As organizational environments become more turbulent and as managers spend more time in meetings in an effort to deal with that turbulence, using information technology to support meetings has become more important. This paper reports on an experiment that compared meetings supported by information technology to meetings with conventional manual support only. The experiment differs from most previous group decision support system (GDSS) experiments in that solutions to the task it used could be objectively scored, it introduced assigned leadership as an independent variable, and it is the first GDSS experiment to compare use of a subset of the University of Arizona GroupSystems GDSS tools to manual group methods. In addition to a communication condition (GDSS or manual) and assigned leadership, the experiment also investigated the effects of anonymity on group process and outcomes. The experiment found that GDSS groups were less likely to reach consensus, took more time to reach a decision, and had more equal levels of member participation than manual groups. No main effects were found for assigned leadership or anonymity.
Various aspects of the design and use of Electronic Meeting Systems (EMS) have been investigated in laboratory and field studies, but until now no one has systematically investigated the role of EMS software on group performance. The current study compares two different EMS software tools in a controlled experiment. Dependent variables are decision quality, number of unique alternatives generated, satisfaction, and consensus. The study found that one software tool produced better quality solutions to a combination creativity and intellective task, but the other helped generate more unique alternatives. Each tool worked best on the task for which it was designed. The findings support the authors' premise that there should be a match between the EMS software tool and the task to be performed. The findings have several implications for the design of EMS software.