Horses for courses - a stakeholder view of the evaluation of GDSS's

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

24 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Evaluation of the performance of GDSSs has been dominated by an experimental and laboratory based ap-
proach. Other writers have argued for evaluation to be based in the "real-world" of decision making teams. The
evaluation criteria have tended to ignore many of the issues that would be paramount for some of the stake-
holders in the evaluation process. This article seeks to explore the criteria that might be used by a wide variety
of stakeholders, including developers, facilitators, clients, key actors, vendors, as well as academics. By drawing
together the criteria associated with all of the stakeholders we discover a broader, and possibly more thorough,
framework for evaluation. The evaluation of any particular GDSS in relation to other GDSSs can then be seen
in the context of contingent weighting applied to each of the criteria where each GDSS is able to be seen in its
best light and in relation to its declared aims.
This article argues for a more eclectic and contingent approach to the evaluation of GDSSs which will
encourage their future development to be clearer about purpose and the boundaries of their use.
LanguageEnglish
Pages501-520
Number of pages20
JournalGroup Decision and Negotiation
Volume5
Issue number4-6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1996

Fingerprint

Decision making
stakeholder
evaluation
weighting
Stakeholders
Group decision support systems
Evaluation
writer
decision making
performance
Contingent

Keywords

  • horses for courses
  • stakeholder view
  • evaluation
  • GDSSs

Cite this

@article{4db25097cbb54cf3aca5761d1b03572d,
title = "Horses for courses - a stakeholder view of the evaluation of GDSS's",
abstract = "Evaluation of the performance of GDSSs has been dominated by an experimental and laboratory based ap- proach. Other writers have argued for evaluation to be based in the {"}real-world{"} of decision making teams. The evaluation criteria have tended to ignore many of the issues that would be paramount for some of the stake- holders in the evaluation process. This article seeks to explore the criteria that might be used by a wide variety of stakeholders, including developers, facilitators, clients, key actors, vendors, as well as academics. By drawing together the criteria associated with all of the stakeholders we discover a broader, and possibly more thorough, framework for evaluation. The evaluation of any particular GDSS in relation to other GDSSs can then be seen in the context of contingent weighting applied to each of the criteria where each GDSS is able to be seen in its best light and in relation to its declared aims. This article argues for a more eclectic and contingent approach to the evaluation of GDSSs which will encourage their future development to be clearer about purpose and the boundaries of their use.",
keywords = "horses for courses, stakeholder view, evaluation, GDSSs",
author = "Colin Eden and Fran Ackermann",
year = "1996",
doi = "10.1007/BF00553915",
language = "English",
volume = "5",
pages = "501--520",
journal = "Group Decision and Negotiation",
issn = "0926-2644",
number = "4-6",

}

Horses for courses - a stakeholder view of the evaluation of GDSS's. / Eden, Colin; Ackermann, Fran.

In: Group Decision and Negotiation, Vol. 5, No. 4-6, 1996, p. 501-520.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Horses for courses - a stakeholder view of the evaluation of GDSS's

AU - Eden, Colin

AU - Ackermann, Fran

PY - 1996

Y1 - 1996

N2 - Evaluation of the performance of GDSSs has been dominated by an experimental and laboratory based ap- proach. Other writers have argued for evaluation to be based in the "real-world" of decision making teams. The evaluation criteria have tended to ignore many of the issues that would be paramount for some of the stake- holders in the evaluation process. This article seeks to explore the criteria that might be used by a wide variety of stakeholders, including developers, facilitators, clients, key actors, vendors, as well as academics. By drawing together the criteria associated with all of the stakeholders we discover a broader, and possibly more thorough, framework for evaluation. The evaluation of any particular GDSS in relation to other GDSSs can then be seen in the context of contingent weighting applied to each of the criteria where each GDSS is able to be seen in its best light and in relation to its declared aims. This article argues for a more eclectic and contingent approach to the evaluation of GDSSs which will encourage their future development to be clearer about purpose and the boundaries of their use.

AB - Evaluation of the performance of GDSSs has been dominated by an experimental and laboratory based ap- proach. Other writers have argued for evaluation to be based in the "real-world" of decision making teams. The evaluation criteria have tended to ignore many of the issues that would be paramount for some of the stake- holders in the evaluation process. This article seeks to explore the criteria that might be used by a wide variety of stakeholders, including developers, facilitators, clients, key actors, vendors, as well as academics. By drawing together the criteria associated with all of the stakeholders we discover a broader, and possibly more thorough, framework for evaluation. The evaluation of any particular GDSS in relation to other GDSSs can then be seen in the context of contingent weighting applied to each of the criteria where each GDSS is able to be seen in its best light and in relation to its declared aims. This article argues for a more eclectic and contingent approach to the evaluation of GDSSs which will encourage their future development to be clearer about purpose and the boundaries of their use.

KW - horses for courses

KW - stakeholder view

KW - evaluation

KW - GDSSs

UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00553915

U2 - 10.1007/BF00553915

DO - 10.1007/BF00553915

M3 - Article

VL - 5

SP - 501

EP - 520

JO - Group Decision and Negotiation

T2 - Group Decision and Negotiation

JF - Group Decision and Negotiation

SN - 0926-2644

IS - 4-6

ER -