystems.

Catherine M. Beise is an associate professorat Kennesaw State College in Kennesaw,Georgia. She received her Ph.D. in IS fromGeorgia State University and has published inComputer Personnel and the Journal ofSystems Management. Prior to her current posi-tion, she worked in industry as a systems ana-lyst and consultant, and as a research associ-ate for the U.S. Army Research Lab, where shefocused on technology transfer of GSS. Her

current interests include application of collabo-ration technology tools and methods in teachingand learning.

Peggy M. Beranek received her Ph.D. in man-agement information systems from theUniversity of Arizona in 1991 and is currently anassistant professor in the Computer InformationSystems Department at Georgia StateUniversity.. Her primary research interestsinclude the use of GroupWare in business, facil-itation issues for GroupWare and the use ofqualitative reseamh techniques. She has pub-lished papers on facilitation skills of GroupWarefacilitators, the use of distributed GroupWaretechnology, coordination and control issues incollaborative workstation design, usefulnessand ease of use issues in the design of comput-er interfaces, and the use of program visualiza-tion systems as instructional aids. She has pre-viously published in Decision Support Systems,Computer Personnel, and The Journal ofComputer Information Systems, and has pre-sented her research at numerous national andinternational conferences.

22 MIS Quarterlv/March 1996

Issues and Concerns About Computer-Supported Meetings: The ... · Issues and Concerns About...

Documents

Transcript of Issues and Concerns About Computer-Supported Meetings: The ... · Issues and Concerns About...