IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v37y1991i10p1325-1346.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Information Technology for Negotiating Groups: Generating Options for Mutual Gain

Author

Listed:
  • J. F. Nunamaker, Jr.

    (Department of Management Information Systems, Karl Eller Graduate School of Management, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721)

  • Alan R. Dennis

    (Department of Management, Terry College of Business, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602)

  • Joseph S. Valacich

    (Decision and Information Systems Department, School of Business, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana 47405)

  • Douglas R. Vogel

    (Department of Management Information Systems, Karl Eller Graduate School of Management, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721)

Abstract

The study of negotiating groups, whether distributive between competing parties (i.e., "win-lose") or integrative between essentially friendly parties from the same organization (i.e., "win-win"), remains important. While much previous research in this area has focused on key analytical issues such as evaluating proposed options, much less research has addressed the equally important initial stage of negotiation: generating options for mutual gain. In general, groups do this poorly, as there are many obstacles that inhibit successful option generation. Recent advances in computer technology provide additional approaches that can be used to support option generation as one component in an overall Negotiation Support System. This paper presents an integrated series of laboratory and field studies that investigated various aspects of computer-supported option generation for groups that meet at the same place and time. The use of anonymity to separate personalities from the issues and promote more objective evaluation was found to improve option generation in some circumstances, particularly those with increased criticalness and/or power differences among the participants. Larger groups were found to be more effective than smaller groups, several smaller groups combined, and nominal groups. We present several implications for theory development and system design and use, as well as a tentative model for computer-supported group option generation.

Suggested Citation

  • J. F. Nunamaker, Jr. & Alan R. Dennis & Joseph S. Valacich & Douglas R. Vogel, 1991. "Information Technology for Negotiating Groups: Generating Options for Mutual Gain," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 37(10), pages 1325-1346, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:37:y:1991:i:10:p:1325-1346
    DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.37.10.1325
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.37.10.1325
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mnsc.37.10.1325?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Teich, Jeffrey E. & Wallenius, Hannele & Wallenius, Jyrki & Zionts, Stanley, 1996. "Identifying Pareto-optimal settlements for two-party resource allocation negotiations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 93(3), pages 536-549, September.
    2. Michael Parent & R. Brent Gallupe, 2001. "The Role of Leadership in Group Support Systems Failure," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 10(5), pages 405-422, September.
    3. Mohamed Khalifa & RonChi-Wai Kwok & Robert Davison, 2002. "The Effects of Process and Content Facilitation Restrictiveness on GSS-Mediated Collaborative Learning," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 11(5), pages 345-361, September.
    4. Schilling, Martin S. & Mulford, Matthew, 2007. "In search of value-for-money in collective bargaining: an analytic-interactive mediation process," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 22694, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    5. Sajda Qureshi, 1998. "Supporting a Network Way of Working in an Electronic Social Space," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 7(5), pages 399-416, September.
    6. Robert L. Armacost & Jamshid C. Hosseini & Julie Pet-Edwards, 1999. "Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process as a Two-phase Integrated Decision Approach for Large Nominal Groups," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 8(6), pages 535-555, November.
    7. Qureshi, S. & Vogel, D.R., 2000. "Adaptivenes in Virtual Teams," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2000-20-LIS, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    8. Sajda Qureshi & Doug Vogel, 2001. "Adaptiveness in Virtual Teams: Organisational Challenges and Research Directions," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 27-46, January.
    9. Hussein, Mohamed E. & Kraten, Michael & Seow, Gim S. & Tam, Kinsun, 2017. "Influences of Culture on Transfer Price Negotiation," The International Journal of Accounting, Elsevier, vol. 52(3), pages 227-237.
    10. A. Adla & P. Zarate & J.-L. Soubie, 2011. "A Proposal of Toolkit for GDSS Facilitators," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 57-77, January.
    11. Terri L. Griffith & Mark A. Fuller & Gregory B. Northcraft, 1998. "Facilitator Influence in Group Support Systems: Intended and Unintended Effects," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 9(1), pages 20-36, March.
    12. Igor Pyrko & Colin Eden & Susan Howick, 2019. "Knowledge Acquisition Using Group Support Systems," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 28(2), pages 233-253, April.
    13. Utpal Bose & David B. Paradice, 1999. "The Effects of Integrating Cognitive Feedback and Multi-attribute Utility-Based Multicriteria Decision-Making Methods in GDSS," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 8(2), pages 157-182, March.
    14. Sajda Qureshi & Min Liu & Doug Vogel, 2006. "The Effects of Electronic Collaboration in Distributed Project Management," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 55-75, January.
    15. Qureshi, S. & Hlupic, V. & de Vreede, G-J. & Briggs, R.O., 2002. "Harnessing Intellectual Resources in a Collaborative Context to Create Value," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2002-28-LIS, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    16. Samer Faraj & Sirkka L. Jarvenpaa & Ann Majchrzak, 2011. "Knowledge Collaboration in Online Communities," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(5), pages 1224-1239, October.
    17. Rajiv D. Banker & Robert J. Kauffman, 2004. "50th Anniversary Article: The Evolution of Research on Information Systems: A Fiftieth-Year Survey of the Literature in Management Science," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(3), pages 281-298, March.
    18. Eom, Sean B, 1998. "The Intellectual Development and Structure of Decision Support Systems (1991-1995)," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 26(5), pages 639-657, October.
    19. Qureshi, S. & Liu, M. & Vogel, D.R., 2004. "A Grounded Theory Analysis of E-Collaboration Effects for Distributed Project Management," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2004-059-LIS, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    20. Robert Davison, 2000. "The Role of Groupware in Requirements Specification," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 9(2), pages 149-160, March.
    21. Wynne W. Chin & Barbara L. Marcolin & Peter R. Newsted, 2003. "A Partial Least Squares Latent Variable Modeling Approach for Measuring Interaction Effects: Results from a Monte Carlo Simulation Study and an Electronic-Mail Emotion/Adoption Study," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 14(2), pages 189-217, June.
    22. Fred Niederman & John Bryson, 1998. "Influence of Computer-Based Meeting Support on Process and Outcomes for a Divisional Coordinating Group," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 7(4), pages 293-325, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:37:y:1991:i:10:p:1325-1346. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.