Poole
receives NSF funding to continue GDSS work
NSF
is closed off to communication researchers?
Not according to Marshall Scott Poole, Professor of Speech
Communication at Texas A&M University.
Poole was recently awarded $213,000 by the National Science
Foundation’s Decision Risk and Management Sciences program to support
his continued work on a group decision support system, a computerized
means of assisting groups to make decisions.
Poole, who began this work while at the University of Minnesota,
Minneapolis, received the funding with two members of Minnesota’s
Information and Decision Sciences department, Salvatore Tony March, and
Gerardine DeSanctis.
This
grant is the third that NSF has awarded to this line of research.
The first award, made in 1988, supported initial design of a
means of using computers to assist with decision-making.
The second award, made in 1991, supported moving from an emphasis
on the technology to an emphasis on finding how decisions are made and
developing a system to assist groups in making decisions according to a
particular model of decision-making.
Yet, this model proved limiting because it did not take into
account the dynamic of individual groups, nor was it able to adapt to
group needs as they changed over time.
So, the third phase of the research will be concerned with
building a means of adapting the technology to a variety of group
interaction patterns and making the system flexible enough to guide the
participants through decision-making processes without needing a human
facilitator.
Initial
GDSS systems were primarily interested in using the computer to aid
participants in decision-making. They
provided for electronic means of exchanging messages and for displaying
information; there were graphic capabilities, such as electronic
flip-charts, that members and leaders could utilize to give all
participants a common information base.
Quiet members could also be encouraged to participate, because
messages could be sent anonymously.
As the system became more sophisticated interactive elements such
as planning models, group spreadsheets, “what if” means of testing
possible solutions, as well as computerized forms of brainstorming and
Delphi techniques were added. The latest version of this system aims to provide guidance as
to how and when to use the tools already developed, to know when the
group is having problems and to coach the group toward correcting those
problems, and to be able to challenge incomplete thinking, in terms of
problem analysis or logic. All
of these “level 3” functions were previously handled by a human
facilitator.
To
accomplish this goal, Poole and his associates will first construct a
data model based on archives they have of decisions previously made
using their existing GDSS system. This
model will be statistically based, but it will be validated through
responses to questionnaires filled out by participants, by ratings made
by trained observers of tapes made of the decision-making sessions, and
by interviews of individuals who had participated in one of the
sessions. Poole believes
that data modeling is both a powerful and an innovative means of
building theory, because the researcher doesn’t have to “force
fit” the data to a pre-existing model and because multiple
decision-making processes can be taken into account.
Once the data model has been built and then operationalized as a
guidance system for GDSS, the researchers will field-test the updated
system. But, Poole expects
that the basic research to devise a general theory of decision-making
represented by the data model will be this study’s primary
contribution, and updating the computer guidance system will prove to be
of secondary importance.
Poole
acknowledged that obtaining funding for a third phase of this line of
research is an easier task than applying to be funded initially, but he
insisted that working with NSF, particularly with a program that is not
disciplinary in its focus, can result in valuing the contributions that
communication researchers can bring to theoretical and practical
problems. Particularly, he had this advice for those interested in
applying for funding with NSF:
 |
Be
persistent. Poole and
company’s first proposal was turned down flat three times by NSF.
Finally, someone told them that they should submit a larger
proposal, and indeed, that was the proposal that was funded.
|
|
Be
particularly aware of the overall research goals of the program to
which you are applying. Interdisciplinary
programs, such as Decision Risk and Management Science, typically
have goals that could be responded to from a number of theoretical
perspectives, and they are often more open to being convinced than
are programs that are disciplinary-based.
Also, these programs like to make awards to interdisciplinary
research teams, such as the one Poole helped to organize.
|
|
Offer
to review proposals. Even
though it is difficult, time-consuming work, reviewing helps a
researcher to become aware of the
practical criteria agency panels use to rate proposals.
In fact, Poole is now a member of the board of the Decision
Risk and Management Science program as a result of his previous
participation.
|
