Picture of athlete cycling

Open Access research with a real impact on health...

The Strathprints institutional repository is a digital archive of University of Strathclyde's Open Access research outputs. Strathprints provides access to thousands of Open Access research papers by Strathclyde researchers, including by researchers from the Physical Activity for Health Group based within the School of Psychological Sciences & Health. Research here seeks to better understand how and why physical activity improves health, gain a better understanding of the amount, intensity, and type of physical activity needed for health benefits, and evaluate the effect of interventions to promote physical activity.

Explore open research content by Physical Activity for Health...

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

Eden, Colin and Ackermann, Fran (1996) Horses for courses - a stakeholder view of the evaluation of GDSS's. Group Decision and Negotiation, 5 (4-6). pp. 501-520. ISSN 0926-2644

Full text not available in this repository. Request a copy from the Strathclyde author

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.