Picture of a black hole

Strathclyde Open Access research that creates ripples...

The Strathprints institutional repository is a digital archive of University of Strathclyde's Open Access research outputs. Strathprints provides access to thousands of research papers by University of Strathclyde researchers, including by Strathclyde physicists involved in observing gravitational waves and black hole mergers as part of the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) - but also other internationally significant research from the Department of Physics. Discover why Strathclyde's physics research is making ripples...

Strathprints also exposes world leading research from the Faculties of Science, Engineering, Humanities & Social Sciences, and from the Strathclyde Business School.

Discover more...

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.