Ž . Decision Support Systems 26 1999 287–306 www.elsevier.comrlocaterdsw Computer-mediated communication: problems and potentials of argumentation support systems John A.A. Sillince a, ) , Masoud H. Saeedi b,1 a Management School, Royal Holloway, UniÕersity of London, Egham, Surrey, TW20 0EX, UK b Department of Computing and Management Science, City Campus, Pond Street, Sheffield Hallam UniÕersity, Sheffield, S1 1WB, UK Accepted 13 September 1999 Abstract Argumentation support systems have both advantages and disadvantages. For the individual, there is an increased power to express herself and to gain recognition and reward for the extra effort and frankness required, but at the cost of slowing down work, making the user constantly explain herself, and putting her statements at risk of being taken out of context. For the organisation, there is a gain in increased information sharing — the bane of current computer-mediated communication Ž . CMC systems — as the user is motivated to present relevant and convincing evidence to back up her statements, but at the cost of undermining ‘traditional’ organisational structures and hierarchies. q 1999 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. Ž . Keywords: Argumentation; Computer-mediated communication CMC ; Organisations; Managers; User needs; Requirements 1. Introduction Current computer-mediated communication Ž . CMC systems do not fit satisfactorily into emerg- ing working practices or organisational environ- ments. Firstly, managers prefer to gather soft infor- Ž . mation anecdotes, rumours, opinions in unsched- uled meetings for their greater timeliness and rele- vance over computerised information or formal re- ports. This suggests that one important dimension of a GDSS is satisfying those social, emotional, and ) Corresponding author. Tel.: q44-01784-443780; fax: q44- 01784-439854; e-mail: j.sillince@rhbnc.ac.uk, john@jsillince.freeserve.co.uk 1 Tel.: q44-0114-2253118; fax: q44-0114-2253161; e-mail: m.h.saeedi@shu.ac.uk. symbolic requirements provided by the face-to-face w x nature of managerial work 101 . Secondly, current systems over-emphasise the quantitative aspects of Ž decisions voting, scoring attributes, decision theory . notions rather than the qualititative nature of deci- sions. Qualitative aspects involve discontinuous con- flict resolution via position-taking and persuasion via argumentation rather than a continuous, summative consensus process. Thirdly, organisations are in- creasingly devolving responsibility onto lower levels, closer to where decision impacts are felt, by means of creating temporary task forces, delayering, and by means of resource access on a need-to-use basis, and information access on a need-to-know basis. This suggests that decision making is becoming more pluralistic and less hierarchical, determined not so much by position in the corporate hierarchy and more by the argumentative and evidential value of 0167-9236r99r$ - see front matter q 1999 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. Ž . PII: S0167-9236 99 00058-5