Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Handbook of Group Decision and Negotiation pp 1–22Cite as

Group Decision Support Practice ‘as It Happens’

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:

  • 66 Accesses

Abstract

Historically, studies of Group Decision Support (GDS) have focused on assessing the degree to which using a GDS makes groups more effective, typically via carefully designed experiments and case study reports. More recently, we have witnessed a growing interest in getting close to GDS practitioners to see how their work is actually done in “real time,” “there-and-then.” What motivates this interest is the recognition that in order to develop better GDS practice we must first pay attention to how it is actually used by those involved in situ. By zooming in on what GDS practitioners actually do with their craft, and the critical role of these doings on generating group outputs and outcomes, a more nuanced understanding of GDS practice can be achieved. Furthermore, this understanding can inform the development of more effective GDS practitioner training and teaching materials. In this chapter we introduce a particular way of studying GDS practice, “as it happens” on the ground, based on ethnomethodology (EM). To illustrate the approach, we provide an example of its application to study GDS practice in a facilitated, computer-supported causal mapping workshop. Overall, the analysis reveals the various ways in which actual GDS practice is accomplished over time, as it happens on the ground, and with what effects. We conclude the chapter by summarizing the distinctive contribution that an ethnomethodologically informed perspective makes to GDS theory and practice, and outlining some potentially useful avenues for future research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Whilst the most common approach to qualitative research is to derive theory from observation inductively using a grounded theoretical approach to coding, White et al use theory (and the coding scheme associated with the theory) to guide their empirical observations, so that the theory gets further specified through a process of abductive reasoning.

  2. 2.

    Group Explorer has now been upgraded to support same-time/different-places workshops -see Group Support Systems: Experiments with an Online System and Implications for Same-Time/Different-Places Working.

References

  • Ackermann F, Eden C (2010) Strategic Options Development and Analysis. In M. Reynolds, and S. Holwell (Eds.), Systems Approaches to Managing Change: A Practical Guide: 135-190. London: Springer

    Google Scholar 

  • Ackermann F, Eden C (2011) Negotiation in strategy making teams: group support systems and the process of cognitive change. Group Decis Negot 20(3):293–314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ackermann F, Andersen DF, Eden C, Richardson GP (2011) ScriptsMap: a tool for designing multi-method policy-making workshops. Omega 39:427–434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ackermann F, Eden C, Pyrko I (2016) Accelerated multi-organization conflict resolution. Group Decis Negot 25:901–922

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ackermann F, Yearworth M, White L (2018) Micro-processes in group decision and negotiation: practices and routines for supporting decision making. Group Decis Negot 27(5):709–713

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersen DF, Richardson G (1997) Scripts for group model building. Syst Dyn Rev 13(2):107–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barkhi R, Pirkul H (1999) An experimental analysis of face to face versus computer mediated communication channels. Group Decis Negot 8(4):325–347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beroggi GE (2000) An experimental investigation of virtual negotiations with dynamic plots. Group Decis Negot 9(5):415–429

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brocklesby J (2009) Ethics beyond the model: How social dynamics can interfere with ethical practice in operational research/management science. Omega 37(6):1073–1082

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryson JM, Ackermann F, Eden C, Finn CB (2004) Visible Thinking: unlocking causal mapping for practical business results. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • Burger K, White L, Yearworth M (2018) Why so serious? theorising playful model-driven group decision support with situated affectivity. Group Decis Negot 27(5):789–810

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Button G (ed) (1993) Technology in working order: studies of work, interaction, and technology. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Callon M (1986) Some elements of a sociology of translation: domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. In: Law J (ed) Power, action and belief. A new sociology of knowledge? Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, pp 196–233

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlile PR (2004) Transferring, translating, and transforming: an integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organiz Sci 15:555–568

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeSanctis G, Poole MS (1994) Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: adaptive structuration theory. Organiz Sci 5(2):121–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doolittle PE (2014) Complex constructivism: a theoretical model of complexity and cognition. Int J Teach Learn Higher Educ 26(3):485–498

    Google Scholar 

  • Drew P, Heritage J (1992) Talk at work: interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Eden C (1988) Cognitive mapping: a review. Eur J Oper Res 36(1):1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eden C (1990a) The unfolding nature of group decision support: two dimensions of skill. In: Eden C, Radford J (eds) Tackling strategic problems: the role of group decision support. Sage, London, pp 48–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Eden C (1990b) Managing the environment as a means to managing complexity. In C. Eden, and J. Radford (Eds.), Tackling strategic problems: the role of group decision support. Sage, London, pp 154–161

    Google Scholar 

  • Eden C (1992) A framework for thinking about group decision support systems (GDSS). Group Decis Negot 1:199–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eden C (2004) Analyzing cognitive maps to help structure issues or problems. Eur J Oper Res 159(3):673–686

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eden C, Ackermann F (2001) Group decision and negotiation in strategy making. Group Decis Negot 10(2):119–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eden C, Ackermann F (2010) Decision making in groups: theory and practice. In: Nutt PC, Wilson DC (eds) Handbook of decision making. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, pp 231–272

    Google Scholar 

  • Eden C, Jones S, Sims D, Smithin T (1981) The intersubjectivity of issues and issues of intersubjectivity. J Manag Stud 18(1):37–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engeström Y (1987) Learning by expanding: an activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Orienta-Konsultit, Helsinki

    Google Scholar 

  • Engeström Y (2000) Activity theory as a framework for analysing and redesigning work. Ergonomics 43(7):960–974

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Espejo R, Harden R (1989) The viable systems model: interpretations and applications of Stafford Beer’s VSM. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox R (2001) Constructivism examined. Oxford Rev Educ 27(1):23–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franco LA (2013) Rethinking Soft OR interventions: models as boundary objects. Eur J Oper Res 231(3):720–733

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franco LA, Greiffenhagen C (2018) Making OR practice visible: using ethnomethodology to analyse facilitated modelling workshops. Eur J Oper Res 265(2):673–684

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franco LA, Montibeller G (2010) Facilitated modelling in operational research. Eur J Oper Res 205(3):489–500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franco LA, Nielsen MF (2018) Examining group facilitation in situ: the use of formulations in facilitation practice. Group Decis Negot 27(5):735–756

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franco LA, Rouwette EA (2011) Decision development in facilitated modelling workshops. Eur J Oper Res 212(1):164–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franco LA, Rouwette EA, Korzilius H (2016) Different paths to consensus? the impact of need for closure on model-supported group conflict management. Eur J Oper Res 249(3):878–889

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garfinkel H (1967) Studies in ethnomethodology. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  • Garfinkel H (1986) Introduction. In: Garfinkel H (ed) Ethnomethodological studies of work. Routledge, London, pp vii–viii

    Google Scholar 

  • Garfinkel H, Wieder L (1992) Text in context: contributions to ethnomethodology. Sage, Newbury Park

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin C (1993) Recording human interaction in natural settings. Pragmatics 3(2):181–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greimas AJ (1990) The social sciences: a semiotic view (P. Perron, and F. Collins, Trans.). University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis

    Google Scholar 

  • Heath C, Luff P (1992) Collaboration and control: crisis management and multimedia technology in London Underground Line Control Rooms. Comput Support Cooperat Work 1(1–2):69–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heath C, Hindmarsh J, Luff P (2010) Video in qualitative analysis: analysing social interaction in everyday life. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson K (1991) Flexible sketches and inflexible data bases: visual communication, conscription devices, and boundary objects in design engineering. Sci, Technol Human Values 16(4):448–473

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herrera HJ, McCardle-Keurentjes MHF, Videira N (2016) Evaluating Facilitated Modelling processes and outcomes: an experiment comparing a single and a multimethod approach in Group Model Building. Group Decis Negot 25(6):1277–1318

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hickling A (1990) Decision Spaces: A scenario about designing appropriate rooms for group decision management. In C. Eden, and J. Radford (Eds.), Tackling Strategic Problems: the role of group decision support: 169–177. London: Sage

    Google Scholar 

  • Hindmarsh J, Heath C (2000) Sharing the tools of the trade: the interactional constitutions of workplace objects. J Contenp Ethnogr 29(5):523–562

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hindmarsh J, Heath C, Fraser M (2006) (Im)materiality, virtual reality and interaction: grounding the ‘virtual’ in studies of technology in action. Sociol Rev 54(4):795–817

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jefferson G (2004) Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In: Lerner GH (ed) Conversation analysis: studies from the first generation. John Benjamin, Amsterdam, pp 13–31

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly G (1955) The psychology of personal constructs. A theory of personality. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keys P (2006) On becoming expert in the use of problem structuring methods. J Oper Res Soc 57:822–829

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolfschoten GL, de Vreede G-J, Pietron LR (2011) A training approach for the transition of repeatable collaboration processes to practitioners. Group Decis Negot 20(3):347–371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolfschoten GL, Kosterbok J, Hoekstra A (2015) A transferable thinkLet based process design for integrity risk assessment in government organizations. Group Decis Negot 24(4):595–611

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latour B (2005) Reassembling the social: an introduction to Actor-Network Theory. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Luff P, Hindmarsh J, Heath C (2000) Workplace studies: recovering work practice and informing system design. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lynch M (1993) Scientific practice and ordinary action: ethnomethodology and social studies of science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Melzer P, Schoop M (2016) The effects of personalised negotiation training on learning and performance in electronic negotiations. Group Decis Negot 25(6):1189–1210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miettinen R (2005) Object as activity and individual motivation. Mind, Cult Activit 12(1):53–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morton A, Ackermann F, Belton V (2003) Technology-driven and model-driven approaches to group decision support: focus, research philosophy, and key concepts. Eur J Inf Syst 12(2):110–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ormerod RJ (2008) The transformation competence perspective. J Oper Res Soc 59(11):1435–1448

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ormerod RJ (2014) The mangle of OR practice: towards more informative case studies of ‘technical’ projects. J Oper Res Soc 65(8):1245–1260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips L (2007) Decision conferencing. In: Edwards W, Miles R Jr, von Winterfeldt D (eds) Advances in decision analysis: from foundations to applications. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 375–399

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips LD, Phillips MC (1993) Facilitated work groups: theory and practice. J Oper Res Soc 44(6):533–549

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poole MS, Holmes M, DeSanctis G (1991) Conflict management in a computer-supported meeting environment. Manag Sci 37:926–953

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porcheron M, Fischer JE, Reeves S, Sharples S (2018) Voice interfaces in everyday life. In: Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2018 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems

    Google Scholar 

  • Potter J (2002) Two kinds of natural. Discour Stud 4(4):539–542

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rouncefield M, Tolmie P (2016) Ethnomethodology at work. Routledge, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rouwette EAJA, Vennix JAM, Van Mullekom T (2002) Group model building effectiveness. A review of assessment studies. Syst Dyn Rev 18(1):5–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sacks H (1992) In: Jefferson G (ed) Lectures on conversation. Basil Blackwell, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Sacks H, Schegloff EA, Jefferson G (1974) A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50(4):696–735

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samra-Fredericks D (2010) The interactional accomplishment of a strategic plan. In: Llewellyn N, Hindmarsh J (eds) Organization, interaction and practice: studies in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 198–217

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Schegloff EA (1968) Sequencing in conversational openings 1. Am Anthropol 70(6):1075–1095

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt K (1999) Of maps and scripts: the status of formal constructs in cooperative work. J Inf Softw Technol 41(6):319–329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Škraba A, Kljajić M, Borštnar MK (2007) The role of information feedback in the management group decision-making process applying System Dynamics models. Group Decis Negot 16(1):77–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Star SL, Griesemer RJ (1989) Institutional ecology, ‘Translations’, and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrae Zoology. Soc Stud Sci 19:387–420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stokoe E (2013) The (in)authenticity of simulated talk: comparing role-played and actual conversation and the implications for communication training. Res Lang Soc Interact 46(2):1–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stokoe E (2014) The Conversation Analytic Role-play Method (CARM): a method for training communication skills as an alternative to simulated role-play. Res Lang Soc Interact 47(3):255–265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tavella E, Franco LA (2015) Dynamics of group knowledge production in facilitated modelling workshops: An exploratory study. Group Decis Negot 24(3):451–475

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tavella E, Papadopoulos T (2015a) Expert and novice facilitated modelling: a case of a Viable System Model workshop in a local food network. J Oper Res Soc 66(2):247–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tavella E, Papadopoulos T (2015b) Novice facilitators and the use of scripts for managing facilitated modelling workshops. J Oper Res Soc 66(12):1967–1988

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson JP, Howick S, Belton V (2016) Critical learning incidents in system dynamics modelling engagements. Eur J Oper Res 249(3):945–958

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Velez-Castiblanco J, Brocklesby J, Midgley G (2016) Boundary games: how teams of OR practitioners explore the boundaries of intervention. Eur J Oper Res 249(3):968–982

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Velez-Castiblanco J, Londono-Correa D, Naranjo-Rivera O (2018) The structure of problem structuring conversations: a boundary games approach. Group Decis Negot 27(5):853–884

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watson R (2009) Analysing practical and professional texts: a naturalistic approach. Ashgate, London

    Google Scholar 

  • White L (2009) Understanding problem structuring methods interventions. Eur J Oper Res 99(3):823–833

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White L, Burger K, Yearworth M (2016) Understanding behaviour in problem structuring methods interventions with activity theory. Eur J Oper Res 249(3):983–1004

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Business and Economics, Loughborough University, Leicestershire, UK

    L. Alberto Franco

  2. Universidad del Pacifico, Lima, Peru

    L. Alberto Franco

  3. Department of Sociology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong

    Christian Greiffenhagen

Authors
  1. L. Alberto Franco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christian Greiffenhagen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to L. Alberto Franco .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Wilfrid Laurier University Dept. Mathematics, Waterloo, ON, Canada

    D. Marc Kilgour

  2. University of Strathclyde Strathclyde Business School, Glasgow, UK

    Colin Eden

Appendix: Transcription Symbols

Appendix: Transcription Symbols

For the analysis presented in this chapter, we followed the conversation analytic transcript conventions developed by Gail Jefferson (2004). The most important are the following:

  • Double parentheses [“(( ))”] are used to mark transcriber’s descriptions of events.

  • Single parentheses [“( )”] indicate uncertainty on the transcriber’s part.

  • Underlined items [“item”] are hearably stressed.

  • Colons [“a::]” indicate prolongation of the immediately prior sound.

  • The degree sign [“°”] is used as a softener.

  • A dash [“-”] indicates a cut-off.

  • An inbreath is denoted by a preceding circle [“°h”].

  • Numbers in parentheses [e.g., “(0.3)”] denote a silence in tenth of seconds, while “(.)” denotes a micropause of less than 0.2 seconds.

  • The onset of overlap is indicated either through square brackets between lines [“[“], or in case of “latching” through an equal sign [“=”].

  • An arrow is used to indicate particular lines of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Franco, L.A., Greiffenhagen, C. (2020). Group Decision Support Practice ‘as It Happens’. In: Kilgour, D.M., Eden, C. (eds) Handbook of Group Decision and Negotiation. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12051-1_54-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12051-1_54-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-12051-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-12051-1

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference Behavioral Science and PsychologyReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation