1998
DOI: 10.1080/07421222.1998.11518216
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

An Assessment of Group Support Systems Experimental Research: Methodology and Results

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

7
274
1

Year Published

2001
2001
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
5
3
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 527 publications
(282 citation statements)
references
References 60 publications
7
274
1
Order By: Relevance
“…From the beginning of the 1980's, Electronic Meeting Systems have been viewed as the Holy Grail to improve meeting processes (Fjermestad and Hiltz, 1999). The role of EMS can be broadly defined as supporting work by enhancing group cognition.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…From the beginning of the 1980's, Electronic Meeting Systems have been viewed as the Holy Grail to improve meeting processes (Fjermestad and Hiltz, 1999). The role of EMS can be broadly defined as supporting work by enhancing group cognition.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Limiting our discussion to the outcome variables, [17] propose five categories: efficiency, effectiveness, satisfaction, consensus and usability. [28] has also an extensive overview of the published results from empirical research.…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There is a strong feeling, constructed from many personal experiences, that too many meetings fail or are simply a waste of time [35]. Technology has been viewed as the Holy Grail to improve the meeting process and outcomes [17]. This perspective has lead to the development of meetingware, defined as a combination of implementation and use of meetingware, and the whole development may be compromised because of misaligned expectations [16; 26].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…But even after hundreds of experiments the data is still inconclusive and there are no solid conclusions for the overall topic. Fjermestand and Hiltz [11] conducted a meta-study in 1999 examining more than 230 articles. They observed that most experiments do not show any significant results, especially when comparing Face-toface (FtF) and Computer-mediated communication (CMC) groups.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%