The Impact of a Structured-Argument Approach on Group Problem Formulation*

Despite advances in decision analysis and decision support systems, few formulaic procedures exist for undertaking problem formulation, particularly in group settings. This leaves managers with little procedural support for the important task of carefully structuring problems. In a laboratory experiment of 29 intact student teams, we contrasted two problem formulation methodologies: a structured argument approach (based on application of formal reasoning) and a group process approach (based on private idea generation prior to public sharing and evaluation of ideas). The structured argument approach took more time to use and failed to bring about more information search and equivocality reduction in group discussions. On the positive side, however, the structured argument approach led to a greater combination of both coverage of critical issues and consensus on those issues. Use of the structured argument approach also resulted in higher satisfaction with the problem definition and commitment to implementing results of the group meeting. Overall, the results reveal cost/benefit tradeoffs associated with developing argumentation-based procedures for problem formulation.

[1]  Gerardine DeSanctis,et al.  Capturing the Complexity in Advanced Technology Use: Adaptive Structuration Theory , 1994 .

[2]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  User Perceptions of Decision Support Effectiveness: Two Production Planning Experiments * , 1994 .

[3]  Gary J. Cook,et al.  A Computerized Approach to Decision Process Tracing for Decision Support System Design , 1993 .

[4]  Gary J. Cook,et al.  An Empirical Investigation of Information Search Strategies with Implications for Decision Support System Design , 1993 .

[5]  James F. Courtney,et al.  Automated Discovery in Managerial Problem Formulation: Formation of Causal Hypotheses for Cognitive Mapping , 1993 .

[6]  R. Bostrom,et al.  Evolution of group performance over time: A repeated measures study of GDSS effects , 1993 .

[7]  William Acar,et al.  Toward Computerizing a Causal Modeling Approach to Strategic Problem Framing , 1992 .

[8]  P. C. Nutt.  Formulation Tactics and the Success of Organizational Decision Making , 1992 .

[9]  Michael E. Holmes,et al.  Conflict management in a computer-supported meeting in a computer supported meeting environment , 1991 .

[10]  Shawn P. Curley,et al.  Belief, knowledge, and uncertainty: A cognitive perspective on subjective probability , 1991 .

[11]  Gerardine DeSanctis,et al.  Comprehensiveness and restrictiveness in group decision heuristics: effects of computer support on consensus decision making , 1989, ICIS '89.

[12]  Paula L. Rechner,et al.  Experiential Effects of Dialectical Inquiry, Devil's Advocacy and Consensus Approaches to Strategic Decision Making , 1989 .

[13]  Gerald F. Smith.  Defining Managerial Problems: A Framework for Prescriptive Theorizing , 1989 .

[14]  Gerardine DeSanctis,et al.  Supporting group performance during stakeholder analysis: the effects of alternative computer-based designs , 1989 .

[15]  Ilze Zigurs,et al.  A Study of Influence in Computer-Mediated Group Decision Making , 1988, MIS Q..

[16]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  Information Technology to Support Electronic Meetings , 1988, MIS Q..

[17]  Gerardine DeSanctis,et al.  Computer-Based Support for Group Problem-Finding: An Experimental Investigation , 1988, MIS Q..

[18]  M. Markus,et al.  Information technology and organizational change: causal structure in theory and research , 1988 .

[19]  Richard T. Watson,et al.  COMPUTER-SUPPORTED MEETINGS: BUILDING A RESEARCH ENVIRONMENT. , 1988 .

[20]  Gerardine DeSanctis,et al.  Using a GDSS to Facilitate Group Consensus: Some Intended and Unintended Consequences , 1988, MIS Q..

[21]  D. A. Cowan.  Developing a Process Model of Problem Recognition , 1986 .

[22]  Tim Smithin,et al.  Computer Decision Support for Senior Mangers: Encouraging Exploration , 1986, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

[23]  Richard L. Daft,et al.  Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design , 1986 .

[24]  Colin Eden,et al.  Synthetic Wisdom: The Design of a Mixed-Mode Modelling System for Organizational Decision Making , 1986 .

[25]  Surya B. Yadav,et al.  Management of Type III Error in Problem Identification , 1985 .

[26]  D. L. Gladstein.  Groups in context: A model of task group effectiveness. , 1984 .

[27]  P. C. Nutt.  Types of organizational decision processes. , 1984, Administrative science quarterly.

[28]  Liam Fahey,et al.  Toward understanding strategic issue diagnosis , 1983 .

[29]  R. Volkema.  Problem Formulation in Planning and Design , 1983 .

[30]  Linda L. Putnam,et al.  EQUIVOCAL MESSAGES IN ORGANIZATIONS , 1982 .

[31]  Ian I. Mitroff,et al.  Policy as Argument-A Logic for Ill-Structured Decision Problems , 1982 .

[32]  Richard M. Tong,et al.  On the Generation of Alternatives in Decision Analysis Problems , 1982 .

[33]  Karl E. Weick,et al.  An Assessment Of Laboratory Experiments In Accounting , 1982 .

[34]  Marjorie A. Lyles.  Formulating strategic problems: Empirical analysis and model development , 1981 .

[35]  R. Mason,et al.  Structuring III‐structured policy issues: Further explorations in a methodology for messy problems , 1980 .

[36]  Marjorie A. Lyles,et al.  Organizational Problem Formulation: An Empirical Study. , 1980 .

[37]  S. Green,et al.  The effects of three social decision schemes on decision group process , 1980 .

[38]  R. Ashton,et al.  Students As Surrogates In Behavioral Accounting Research - Some Evidence , 1980 .

[39]  James C. Bezdek,et al.  A Fuzzy Analysis of Consensus in Small Groups , 1980 .

[40]  Ernest R. Alexander,et al.  The Design of Alternatives in Organizational Contexts: A Pilot Study , 1979 .

[41]  B. Aubrey Fisher,et al.  Social Information Processing Analysis (SIPA) , 1979 .

[42]  I. Mitroff,et al.  On Strategic Assumption-Making: A Dialectical Approach to Policy and Planning , 1979 .

[43]  Dennis S. Gouran,et al.  Behavioral correlates of perceptions of quality in decision‐making discussions , 1978 .

[44]  B. Brehmer.  Social Judgment Theory and the Analysis of Interpersonal Conflict. , 1976 .

[45]  Henry Mintzberg,et al.  The Structure of "Unstructured" Decision Processes , 1976 .

[46]  Ronald N. Taylor.  PSYCHOLOGICAL DETERMINANTS OF BOUNDED RATIONALITY: IMPLICATIONS FOR DECISION‐MAKING STRATEGIES , 1975 .

[47]  D. Weiss,et al.  Interrater reliability and agreement of subjective judgments , 1975 .

[48]  P. Nemiroff,et al.  Group Decision-Making Performance as Influenced by Consensus and Self-Orientation , 1975 .

[49]  A. V. D. Ven,et al.  The Effectiveness of Nominal, Delphi, and Interacting Group Decision Making Processes , 1974 .

[50]  T. R. Featheringham,et al.  On systemic problem solving and the error of the third kind , 1974 .

[51]  André L. Delbecq,et al.  A Group Process Model for Problem Identification and Program Planning , 1971 .

[52]  N. Maier.  Assets and liabilities in group problem solving: the need for an integrative function. , 1967, Psychological review.

[53]  G. A. Miller.  THE PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW THE MAGICAL NUMBER SEVEN, PLUS OR MINUS TWO: SOME LIMITS ON OUR CAPACITY FOR PROCESSING INFORMATION 1 , 1956 .