Information technology has found its way into the meeting room. Using computers, new ideas can be offered without the risk of rejection, consensus can be achieved without the threat of political influence, and more than one person can give their views at the same time without the chance of miscommunication.

A significant technological change for many companies over the next several years will be the advent of communication networks. Local- and wide-area networks will affect communication both within and outside any given locale. The ability to communicate is needed to perform services, share knowledge and skills in an increasingly complex business environment, and to increase consensus on controversial decisions.

Although some meetings are essential for some communications, many meetings are considered unproductive, frustrating, and costly. Traditional face-to-face meetings have inherent limitations. Participants must travel and coordinate their time schedules; information must be processed sequentially because normally only one person speaks at a time; participants may not fully take part; meetings can easily become disorganized; and meetings are frequently dominated by powerful or vocal participants. Given the pervasiveness of meetings and their inherent limitations, an important issue is how to make meetings, i.e., communication at meetings, more productive.

Recent management science research on the effect of computer networks on group communication has shown that the use of the technology opens up opportunities to improve interactions among individuals working together. In particular, the advent of network technology has allowed the development of group support systems that use networks to facilitate group processing. These systems provide an opportunity for address ing the many negatives and general inefficiencies typically associated with face-to-face communications.

A group support system (GSS) has three components: computer hardware, computer software, and network technology combined in a variety of configurations. GSSs may be used by a group working collaboratively over a long period of time or they may support groups meeting at a specific point in time. The latter use is the focus of this discussion.

Some GSSs use networked personal computers for each meeting participant, others rely on a single computer used by a meeting facilitator, while still others use keypads for participant voting. Most use a large central display screen that everyone in a given group location can see. Some GSS-supported meetings still take place in a conference room, while other GSS-supported meetings take place with group members in different locations. One advantage of using GSS in any form is that use of such a system generally requires greater meeting planning, which is a major factor in increasing meeting quality.

Not All Meetings Are Created Equal

Meetings vary as to purpose and number and location of participants. With regard to the number of participants, as meeting size increases, problems arise with timing and organization; each agenda item takes longer because of expanded participant input. At the same time more effort must be expended to keep all participants involved and attentive.

Some meetings involve participants of nearly equal status, while others may involve participants at different levels in the company hierarchy. The most common problem with meetings of this type is that they tend to be dominated by persons from upper levels, and honest participation by subordinates is inhibited.

Finally, meetings differ on quantity and type of input desired. Some meetings are for communication only, some involve voting on a set of predefined issues, others involve discussion of a limited number of possible approaches, while still others involve creative problem solving. While meetings for simple communication or voting on a predefined set of issues may proceed smoothly, a meeting addressing complex issues can become rambling and disorganized with the participants agreeing to a less than optimal solution just to end lengthy discussion.

GSSs Can Accommodate Various Meeting Types

Different GSSs are appropriate for distinct types of meetings and address diverse meeting problems. GSSs vary with respect to the level of hardware support and the features incorporated into the software. The lowest level of hardware support is a single workstation (usually a PC) used by the meeting leader or facilitator. The next level is a voting keypad for each group member combined with a workstation for the meeting leader or facilitator. The highest level of support is a personal workstation for each participant. Software features vary from simple data summarization tools to complex decision modeling tools. Table 1 summarizes the GSS hardware configurations with the features they generally support and lists example products within each configuration. Each hardware configuration is discussed in more detail below.

Single Workstation

In GSSs configured with a group leader or facilitator using a single workstation, the leader uses manual techniques to collect issues and concerns from the group. Simple TABULAR DATA FOR TABLE 1 OMITTED techniques such as index cards for issue collection and sticky dots for evaluation are used. The leader then enters this information at the workstation. Modeling tools, such as flow charts, decision trees, and causal maps, are typically applied to the data to assist the group in interpreting its collected thoughts. This type of GSS is effective for providing feedback and documentation while the group works and alleviates the problem of the group rambling.

A single workstation GSS is appropriate for small meetings with near equal status participants and complex meeting topics. It could be effective in a meeting whose purpose is designing a new accounting or internal control system. For example, the software could be used to draw flowcharts from the participants' input or to identify the characteristics of the ideal information system.

Keypad Input

Keypads are the distinctive hardware feature of another type of GSS. Keypads are similar in size and layout to a conventional telephone keypad. Meeting participants use the keypads to compare, rate, or select issues from a given list. One distinguishing feature of this type of GSS is flexibility. The system can be transported easily, and the number of users can be increased quickly. Another important feature is the diversity of formats for presenting voting output. A group vote can be processed in less than a second, and the group's average, standard deviation, and range for each voting item can be presented in both tabular and graphical form. Keypads TABULAR DATA FOR TABLE 2 OMITTED allow for the input of all participants and quick feedback.

Keypad GSSs are appropriate for large meetings - some systems support up to 500 users - with predefined issues to be resolved where quick feedback or anonymity is desirable. They have been used for voting at meetings and to conduct online surveys of employee perceptions.

Individual Workstations

The highest level of GSS hardware is a workstation for each meeting participant. These provide the most processing features because they support parallel electronic conversations. One of the most common uses of this type of GSS is as a meeting structuring tool. Examples include a facility for brainstorming; techniques for rating, ranking, and comparing issues and ideas; and stakeholder analysis. Stakeholder analysis is an issue exploration tool that provides a structure within which to identify participant biases, surface any underlying assumptions held by participants, and evaluate the effect of the biases and assumptions on the issue under discussion. The value of various meeting structuring tools differ given the purpose of the tool; however all the tools assist in keeping a group on task and provide a framework within which the group can work.

Another feature common to a GSS with individual workstations is simultaneous communication. In traditional face-to-face-groups, normally one person talks at a time. This means that the available meeting time must be divided among the speakers. A one-hour meeting with 10 participants means optimally six minutes of time for each person. GSSs with individual workstations permit parallel communication. Group members can air their ideas simultaneously through keyboard input. The move from sequential to simultaneous communication means a group can make more use of available time. Another advantage of simultaneity is the avoidance of "group think," in which individuals latch onto the first idea proposed or the ideas proposed by the most powerful meeting participant. Therefore, ideas are not ordered and can come from any meeting participant.

GSSs with individual workstations generally allow for anonymous communication. Meetings are often threatening to some participants. Although their input may be valuable, some people are reluctant to speak in a group setting. On other occasions, the sensitivity of the issue can inhibit contributions. Anonymity permits participants to be more open and candid in their comments. Anonymity, combined with simultaneity, makes this type of GSS very effective in brainstorming or raising hidden agenda issues.

Finally, like the other GSSs, those with individual workstations allow for documenting and summarizing the issues. This configuration streamlines group processing by reducing redundant or unnecessary discussion of issues.

A GSS with individual workstations is appropriate for small to mid-size meetings (five to 20 participants), with participants of equal or unequal status and complex issues to be resolved.

GSS Products

Table 2 provides information on GSS products available in North America, the supplier for each, the key features, the hardware and operating system requirements, and approximate cost. Table 2 also discloses that for each GSS configuration, a product already exists for either the DOS or Macintosh operating system and that software prices vary directly with the number of users supported and from product to product. Finally, products differ as to decision-making strategies and features. All vendors supplying information provide both demonstrations and training.

Implementation Considerations

As with any technology, assessing your business needs must precede concluding whether the technology will help you. The first phase of this assessment should include gathering data on the meetings that are conducted within your organization. Some of the data should include the frequency of meetings, the typical number of participants, the average length of meetings, the normal hierarchical mix of meeting participants, the location of participants, the types of issues discussed, and the satisfaction of participants with the meetings. Gathering this type of data allows the potential benefits of implementing a GSS to surface. Wherever possible these benefits should be quantified in terms of monetary savings, e.g., savings on travel costs. Data on availability of existing hardware also needs to be collected, e.g., types, location, and specifications of available computers and network technology installed or available.

The next phase of implementation is to select a preferred GSS solution. Compare the data on the types of meetings and existing computer hardware to possible GSSs available. Then contact vendors to demonstrate GSS technology. Generally, these vendors will allow you to conduct an actual meeting using the technology and are often willing to supply a meeting facilitator. A trial run is beneficial to test the fit of the software to your typical meeting and to observe the reactions of meeting participants to the GSS. Once the preferred GSS is identified, the cost of the system can be evaluated against potential benefits, and an implementation decision can be made. While the monetary benefits may not outweigh the costs of a GSS system, intangible benefits may accrue from the use of the software in terms of better decision-making and improved worker satisfaction.

A key factor in any implementation decision, is support by senior management. The lack of senior management support has been found to be the most frequent cause of systems implementation failures.

Finally, the implementation must be planned. Some issues to consider are the installation of the software on the system without disrupting ongoing work, training requirements for personnel who will be using the system, and evaluation of the prospective systems' effectiveness for improving meetings.

E. Michael Bamber is an associate professor of accounting at the J.M. Tull School of Accounting, The University of Georgia. Mary Callahan Hill is an assistant professor of accounting at The Belk College of Business, The University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Richard T. Watson is an associate professor of management at the Terry College of Business, The University of Georgia.