Picture of boy being examining by doctor at a tuberculosis sanatorium

Understanding our future through Open Access research about our past...

Strathprints makes available scholarly Open Access content by researchers in the Centre for the Social History of Health & Healthcare (CSHHH), based within the School of Humanities, and considered Scotland's leading centre for the history of health and medicine.

Research at CSHHH explores the modern world since 1800 in locations as diverse as the UK, Asia, Africa, North America, and Europe. Areas of specialism include contraception and sexuality; family health and medical services; occupational health and medicine; disability; the history of psychiatry; conflict and warfare; and, drugs, pharmaceuticals and intoxicants.

Explore the Open Access research of the Centre for the Social History of Health and Healthcare. Or explore all of Strathclyde's Open Access research...

Image: Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust. Wellcome Collection - CC-BY.

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.