DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF E-MEETING SYSTEM

COMPLETE PROJECT MATERIAL COST 3000 NAIRA

ORDER NOW

MAKE YOUR PAYMENT INTO ANY OF THE FOLLOWING BANKS:

GTBANK
Account Name : Chi E-Concept Int’l
ACCOUNT NUMBER: 0115939447

First Bank:
Account Name: Chi E-Concept Int’l
Account Name: 3059320631

We also accept : ATM transfer , online money transfer

OR
PAY ONLINE USING YOUR ATM CARD. IT IS SECURED AND RELIABLE.

form>

Call Help Desk Line : 08074466939,08063386834.

After Payment Send Your Payment Details To

08074466939 Or 08063386834, The Project Title You Selected On Our Website , Amount Paid, Depositor Name, Your Email Address, Payment Date. You Will Receive Your Material In Less Than 1 Hour Once We Confirm Your Payment.

WE HAVE SECURITY IN OUR BUSINESS.

MONEY BACK GUARANTEE

You may also need: web design company in Nigeria

Bulk sms company in Nigeria

ABSTRACT

This research compared the use of an electronic meeting system tool to a manual group process in large and small groups in a controlled laboratory experiment. Outcomes measured include the quality of decision, the time taken in various stages of the decision making process, and group member satisfaction. A research model of the variables influencing group decision making was developed. The six independent variables included in this model are group size, the rule by which the group makes a decision, the incentives driving the group, the distribution of useful information within the group, the task complexity, and the meeting support (electronic or manual). In this research group size and method of support were manipulated, while the other variables were controlled. A decision-making task was developed for this research to specify and manipulate the six independent variables. The task described a product mix problem in which information on each product was given to group members. The group shared information and jointly determined an outcome. The group used an unanimous decision rule to chose a solution. A numerical outcome was used to objectively measure decision quality. Each member of the group received a cash payoff determined by the group’s solution as incentive in accomplishing the task. All groups found the optimal solution. The simplicity of the task may have minimized the differences found between groups. There was no significant difference in general member satisfaction or time to decision. Prior knowledge was found to influence general member satisfaction and the time needed for the group to share information. Members of large groups perceived more uneven distribution of participation than members of small groups. Voting differences were very large: large groups took significantly more votes than small groups, and electronic groups took significantly more votes than manual groups. “Conjunctive” and “disjunctive” task descriptions are used to discuss task/tool interaction. A descriptive framework has the purpose of identifying the major components of a system and their relationships. This paper proposes a descriptive framework for electronic meeting systems. Our intention is to clarify and organize the conceptually and functionally distinctive components that we find in this technology. The proposed framework simplifies the evaluation of EMS functionality by organizations. The adoption of the UML language increases the potential of communicating EMS requirements to IS developers. The paper presents the evaluation grids of a collection of 10 EMS highlighting what framework components are supported and what components have been ignored. Electronic meeting systems (EMS) can help conflicting groups move from disagreement to consensus—from groups to teams—and ultimately achieve the strategic partnership that is essential to their survival. This study provides a detailed account of the operation of an EMS, describes the many potential benefits of the system, and gives practical advice on how to use it while avoiding the common pitfalls.

CHAPTER ONE

1.0 Introduction

1.1 statement of problem

1.2 Objectives of the study

1.3 Scope of study

1.4 Significance

1.5 Assumption

1.6 Definition of terms

CHAPTER TWO

2.0 Literature Review

CHAPTER THREE

3.0 System Analysis and Design

3.1 General Overview of the system

3.1.1 Organogram

3.1.2 Information Flow Diagram

3.2 Methodology

3.2.1 Fact finding method used

CHAPTER FOUR

4.0 Design and System Implication

4.1 Design Standard

4.2 Output specification and design

4.3 Input

4.4 File design

4.5 Procedure chart

4.6 System flowchart

4.7 Implementation

4.8 Program flowchart

4.9 System requirements

4.9.1 Software Requirements

4.9.2 Hardware Requirements

4.9.3 Operational

4.9.4 Personnel

4.9.5 Environment

4.10 Testing

4.11 Cutover Process

4.12 Documentation

CHAPTER FIVE

5.0 Summary, Recommendation and Conclusion

5.1 Summary

5.2 Recommendation

5.3 Conclusion

References or Bibliography

Appendix

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Introduction

Groups are responsible for many of the activities and decisions made in

business and government. These activities include generating ideas and

solutions to problems, sharing information, negotiating a jOint decision, and building consensus to aid in the implementation of a plan. These activities are not always accomplished efficiently or effectively. One mid-sized Fortune 500 company estimated 71 Million dollars in losses due to meeting inefficiencies in one yearl [Mosvick and Nelson, 1987] It is difficult to measure the cost of ineffective meetings, but the impact of bad decisions, inappropriate actions, and untimely solutions on profit could be larger than the costs due to meeting inefficiencies. The potential gain from improving group work is very large.

Electronic meeting systems (EMS) are environments made of hardware, software, and human facilitators which impact, and possibly improve, group processes. Features of the system, aspects of the task, and characteristics of the group all interact to change group outcomes. Case

and field studies on electronic meeting systems have often shown gains in efficiency, effectiveness, and member satisfaction when groups use these systems. However, laboratory studies comparing manual groups to electronic groups have shown mixed results. Further experimental research is needed to form a taxonomy of task and group characteristics, and the system functionality to improve this interaction. Because labour and management have very rarely stepped outside their confining adversarial approach to negotiation, little pro g ress has been made toward the strategic union management partnerships that are increasingly necessary if Canadian organizations are to

remain competitive in a rapidly changing global economy (Downie and Coates 1993;

Kumar 1995; Walton, Cutcher-Gershenfeld, and McKersie 1994). Both parties are beginning to recognize, however, that organizational viability—and ultimately their own survival— depends on the full participation of all stakeholders in the decision-making pro c e s s .

Although full and equal participation is the goal, the parties have become accustomed to a ‘positional approach,’ which starts with a solution that supports their position, before any underlying problems can be identified and examined. Positional bargainers see each other as adversaries who use threats, demand concessions, and compete for victory. They

are dug into their positions and distrust the other party. Inevitably, what results is a compromise which fails to adequately address the interests of either party and leaves both sides feeling dissatisfied, distrustful, and misunderstood. In their search for a solution to this problem, researchers have been focusing on mutual gains negotiation, which provides an alternative strategy for some conflicts. In contrast

to positional bargaining, the mutual gains approach starts by attempting to preserve and develop the relationship, evolves into a process in which the parties work to educate each

other about their needs, and then culminates in a joint attempt to solve the problem of how best to meet their needs and interests (Moore 1997). If labour and management can successfully make the transition from exchanging positions to working for mutual gains,

it may be possible for them to develop a true strategic partnership, in which there is mutual recognition, respect, and acceptance of the other party as a legitimate and necessary partner in organizational decision making that affects multiple stakeholders (Kumar 1995;

Walton, Cutcher-Gershenfeld, and McKersie 1994).

What is needed, then, is a process that alters the positional nature of participation within groups, addresses the fears that derive from the traditional adversarial approach, builds mutual gains components into the negotiation process, and improves the quality of decisions

and other meeting outcomes. Such a process is embodied in ‘electronic meeting systems’ (EMS), a new and innovative approach to group decision making which combines

the essential principles of mutual gains bargaining with contemporary technology and precepts of group dynamics to provide participants with a forum for candid, equal, and strategic joint decision making.

As will be seen, the ‘divergent-convergent’ structure of the EMS model closely mirror that of the mutual gains approach to conflict management: each of these models provides participants with the capabilities to move from disagreement to consensus, from isolation to interaction, and from groups to teams. Using EMS technology, labour and management

can ultimately achieve the strategic partnership that is so essential to their very survival. This study examines the applications and benefits of E M S technology and suggests that the full and equal participation of stakeholders such as unions in decisions from which they have been traditionally excluded can be significantly facilitated through the E M S p ro c e s s .

E l e c t ronic Meeting Systems and Mutual Gains

Group Decision Support Systems

The electronic meeting systems which will be examined in detail here are one type of group decision support system (GDSS). In general, a GDSS combines communication, omputing, and decision support technologies to facilitate the formulation and solution of problems by a group of individuals (DeSanctis and Gallupe 1987). It provides the opportunity

for a significant advance toward an enriched and progressive group decision-making process by focusing on both social needs and task-oriented activities to help groups make faster, more satisfying, and, ultimately, better decisions (Nunamaker et al. 1991b). A GDSS helps group decision makers avoid the conflict-provoking behaviours of positional bargaining. Better decisions are made with a GDSS because it is designed to remove common communication barriers, systematically direct the pattern, timing, and content

of discussion, and provide techniques for structuring decision analysis (DeSanctis and Gallupe 1987).

The EMS Environment

The EMS is a type of G D S S that allows group decision makers to combine a mutual gains a p p roach to resolving conflict with a stru c t u red group decision-making process. The strategies

adopted by parties engaged in mutual gains bargaining differ fundamentally from the strategies of positional bargainers. Parties to mutual gains negotiation collaborate whenever

possible, provide accurate statements of their problems and pre f e rences, and include only genuine issues in a way that increases the likelihood that new solutions will be invented

or discovered (Weiss 1996). Bargainers oriented toward mutual gain also expend considerable eff o rt to achieve shared understanding of needs, concerns, and fears, and emphasize open and honest discussion and free-flowing idea-generation (Moore 1997).

EMS environments typically consist of a number of networked computer work stations and a set of flexible software tools that provide communication and problem-solving support.

The meeting takes place in a decision room equipped with a U-shaped seating arrangement for group members, so that opposing parties to a conflict can be seated side by side. Each individual is provided with a personal computer with a private screen, but

the information entered is anonymously displayed on a public screen. A trained facilitator controls the system from a station at the front of the room. Software specifically designed to support and streamline group decision making focuses the participants on a

collaboratively derived text and meeting agenda displayed on the public screen. The agenda rationalizes and structures the interaction of participants around a sense of shared commitment to group decision making and mutual gains.

1.1 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

The objective of the Idea Organization activity in an EMS is to classify the participants’ comments into a list of important topics that is appropriate for the desired outcome, goal, or sub goal. Difficulties in performing this idea organizing activity are due to various aspects of the output of the divergent process that precedes it: Large numbers of comments and different interpretations of the vocabulary within the comments. Other difficulties are related to the increased cognitive demand of the Idea. Organization process itself as well as software interface problems with the current Idea Organization tools..

1.2 OBJECTIVE OF STUDY

EMS are a relatively new development and are not yet in wide spread use in the business world. They are frequently an expensive acquisition, adding to corporate hesitation to invest in this new technology. Comparison to older, manual processes is needed to justify the expense and encourage adoption of EMS technology.

The purpose of our research was to investigate the efficiency, effectiveness and user satisfaction of electronic meeting systems, as compared to manual systems. This was done within a framework

controlling several dimensions of the group decision process believed to affect group outcomes: group size, the rule used by the group to choose a decision, the incentives driving the group, the distribution of useful information, and the task complexity. A task was developed to control and

manipulate these five dimensions. The development of this task utilized themethodological view of experimental economics, the experience of social psychology with variables affecting group activities, and the technological expertise of management information systems.

Group size was chosen for specific investigation in our study. Research in manual gr~ups found larger group sizes led to better solutions in some tasks, but the gain came at the expense of group member satisfaction. 16 Field studies using large electronic groups did not find a decrease in

satisfaction. Our research explores the relation of group size and electronic meeting system support on the outcomes of effectiveness of decision, efficiency of proc~ss, and group member satisfaction

For more topics click

This article highlights various college of education, polytechnics, universities website in Nigeria.

Adeyemi College of Education, Ondo,

Alvan Ikoku College of Education, Owerri,

Federal College of Educ. Abeokuta,

Federal College of Education, Eha-Amufu,

Federal College of Education, Kano,

Federal College of Education, Katsina,

Federal college of Education, Kontagora,

Federal College of Education, Obudu,

Federal College of Education, Okene,

Federal College of Education, Pankshin,