Information Is What You Make of It: The Influence of Group History and Computer Support on Information Sharing, Decision Quality, and Member Perceptions

• Published in: Journal of management information systems Vol. 15; no. 2; pp. 173 - 197
• Main Authors: Mennecke, Brian E., Valacich, Joseph S.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Abingdon Routledge 01.10.1998; M. E. Sharpe; Taylor & Francis Ltd
• Subjects: Behavior; Collaboration; Computer mediated communications; Decision making; Decision support systems; decision-group history; group cohesion; Group development; Group performance; Group size; group support systems; Groups; Hypotheses; Information; Information communication; Information sharing; Information storage and retrieval systems; Information technology; Laboratories; Observational research; Social interaction; Studies; Technology
• ISSN: 0742-1222; 1557-928X
• DOI: 10.1080/07421222.1998.11518213

Researchers have proposed that the contradictions observed between past group support system (GSS) laboratory and field research may be partially accounted for by the ad-hoc nature of the groups that are often used in the laboratory. To examine this, a laboratory experiment examining the influence of group history (i.e., established versus ad-hoc groups) and the level of computer support (i.e., communicating via a computer-mediated system versus face-to-face) was conducted. Dependent variables examined in the research include information-sharing performance, decision quality, and member perceptions. Subjects completed a hidden profile task-a task where some information is held by all group members prior to the meeting, while other information is held only by a subset of the group. As expected, established groups discussed less unique information than ad-hoc groups. In addition, information sharing was positively related to the quality of group decisions. Members of established groups were more satisfied than members of ad-hoc groups; members using the computermediated system were less satisfied than those communicating face-to-face. In addition, group cohesion was positively related to satisfaction and decision quality. The results are discussed in the context of prior theory and research. Opportunities for future research are also described.