The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Computer-Based Support for Group Problem-Finding: An Experimental Investigation1
Abstract
There is very little empirical research available on the effectiveness of decision support systems applied to decision-making groups operating in face-to-face meetings. In order to expand research in this area, a laboratory study was undertaken to examine the effects of group decision support systems (GDSS) technology on group decision quality and individual perceptions within a problem-finding context. A crisis management task served as the decisionmaking context. Two versions of the experimental task, one higher in difficulty and the other lower in difficulty, were administered to GDSS-supported and non-supported decision-making groups, yielding a 2 X 2 factorial design. Decision quality was significantly better in those groups that received GDSS support. The GDSS was particularly helpful in the groups receiving the task of higher difficulty. Members’ decision confidence and satisfaction with the decision process were, however, lower in the GDSS- supported groups than in the nonsupported groups. These findings expand knowledge of the applicability of GDSS for decision-making tasks and suggest that dissatisfaction may be a stumbling block in user acceptance of these systems.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication
Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., & McGuire, T. W. (1984) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.39.10.1123 · Cited by 2,630
Developing a process model of problem recognition
Cowan, D. A. (1986) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258395 · Cited by 257
Cited by
Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology
Davis, F. D. (1989) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249008 · Cited by 68,483
Design Science in Information Systems Research1
Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/25148625 · Cited by 10,707
Design science in information systems research
(2004) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.5555/2017212.2017217 · Cited by 8,254
Introduction to the Special Issue: Communication Processes for Virtual Organizations
DeSanctis, G., & Monge, P. (1999) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.10.6.693 · Cited by 495
Self-citationAn Assessment of the Contingency Theory of Management Information Systems
Weill, P., & Olson, M. H. (1989) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.1080/07421222.1989.11517849 · Cited by 351
Metadata
- Authors
- Gallupe, R. B., DeSanctis, G., & Dickson, G. W.
- Venue
- MIS Quarterly
- Publisher
- MIS Quarterly
- Published
- 1988-06-01
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 277-296
- ISSN
- 0276-7783 (ISSN-L)
- 2162-9730
- OpenAlex
- W1778357938
- Cited by
- 421
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 29.53
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.