Group Decision Support Systems (GDSS)

---

1. GDSS Hardware: Details 

Decision Room:

Participants at the meeting sit around a large horseshoe desk facing one end of the room. There are several of these desks tiered in such a way that no one’s view is impaired. It is similar to a Roman amphitheatre.

Each participant is equipped with his or her own display monitor and terminal. At the front of the room, facing the participants, are two large public screens. These screens can display any information from internal or external databases, ideas generated by the group or any individual’s monitor screen. A ‘Facilitator’ who sits to the side of the public screen guides most meetings conducted in this environment.

The facilitator’s role is not to participate in the decision-making but to ensure that the meeting progresses smoothly according to some agreed procedure. Thus, the facilitator will have his own personal monitor and terminal: through these he can view and to a certain extent control other participants’ monitors and the information displayed on them. Although most communication between participants will be done through their terminals and monitors, the facilitator may communicate with the whole group verbally. At his disposal are two large whiteboards on which he can write. These whiteboards are also huge photocopiers that can record everything written on them and produce hard copy at the end of the meeting. Telecommunications tend to be of a highly sophisticated kind. For a major multinational it will allow the company to call up information from databases and analytical models from around the world. The setting is one of deep pile carpets, soft lighting and monitors that are sunk into quality mahogany desks.

Surrounding this room will be other smaller rooms called ‘Breakaway Rooms’ which may be used for smaller face-to-face discussions. These meetings clearly occur at the same time and at the same place.

Local Decision Network:

This is probably the cheapest and simplest type of GDSS based around a Local Area Network (LAN). Although participants sit separated from one another physically, the distances involved are so small that they may be regarded as being in the same place. Each has his or her own personal workstation. They have access to a wide variety of information sources, both private and public. There is specialised equipment, such as optical scanners for document imaging, and specialised software, for example: email and workflow management programs. The latter allow scanned documents to be sent around a network.

These documents can be viewed and perhaps altered by those on the network. The program can let the originator of the document know the stage in the process the document has reached, and who has dealt with it. Thus participants can easily communicate with one another and share information or else work privately on their own personal matters.

Participants in this type of environment usually work closely and regularly with one another. Group decision making can take place over a protracted period. Unlike the previous scenario, there is no facilitator to move the action along and to get a decision by a certain deadline. Thus, a particular issue may be left and returned to intermittently by an individual; while in between times he deals with other work. This type of decision-making lends itself, for example: to a head of department who wishes to stimulate discussion on a certain topic and solicit colleagues’ opinions. On the basis of this discussion and opinion he may take the final decision himself.

Teleconferencing:

This type of GDSS is for participants who sit geographically separated, perhaps in different countries, and are unable to meet in the same place but can meet at the same time: this is achieved by using telecommunications to link together two or more Decision Rooms. This is because of the large distances between the participants, it is essential that the telecommunications equipment is highly reliable. In this system there are large cost savings, due to the avoidance of travel costs and productivity losses from time spent travelling.

Remote Decision-Making:

Finally, this type of GDSS is very similar to the Local Decision Network, but the individuals involved in the joint decision-making are geographically dispersed. Again the telecommunications, whether they be by satellite, microwave or telephonic link, must be of the highest standard. Unlike teleconferencing, which can take a long time to set up and is somewhat rigid in its format, remote decision-making has the advantage of flexibility and is on-going.

2. Problems with Manual Meetings

The requirement for a GDSS arises because of the problems that are associated with manual meetings. For example:

• There may be social pressures to make group members agree to a certain outcome, contrary to what they think is best, “groupthink”
• Most manual meetings are slow and time-consuming, as only one person can have the floor at any one time
• There may be poor planning and lack of control at the meeting
• A few individuals may dominate the meeting, whilst these who are timid may not contribute enough
• There is a tendency for some group members to let others do the work
• In order to end the meeting there may be a tendency towards compromised solutions of poor quality
• Non-productive time may occur due to socialising, getting ready for the meeting and waiting for late-comers
• The tendency to repeat what has already been said
• Large costs are incurred if people have to travel long distances to attend the meeting
• Groups take more risky decisions, as no one alone feels personally responsible
• There can be incomplete or inappropriate use of information
• The group may not be truly representative of that necessary to make an effective decision
• There may be an over-emphasis on emotional issues
• There may be no published results or follow up action

3. Process Gains from GDSS

Some of the gains from using a GDSS are as follows:

• It supports parallel processing of information and generation of ideas
• Allows more effective use of larger groups with more complete information
• Permits the group to use structured or unstructured methods to complete the task
• Offers easy and rapid access to external information
• Allows non-sequential computer discussion
• Helps participants see and deal with the larger picture
• Allows anonymity in discussion and in voting results
• Produces voting results quickly
• Can impose a stricture on the meeting that keeps the group on task
• Records automatically all information that passes through the system for future analysis

4. Details of the Nominal Group Technique

There are several steps to the technique.

• Step 1: Group members are presented with an issue that requires discussion. For example: why is the firm losing market share? Each member will then spend 10 or 15 minutes silently recording their ideas on this question.
• Step 2: Group members will then share their ideas. Each member does this in turn, putting forward one idea to be publicly recorded. This procedure continues in a round-robin fashion until all ideas have been exhausted. As the public list of ideas grows, it may influence the idea put forward by an individual when his or her turn comes around. For example: no sensible person would put forward an idea already on the list. At this stage, no discussion takes place.
• Step 3: Discussion of the ideas then takes place under the direction of a Group Leader (Facilitator). The Group Leader is usually a person well-trained in facilitating discussion between people on what may be a very controversial subject. The leader will determine the sequence in which ideas will be discussed and ensure that everyone who wishes to will have an equal say. His most important job is to prevent anyone dominating the discussion and to prevent the debate from becoming acrimonious and personal.
• Step 4: Group members are then asked to rank the ideas in order of importance. This ranking may be limited to what each considers, in their opinion, to be the five most important ideas. A single list is then produced which summarises the group’s ranking.
• Step 5: The implications of the group ranking are then discussed under the direction of the Group Leader. This may produce changes in some members’ opinions.
• Step 6: In order to accommodate any changes in opinion under Step 5, the group once more votes to determine what the final group ranking will be.

Such a procedure carried out manually can result in some undesirable side-effects. A great many of the above steps are very time-consuming and individuals can become bored waiting for the results.

Also, the Group Leader usually records ideas and he may not record them accurately. For political reasons, individuals may not wish to be identified with certain ideas or contradict the Group Leader if he is someone of importance.

The computerisation of this technique within a GDSS can obviate all of these undesirable side-effects.

If ideas are inputted at a keyboard, this can speed up the recording procedure as long as everyone is reasonably competent in the use of a keyboard. Time is also saved in the various voting procedures, as this is easy to automate. Ideas are obviously recorded accurately and they can easily be made anonymous, if this is what the group wishes. Discussion can also take place via the keyboard and monitor. In some instances however, face-to-face discussions can facilitate proceedings and give participants a welcome break from their terminals. This is why ‘Breakout Rooms’ are often provided for such purposes.

5. Details of the Delphi Method

This method can also be summarised in six steps:

• Step 1: The person(s) organising the survey first clarify the problem which needs addressing and then designs a questionnaire which will provide them with the information that they need.
• Step 2: A decision is then taken on the most appropriate experts to consult and their permission sought for their participation.
• Step 3: This questionnaire is sent out to the various experts, who will return the completed questionnaire without communicating with one another.
• Step 4: The results of the first questionnaire response are summarised and a second questionnaire designed on the basis of the findings.
• Step 5: The second questionnaire is sent out to the participants along with the summarised results of the first questionnaire.
• Step 6: The responses to the second questionnaire are analysed and a summary of the results is made available to the decision-makers.

The main disadvantage of the Delphi Method is its time-consuming nature. In this respect it is much worse than the Nominal Group Technique as a great deal of time is taken up with designing questionnaires, mailing them out, waiting for responses and analysing the results. Several weeks or even months could be involved in an actual survey. However, most of these delays can be avoided with computerisation and modern telecommunications.

6. GDSS – The Facilitator

Probably the most important person involved with a GDSS is the Facilitator. This person is sometimes known as the Group Leader or ‘Chauffeur’.

Extensive training is required for this role and some practitioners claim that it requires at least two years’ experience to become fully proficient. Some of the tasks carried out by the Facilitator are as follows:

• Initiator: Suggests new ways to tackle a problem or new ways to approach it. May suggest possible solutions, but has to be careful not to actually influence the outcome of the meeting.
• Information Gatherer: Ensures that everyone keeps to the facts and tries to extract any facts relevant to the problem from the participants or elsewhere.
• Opinion Seeker: Draws out from participants other types of data, such as opinions, attitudes and personal feelings.
• Elaborator: Clarifies points already made by giving examples, rephrasing and highlighting the implications of the arguments made.
• Coordinator: Ensures that everyone sees the relationship between the several ideas being discussed and their relevance to the overall problem.
• Orienter: Keeps participants focused on the question in hand and does not allow the discussion to become too diverse.
• Evaluator: Appraises the meeting in terms of the method used, its practicality and underlying rationale.
• Energiser: Stimulates the group when the participants appear to be flagging.
• Procedural Technician: Prepares the operational procedures and cares for the materials and equipment.

In addition to these tasks, the Facilitator must use their personality and authority to make the group work well together. This means either praising and showing warmth to those who strive for agreement or conversely being negative and cold to those who appear to be bent on destructive conflict. Clearly such a role requires a person of understanding and tact, who has an insight into human personality.

7. Research Results

It has been found that anonymity is an important aspect of GDSS’s. It encourages participation by group members who might otherwise be silent due to political, social or individual pressure. In some cases it may have adverse effects by supporting either frivolous or aggressive remarks but on balance it is considered to be a major benefit. The design of a Decision Room is found to be important in making participants feel at ease and comfortable with the technology. This is particularly true for top executives who expect luxurious furnishings and good lighting.

The provision of multiple public screens in a Decision Room is also important. It increases productivity by allowing more data to be shown at once, particularly for comparing two contrasting positions.

It has been found that the comprehensive provision of external and internal databases is essential to make meetings effective. The accurate recordings of all attitudes, decisions and opinions during the meeting is necessary and these must be readily available when requested.

A wide bandwidth LAN is required to give the split-second responses necessary for user satisfaction.

In general there seems to be no particular preference for a standardised approach to group meetings as opposed to a customised one.

Satisfaction with a GDSS appears to wane with group size. In fact, with group sizes less than eight a GDSS may be counter productive, as the technology obstructs meaningful discussion.

Finally the main advantages of group techniques appear to be:

• greater sum total of knowledge is produced
• greater number of alternative solutions to a problem are explored
• better understanding
• acceptance of decisions

---

Reference(s)
	Book		Campbell, D. J. & Craig, T. (2005) Organisations and the Business Environment. 2nd Edition. Elsevier: Netherlands, North Holland, Amsterdam. [ISBN: 9780750658294]. [Available on: Amazon: https://amzn.to/3VHJupz].
	Journal		Dolk, D. R. & Kridel, D. J. (1991) An active modeling system for econometric analysis. Decision Support Systems, Volume: 7, Issue: 4, Page(s): 315-328. [doi: 10.1016/0167-9236(91)90061-F]. [Available on: ScienceDirect: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/016792369190061F].
	Book		Pfaffenberger, B. (2002) Computers in Your Future 2003. 5th Edition. Prentice Hall: United States of America (USA), New Jersey (NJ), Bergen, Upper Saddle River. [ISBN: 9780139227820]. [Available on: Amazon: https://amzn.to/3gv8n7D].
	Book		Sprague, R. H., Watson, H. J. & Sprague Jr, R. H. (1993) Decision Support Systems: Putting Theory into Practice. 3rd Edition. Prentice Hall: United States of America (USA), New York (NY). [ISBN: 9780130422354]. [Available on: Amazon: https://amzn.to/3Defw3T].

---

Reference (or cite) Article
	Kahlon, R. S. (2013) Group Decision Support Systems (GDSS) [Online]. dkode: United Kingdom, England, London. [Published on: 2013-02-09]. [Article ID: RSK666-0000102]. [Available on: dkode | Ravi - https://ravi.dkode.co/2013/02/group-decision-support-systems-gdss.html].

---