Discussion 2 (Chapter 11): Explain how GDSS can increase some benefits of collaboration and decision making in groups and eliminate or reduce some losses.
Your response should be 250-300 words. Respond to two postings provided by your classmates.
There must be at least one APA formatted reference (and APA in-text citation) to support the thoughts in the post.
Discussion 2 (Chapter 11): Explain how GDSS can increase some benefits of collaboration and decision making in groups and eliminate or reduce some losses.
Introduction
The goal of this chapter is to describe how GDSS can increase some benefits of collaboration and decision making in groups and eliminate or reduce some losses.
Decision making in groups is more effective than individual decision making because it takes advantage of the collective knowledge and expertise of its members.
Decision making in groups is more effective than individual decision making because it takes advantage of the collective knowledge and expertise of its members. For example, a group can make better decisions than an individual because each member has different knowledge, which means that the best solution will be found when everyone participates in decision making.
In addition to this benefit, there are also losses involved with using GDSS as opposed to traditional voting systems (e.g., majority voting). First, some people may feel uncomfortable with having their vote count less than another person’s; however, if you explain this concept clearly before they vote then most people should be comfortable participating honestly within your group dynamics model
However, some aspects of group decision making are detrimental to optimal performance; the various contributors to these losses need to be addressed.
Group decision making is considered to be a positive function of the group as it can increase the benefits of collaboration and information sharing. However, some aspects of group decision making are detrimental to optimal performance; the various contributors to these losses need to be addressed.
Groupthink occurs when members of a group become overly influenced by their peers’ opinions, which leads them to make irrational choices that do not reflect their own best interests or abilities (e.g., Bandura & Ross, 1986). Social loafing refers to individuals who intentionally perform less than expected in order not to appear incompetent or lazy (e.g., Bartlett & Ghiselli, 1962). Norms and social influence are also factors that lead groups toward suboptimal performance due primarily because they encourage conformity rather than individual creativity (Kolb & Turner 1980). Information overload can negatively affect performance because it increases cognitive load without providing adequate time for processing information or generating solutions; this causes individuals’ ability at problem solving skills decrease significantly leading them into overconfidence causing poorer decisions being made based off incomplete information rather than examining all possible options thoroughly beforehand so as not miss any relevant variables needed before actioning upon said option(s) correctly – this would include things such as knowing exactly where everything needed needs placed within your workspace before starting work on something new!
This chapter describes an approach for maximizing benefits and minimizing losses as follows:
Define the problem
Determine the team’s overall goal
Develop possible solutions and evaluate each alternative with respect to each criterion by assigning a value between 0 and 100 to each alternative with respect to each criterion
Step 1: Define the problem and determine the team’s overall goal.
Step 1: Define the problem and determine the team’s overall goal.
Define the problem by asking, “What is our objective?” The purpose of this step is to identify what we want to accomplish with our group. This might be something like improving communication within a group or developing new technology for a specific task that can be used across multiple teams or departments. You should also think about how your decision will affect other people in your organization; if you’re working with other departments, it might make sense for them to weigh in on some issues as well (this is known as “cross-functional collaboration”).
Decide on an overall goal for your project by brainstorming ideas from different members of your group until one emerges as being most feasible and desirable at this point in time (note: this may change over time).
Step 2: Determine the acceptable performance level for each criterion.
Step 2: Determine the acceptable performance level for each criterion.
The acceptable performance level is the minimum level of performance that is acceptable to the group. The acceptable performance level depends on what you want your group to achieve, and how much time and effort it will take in order to achieve it. For example, if you’re trying to build a bridge over a river using only rocks as materials and no tools or machinery, then you could choose an extremely high level of effort (because there’s no way around this task). But if you need something more practical like transportation infrastructure improvements or energy conservation projects—which are much easier—then choosing something closer to “low effort” might be appropriate because those projects don’t require such extreme amounts of labor force input anyway!
Step 3: Develop possible solutions (alternatives), one for each criterion that exceeds the acceptable performance level.
Once you have identified a problem, it is time to develop possible solutions.
You should start by asking yourself what the group wants to achieve with this decision. This will help you decide which criteria your solution needs to address and how much of that criteria your solution should meet in order for it to be acceptable. Next, brainstorm ideas on how each criterion could be achieved or reduced through collaboration or shared knowledge among team members (see [1]). You can also use brainstorming tools such as sticky notes or index cards because they make it easy for individual group members who have different ideas into having them all on one page at once so that they can discuss them together without having any information lost from one person’s idea being forgotten by another person’s idea being too complicated for someone else
Step 4: Evaluate each alternative with respect to each criterion by assigning a value between 0 and 100 to each alternative with respect to each criterion.
Step 4: Evaluate each alternative with respect to each criterion by assigning a value between 0 and 100 to each alternative with respect to each criterion.
Each criterion is weighted according to its relative importance, so the higher the weighting on that criterion, the more important it will be in determining which solution should be chosen. For example, if two solutions have equal costs but one has an extra benefit that makes it preferable over another solution (e.g., one solution can cover more people at lower cost), then we would assign a higher weighting than if both solutions had equal costs but neither offered any additional benefits. In this case, you might assign 25% of your total score for option 2 while giving only 10% of your total score for option 1; however—and this is very important—you cannot simply add up all four scores and call them good enough! Instead, we must rank all four alternatives according their relative merit based on our criteria before making any decision about which option will win out over others!
Step 5: Compare and weight alternatives, with weighting based on relative importance.
Weighting alternatives by relative importance is the final step in the GDSS process. In this step, you should compare and weigh the alternatives using a number of factors, such as cost and benefits to users. You can also consider how much work it will be for people to implement each alternative (and whether it’s worth their time).
Weighting is important because it helps decision makers make decisions that are fair and equitable for everyone involved in a project or program. If some people have more access than others do, they might have more influence over policies that affect them directly—even if those policies aren’t necessarily good ones! For example: if there’s an election coming up soon and one candidate promises free parking downtown while another promises free bus passes across town…well…you get what I’m trying to say here right?
The group decision support system, therefore, is designed to control some of these problems by facilitating group interaction as well as improving group performance.
The group decision support system (GDSS) is designed to control some of these problems by facilitating group interaction as well as improving group performance.
The GDSS can be used in any setting, including in classrooms and factories, where it facilitates collaboration between members of a team or organization.
Conclusion
It is important to note that GDSS is not a silver bullet and cannot solve all problems related to group decision making. It should be used in conjunction with other strategies such as training, improving team members’ skills, or creating incentives for good decisions. Furthermore, the approach described here may not apply equally well to all types of groups; for instance, some cultures may require leaders to take more responsibility for decisions than others do (Kumashiro & Boyd (2010)).