An experimental investigation of facilitation in an EMS decision room

Joey F. George, Alan R. Dennis, Jay F Nunamaker

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

44 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Electronic meeting systems (EMS) provide a way for information technology to support groups meeting together for a variety of tasks. Some systems have been designed to depend on facilitators to guide groups through EMS use, whereas others have been designed to be used without facilitators. Yet little empirical research has been conducted to determine the differences between facilitated and nonfacilitated EMS use. This article describes an experiment that compared facilitated and nonfacilitated EMS groups. No differences were found between these two modes of EMS use for the number of alternatives generated, decision quality, ability to reach consensus, or satisfaction with the group process. However, if the number of alternatives generated is treated as a covariate, facilitated groups made better decisions, but nonfacilitated groups were more likely to reach consensus.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)57-70
Number of pages14
JournalGroup Decision and Negotiation
Volume1
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 1992

Fingerprint

Information technology
electronics
Group
Experiments
Electronic meeting systems
Facilitation
empirical research
information technology
experiment
ability
Facilitators

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Social Sciences(all)
  • Decision Sciences(all)
  • Strategy and Management
  • Management of Technology and Innovation

Cite this

An experimental investigation of facilitation in an EMS decision room. / George, Joey F.; Dennis, Alan R.; Nunamaker, Jay F.

In: Group Decision and Negotiation, Vol. 1, No. 1, 04.1992, p. 57-70.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{451a1abe3a8e4116a0e1f0c1f2166f99,
title = "An experimental investigation of facilitation in an EMS decision room",
abstract = "Electronic meeting systems (EMS) provide a way for information technology to support groups meeting together for a variety of tasks. Some systems have been designed to depend on facilitators to guide groups through EMS use, whereas others have been designed to be used without facilitators. Yet little empirical research has been conducted to determine the differences between facilitated and nonfacilitated EMS use. This article describes an experiment that compared facilitated and nonfacilitated EMS groups. No differences were found between these two modes of EMS use for the number of alternatives generated, decision quality, ability to reach consensus, or satisfaction with the group process. However, if the number of alternatives generated is treated as a covariate, facilitated groups made better decisions, but nonfacilitated groups were more likely to reach consensus.",
author = "George, {Joey F.} and Dennis, {Alan R.} and Nunamaker, {Jay F}",
year = "1992",
month = "4",
doi = "10.1007/BF00562690",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "1",
pages = "57--70",
journal = "Group Decision and Negotiation",
issn = "0926-2644",
publisher = "Springer Netherlands",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - An experimental investigation of facilitation in an EMS decision room

AU - George, Joey F.

AU - Dennis, Alan R.

AU - Nunamaker, Jay F

PY - 1992/4

Y1 - 1992/4

N2 - Electronic meeting systems (EMS) provide a way for information technology to support groups meeting together for a variety of tasks. Some systems have been designed to depend on facilitators to guide groups through EMS use, whereas others have been designed to be used without facilitators. Yet little empirical research has been conducted to determine the differences between facilitated and nonfacilitated EMS use. This article describes an experiment that compared facilitated and nonfacilitated EMS groups. No differences were found between these two modes of EMS use for the number of alternatives generated, decision quality, ability to reach consensus, or satisfaction with the group process. However, if the number of alternatives generated is treated as a covariate, facilitated groups made better decisions, but nonfacilitated groups were more likely to reach consensus.

AB - Electronic meeting systems (EMS) provide a way for information technology to support groups meeting together for a variety of tasks. Some systems have been designed to depend on facilitators to guide groups through EMS use, whereas others have been designed to be used without facilitators. Yet little empirical research has been conducted to determine the differences between facilitated and nonfacilitated EMS use. This article describes an experiment that compared facilitated and nonfacilitated EMS groups. No differences were found between these two modes of EMS use for the number of alternatives generated, decision quality, ability to reach consensus, or satisfaction with the group process. However, if the number of alternatives generated is treated as a covariate, facilitated groups made better decisions, but nonfacilitated groups were more likely to reach consensus.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0013065666&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0013065666&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/BF00562690

DO - 10.1007/BF00562690

M3 - Article

VL - 1

SP - 57

EP - 70

JO - Group Decision and Negotiation

JF - Group Decision and Negotiation

SN - 0926-2644

IS - 1

ER -