Microlevel Structuration in Computer-Supported Group Decision Making

Abstract

University ofMinnesotaThe the0 y of structurationfocuses on how actions by members of social collectives create the structures that enable and constrain future action. Most previous research on structuration ingroups andorganizations usedqualitative casestudies becausestructuratwn is quite complex. This study introduces a methodfor the study of structuration in larger samples ofgmups or organizations. A category systemfor the identification ofstructuring moves is described, along with sewral methodsfor characterizing short-and longterm trends in structuratwn processes. The method is used to study how groups incorporate a computerized group decision support system (GDSS) into their decision processes. GDSSs are part ofa class qfnezu computer and communication technologies designed to help groups improve their meetings and make better decisions. Because GDSSs must be used by a group rather than an individual, social processes are critical in deterniining their eflects on group outcomes. GDSSs influencegroups by structuring their activities, and structurational processes are critical mediators of the impacts of GDSSs on group decision making. The study focused on the 4fects ofrestrictiveness of GDSS technology on structuration processes and, in turn, on the relation of structumtion to a key group outcome, conSensus change. The results suggest that two major types of structuring processes occur in computer-supported groups and that the nature of structuration is related to degree of consensus change. he concept of structuration has received increasing attention in organizational and group communication and informa-

Revising the ‘science of the organisation’: theorising AI agency and actorhood

“…Consequently, a self-reinforcing feedback loop can produce unexpected behaviour (Bostrom, 2014). While traditional information technologies lack reflexivity and are subject to users' whims (Leonardi, 2013) AI agents are able to change behaviour and make decisions independently and autonomously, based on previous behaviour (i.e., data) similar to how organisational decisions derived from previous behaviour shape future adoptions (DeSanctis & Poole, 1994;Poole & DeSanctis, 1992), changing context without being subject to the whims of human action. This may lead to the initial human intention behind the design of a given AI being overcome or circumvented, especially when AI starts to create its own AI.…”

Organizational adaptation for using PLM systems: Group dynamism and management involvement

“…The AST model introduces human actors and the organizational context as moderators of technology impact (Gopal, Bostrom, & Chin, 1993;Scott & Desanctis, 1992), but lacks narratives on how these interactive processes might unfold in an organizational setting. Organizational change innovation theorists have developed the causal mechanism through which organizational change innovation takes place.…”

Self-Governance Through Group Discussion in Wikipedia

“…Like groups in online communities, virtual teams are also embedded in a larger organization or community (Timmerman & Scott, 2006). Many influential small group theories, such as the bona fide groups perspective (Putnam & Stohl, 1990), adaptive structuration theory (DeSanctus & Poole, 1994; Poole & DeSanctis, 1992), and Jablin and Sussman’s (1983) theory of organizational groups, emphasize the importance of understanding groups in relation to their contexts. Small group theories are well positioned to study groups within online communities, and this research could have implications for virtual teams.…”