Using Group Support Systems to

Improve the New Zealand Economy

Part II: Followup Results

JIM SHEFFIELD AND R. BRENT GALLUPE

JIM SHEFFIELD is Senior Lecturer in Information Systems at the University of Auck-

land in New Zealand. He received his Ph.D. in MIS from the University of Arizona.
He teaches management of information systems in the M.B.A. program and database
systems in the MIS and computer science programs. His research interests are in
electronic meeting systems, particularly in facilitation techniques, and the impact of
communication media on negotiation tasks.

R. BRENT GALLUPE is a Professor of Management Information Systems and Director

of the Queen's Executive Decision Centre in the School of Business at Queen's
University at Kingston, Canada. He received his Ph.D. in MIS from the University of
Minnesota. His current research interests include the use of information technologies
by groups and teams, the evaluation of information technologies in public sector
organizations, and the history of information systems in organizations. His work has
been published in Management Science. MIS Quarterly. Academy of Management
Journal, and the Journal of Applied Psychology.

ABSTRACT: in 1991, a series of computer-assisted, industrywide planning meet-

ings were held in New Zealand to develop opportunities for enhancing the
country's competitiveness in world markets. The short-term results of these
meetings are reported in [16]. This paper presents the results of a followup study
based primarily on interviews with participants one to two years after their
meeting. The action plans and participants' implementation activities are reported
as well as their opinions, in retrospect, of the role of the meetings and the impact
of electronic meeting technology. The followup results show that the electronically
assisted meetings promoted interorganizational leaming, and were effective cata-
lysts of industrywide change in situations previously characterized by dysfunc-
tional conflict.

KEY WORDS AND PHRASES: economic policy development, electronic meeting sys-
tems, industrywide change, interorganizational learning.
Acknowledgmer\is\ An earlier version of this paper was published in the Proceedings of the
Twenty-Seventh Hawaii International Con,fere7ice on System Science (IEEE Computer Society
Press, 1994), The authors wish to thank Paul Gray, Jay Nunamaker, Jr., and Marvin Mannheim
for their comments on previous versions of the paper.

Journal of Management Information Systems I VJ'itatt 1994-95, Vo), I I , No, 3. pp, 135-153
Copyright O 1995 M.E, Sharpe. Inc.
136 SHEFFIELD AND GALLUPE

MOST GSS FIELD STUDIES FOCUS ON A SPECIFIC MEETING or series of meetings and the
immediate aftermath of those meetings. While assessing the short-term impacts of
GSS-assisted meetings is important [4, 5, 12], no research has been conducted into
longer-term effects of these types of meetings. This paper examines the longer-term
impacts of a series of important, computer-supported economic policy meetings in
New Zealand called the Advantage Auckland Meetings.
The longer-term impacts of the Advantage Auckland Meetings are important for
three reasons:
• The meetings were critical. These were key meetings for the economic fiature
of New Zealand.
• Special effort was required. It usually takes a special effort to convene a large,
diverse group for any kind of meeting, especially one in an electronic decision
support facility. Extra effort is put into planning and conducting such a meeting.
If the meeting has no lasting impact, then all the effort may not have been worth
it.
• Regular use requires justification. If these electronic meeting support facilities
are to be used on a regular, repeating basis for activities such as strategic
planning, social program development, or economic policy making, then longer-
term impacts of these meetings must be determined.
The longer-term impacts of any discrete organizational activity are difficult to study
because, over time, other events occur or other factors can influence the effects of that
activity. Nonetheless Lewin's Change Model [ 10] provides a framework for studying
such long-tenn processes. Although typically applied to single-organization change
processes, this model has been used to study the impacts of change processes in a
variety of situations and time frames.
This paper begins with a brief review of the Advantage Auckland Meetings and their
short-term results. Next, the theoretical foundation of the followup study and the
methodology used are described. The results of the followup study are then outlined,
followed by discussion and lessons leamed.

The Advantage Auckland Meetings

iNOURPREVious PAPER [16], WEDESCRIBED the Advantage AuckiandMeetingswbich
were held in the Decision Support Centre at the University of Auckland. The objective
of the meetings was to build action plans based on the findings of the New Zealand
Porter Project [3]. Twelve one-day meetings attended by a total of 250 senior
executives were held between July and December 1991. Each of the twelve industry
groups produced a draft report approximately sixty-five pages long that contained five
or six action plans. Implementation of these industrywide action plans was expected
to upgrade the competitive advantage of New Zealand (figure 1). A questionnaire
administered to participants immediately after the meeting showed that:
 GSS IN NEW ZEAtJi^ND'S ECONOMY 137

1M0-91 1991 1992-93 GOAL:

THE UPGRADING
NEW ADVANTAGE IMPACT OF THE
ZEALAND —^ AUCKLAND ACTION COMPETTTTVE
PORTER MEETINGS PLANS ADVAtfTAGE OF
PROJECT NEW ZEALAND

Short Term Results Longer Term ResutU

Figure I. Economic Policy Development in New Zealand

• The meetings were perceived to be very efficient, Parlicipants felt that three days
work had been accomplished in one day.
• 7'/i^ technology was highly rated. Satisfaction wiih the technology rated 6.26 on
a seven-point scale with 7 being high satisfaction.
• The process was very satisfying. Satisfaction with lhe process rated 6.07 on the
seven-point scale.

Theoretical Foundation: The Lewin Change Model

THE IMPACT FROM THE ADVANTAGE AUCKLAND MEETINGS can be considered from
a change perspective. There are a number of models of organizaiional change [6,8.
9] but the one that is most often cited and the one that seems broad enough to model
many different change situations is lhe Lewin Change Model [10]. A number of
researchers have applied the Lewin Change Model in many single organizational
contexts (e.g., see [7]).
We extend the Lewin Change Model to the interorganizational context. For this
study, we consider the organizations in a particular industry segment to be actors that
find their industry in trouble. They realize that some change musi take place but are
unsure about what the changes should be and how tlie changes should happen.
The Lewin model argues that change is a three-stage sequential process, and that for
change to occur all ihrec stages must take place. The stages in the Lewin model are
"unfreezing," "change," and "refreezing" (figure 2).
Lewin argued that change cannot occur without an individual (or by extension, an
organization) identifying change as an important activity, and being willing to make
the necessary changes. This "unfreezing" stage is critical. If individuals or organiza-
tions are not "unfrozen" from their current attitudes and proces^s, then the actual
process of change will be very difficult.
Unfreezing is supported by a process that decreases the forces for the status quo and
makes the alternatives more achievable. An unfreezing event is one in which partici-
pants resolve two types of psychological conflict [14]:
138 SHEFTIELD AND CALLUPE

Industry Industry
Unfreezing Refreezing

Figure 2. A Model for Industrywide Change (based on [10])

1. the anxiety associated with an inability or unwillingness to Icam something

new because il appears loo difficult or disruptive (anxiety 1);
2. the anxiety associated with ihe fear, shame or guUl of not leaming anything
new (anxiety 2).
Schein recommends ihat ihe unfreezing step (and therefore ihc subsequent steps in
the change process) will be aided by staging meetings where:
1. Participants feel psychologically safe.
2. Participants step outside existing cultural norms. Openness lo a diverse range
of opinions is necessary to aid the discovery of new opportunities.
3. Participants (especially the leaders) learn something new.
4. A formal change management process is created. Typically this process in-
volves a steering committee and task forces wiih specific change programs.
Once the organization (or individual) has been made aware of the need for change
and is willing lo undergo the change, ihen ihc carefully planned change process should
be implemented. New knowledge, skills, and abililities must be learned. Support for
these new behaviors is required until success is obtained.
The final stage is refreezing. Lewin argued that ihe change process is not complete
without a "solidifying" of the new processes and attitudes. These new activities must
show benefits lo ihe organization (or individual) and must be reinforced and repeated
before they become the now norm.
Using Lewin's notion of "unfreezing-change-rcfreezing/' the Advantage Auckland
Meetings can be thought of as an "unfreezing" procedure for the industry in question.
Porter's analysis of the New Zealand economy indicated ihat industries had ceased lo be
compclitive because no new ideas or initiatives were being developed and that industries
had esseniially stagnated. In 1991, the New Zealand economy was in recession. Many
industry mpresentntives were anxious about iheir ability to slay in business (anxiety 2) yet
were understandably anxious about discussing iheir problems with others in the industry
(anxiety 1). In order for change to happen, some unfreezing had lo Uike place.
The Advantage Auckland Meeungs provided a means for that unfreezing to take
place. The meetings brought logeiher the important people in their industry to focus
on common objectives. This had not been done before in New Zealand. In addition,
meeting participants were using electronic meeting technology for the first time. The
technology supported a five-stage meeting process. The objectives of ihe five stages
of an Advantage Auckland Meeting may be mapped to Schein's four recommenda-
tions fora successful "unfreezing" event (Table 1).
 CSS IN NEW ZEALAND'S ECONOMY 139

Table I Advantage Auckland Meeting Activities

Objeciivcs of each stage of an Advantage Recommendation for successful

Auckland Meeting "unfreezing" from Schein (1993)
1. Setting meeting objectives and a 1. Participants feei psychologically
positive frame safe

2. Participants review their industry 2. Participants step outside existing

using Porter's Diamond Model cultural norms

3. Participants generate and prioritize 3. Participants (especialiy the leaders)

action plans to upgrade competitive learn something new
advantage

4. Participants develop detaiied 4. A formai change management

project briefs process is created

5. Build commitment to implement them

Electronic meeting technology used in the Advantage Auckland Meetings provided:

• software functions and automatic recording which enabled procedures for idea
generation (divergent thinking) to be separated in time from procedures for
information analysis (convergent thinking);
• anonymity, which reduced the anxiety about surfacing sensilive issues. This
enabled a separate focus on interlocked relationship and substantive issues.

Our earlier paper reported four separate measures of satisfaction with the meeting
process:
1. Absence of perceived conflict (reduced barriers to communication);
2. Participation;
3. Information exchange;
4. Consensus for cooperative action (meeting outcome).
These measures of the meeting process are conceptually related to procedure (either
divergent or convergent) and focus (either relational or substantive) as shown in figure
3. This figure also includes:

• the average of participant's rating of each process measure on a seven-point

scale (1 = low satisfaction, 7 = high satisfaction);
• a number ihat associates ihe process measure with ihe corresponding recom-
mendation from Schein [14].

Both Uie objectives of the stages of the Adviinuige Auckland Meetings (Table 1),
and the concepts and measures associated with the meeting process (figure 3) suggest
that the Advantage Auckland Meetings should serve as unfreezing events.
140 SHEFFIELD AND GALLUPE

Procedure
Divergent Convergent

Relationship 1. 4.
Absence of Consensus for
Issues cooperative action
perceived conflict
6.36 6.24

Focus

Substantive 2. 3.
Issues Participation Information
exchange
5.94 5.73

Figure 3. Factors Affecting the Advantage Auckland Meeting Process

Research Expectations and Questions

We wanted to see if the Advantage Auckland Meetings had been successful as
unfreezing events. We wanted to determine if these meetings could be linked to
subsequent change and refreezing activities.
We did not expect major industry changes but we did expect to detect some longer
tenn effects from these meetings. We hoped to assess the effectiveness of the meetings
by detennining if the action plans had staying power. To find these longer-tenn effects,
we asked the following five research questions:
1. Were the action plans developed at the Advantage Auckland Meetings relevant
to upgrading competitiveness in world markets?
2. Were the action plans implemented?
3. Did the Advantage Auckland Meetings "unfreeze" events?
4. How, if at all, did the meetings influence "change" and "refreezing"?
5. What characteristics of the group led to successful and unsuccessful action
plans and change processes?

Research Metbodology

THE RESEARCH METHOD USED IN THIS FOLLOWUP STUDY is a modified historical

analysis. This approach has been used in a number of MIS research projects (e.g., see
[2]) where a longer-term view of information system use is the object of the study.
Basically, the idea is to study one or more information systems, or specific uses of an
 QSS IN NEW ZEALAND'S ECONOMY 141

information system, from a historical perspective. The period of time under study can be
relatively short (one or two years) or long (fifteen to twenty years). This method and period
of study are appropriate for this research because most meeting participants were still
available to be interviewed and "historical" documenis were available to be studied.
Qualitative techniques were used to analyze the longer-term impacts of the meetings.
The primary data-gathering technique was the semistructured interview with meeting
leaders. Meeting leaders are members of the group who committed to take a leadership
role in one of the economic initiatives generated by lhe group. The selection of these
people biases the sample somewhat as these people may be the ones who would feel
the impact of ihc meeting more ihan other participants. However, these people were
also the most knowledgable about longer-term impacts. The interview process was
the same for each meeting:

• The action plans ihat were produced in the meetings were reviewed by the
authors and project participants were identified.
• A scries of semistructured telephone interviews, each of ten lo sixty minutes'
duration, were conducted with the current leader or leaders of each project
group. Semistructured questions were posed to allow respondents free rein to
describe the longer-term results of the meetings. Because not all of the responses
could be anticipated, more structured questions were not considered appropriate.
• Most interviews followed a definite sequence. The first and last questions
prompted respondents for an overall judgment of ihc meeting and subsequent
activities (e.g., "Was it worthwhile?" and "In reirospect, what was the role of
Advanuige Auckland Meetings?") The remaining questions focused on
respondent's circumstances, expectations, activities, and outcomes before, dur-
ing, and after the meeting (e.g., "Why did you attend the meeting?" "What do
you remember about the meeling?" "What did you learn about your industry?
Did you conclude that changes should be attempted? That cooperative action
was the way to proceed?" "What did you commit to?" "What did you do?"
"What was the result?").
• Documentation was requested and additional telephone and face-to-face inter-
views were made as required.
• Conventional meetings were organized by participants in the original Advantage
Auckland Meeting to compare progress on action plans, wiihin and across
industries. These were attended and interviews made and documentation re-
quested.
• Articles in newspapers and uade joumals in New Zealand were also analyzed.
The four major newspapers in New Zealand were examined for the two-year
period following the meetings for articles referring to the Advantage Auckland
Meetings and the follow-on initiatives. When articles were found, they were
classified according to indusu^ and initiative type (whether upgrade demand,
upgrade factor, or upgrade sU'atcgy/structure/rivalry). This information was
used to support and verify the information obtained during the semislructured
interviews with meeting participants. Similarly, ten industry uade joumals and
142 SHEFFIELD AND OALLUPE

newsletters were also examined for articles relating to Advantage Auckland

Meetings and their initiatives.
• The final data-gathering technique was a series of interviews with the govem-
ment officials responsible for coordinating the Porter Project. The same officials
were cuncntly involved in supporting and evaluating all industry-level initia-
tives, including those from the Advantage Auckland Meetings. Internal govern-
ment documentation was also examined that described the concepts underlying
collective action and the guidelines under which collective action should take
place [17,18,19].

The foliowup study was conducted between June 1992 and June 1993. Data
gathering ceased twenty-three months after the date of the first Advantage Auckland
Meeting and eighteen months after the date of the last meeting.
The twelve Advantage Auckland Meetings, each representing a sector of the New
Zealand economy, produced a total of sixty-nine action plans. At the end of each
meeting, a distinct project group had been formed to further a single action plan.
Typically the business activities of members of a project team made them interested
in the success of other projects in the same sector of the economy. In some eeonomic
sectors project groups pooled their resources to work on all the action plans created
during the Advantage Auckland Meeting.
Because of the complexity of the actions to be undertaken and the unique circum-
stances of each indusu-y sector and project group, it was decided to conduct a detailed
followup of a representative sample of the twelve meetings. Meeting characteristics
(e.g., the number of participants; their expected resources, motivation, and commit-
ment to the action plans; the competitive position of each industry sector) were
reviewed and seven meetings were chosen. These sectors were agricultural technol-
ogy, furniture, small business, software, tourism (two meetings), and yachting. All
except the smali-business sector had been identified in the Porter study as of special
importance to New Zealand's competitive advantage.
Behaviors observed during the meetings and the action plans developed in these
meetings were similar in content and number for both the indusu-y sectors selected
and those not selected (construction, food processing, health serviees, financial
services, and Maori Development).

Followup Study Results

THE SEVEN MEETINGS SIIIJICIED I'OR STUDY GENERATED a total of thirty-six action
plans. In all, forty-eight interviews were conducted. An analysis of interview notes
confirmed that the issues facing each project group were multidimensional. Each
group had different goals and suategies, and each was at a different stage of develop-
menL Simple measures applied across groups may u^ivialize both the difficulties
encountered and the progress made. The analysis of the interviews sought to answer
the five research questions proposed earlier.
 GSS IN NEW ZEALAND'S ECONOMY 143

Link between Action Plans and Competitive Advantage

Porter's Diamond model [13] was the starting point for classifying the nature of the
action plans. This model stresses the importance of building synergistic relationships
among four elements; (I) factor conditions, (2) demand conditions, (3) related and
supporting industries, and (4) firm strategy, structure, and rivalry.
For example, figure 4 shows the basic Porter Diamond for the New Zealand
yacht-building industry. The heavy lines denote a greater influence than the lighter
lines. Demand (right) is highly sophisticated and stimulates the industry to perform as
a world leader. That is further stimulated by intense rivalry between the companies
(top). New Zealand is endowed with a great sailing environment and has research and
development programs directly related to boatbuilding which makes forpositive factor
conditions (left). Related and supporting industries (bottom) in the form of sailmakers,
sparmakers, component manufacturers, and professional sailors complete the dia-
mond. Porter also identifies chance and government as additional sources of influence.
In this case, chance includes the stimulus of the America's Cup and Whitbread
campaigns and the work of premier designer, Bruce Farr. A year before the meetings,
the government tried to support the yacht industry through deregulating imports and
other economic policies.
Overall, approximately half of the thirty-six action plans studied focused on upgrad-
ing factor conditions. The remainder were almost equally split between upgrading
demand conditions and upgrading firms' strategy, structure, and rivalry. Previous
research using the Diamond Model [3, 13] suggests that these elements and the
interactions among them are an effective framework for sharing information on
upgrading New Zealand's competitiveness in world markets.

Implementation Activities and Outcomes

The fmal round of interviews showed that eighteen to twenty-three months after the
Advantage Auckland Meeting, action was continuing on seventeen of the thirty-six
plans. Indeed, all action plans developed in the Advantage Auckland Meetings
stimulated some activity by meeting participants af^er the meetings. All respondents
readily provided quite detailed recollections of their Advantage Auckland Meeting
and their subsequent actions.
Plan implementation activities varied greatly according to the needs of individuals
and the competitive situation of the industry sector. Although the economy overall
was in recession [11], business confidence varied from sector to sector. The thirty-six
projects monitored were grouped as follows;
1. Projects tfiat became inactive within one month of the Advantage Auckland
Meeting;
2. Projects that became mostly inactive ai^er one month and before eighteen
months;
3. Continuing joint projects—these are projects that were continuing after at least
144 SHEFFIELD AND GALLUPE

Business/lifestyles
Performance,
Rival family firms

STRATEGY,
STRUCTURE
& RIVALRY
America's Cup

Sophisticated sailois
Cofporate SpcHisoiship
Oty of Sails

FACTOR DEMAND
CONDITIONS CONDITIONS

Easy access to
favouiablc sailing.
Yacht Research Unit

RELATED &
SUPPORT
INDUSTRIES
E)eregulati(Hi
First-rate designers & sailmaken
Component Manufacturers
Professional sailors

Lesser Influetice
Greater Influence

Figure 4. The Porter Diamond Model Applied to the NZ Yacht-Building Industry

eighteen months but not under the direction of both the action plans and the
participants from the Advantage Auckland Meeting;
4. Continuing stand-alone projects—these are projects that were continuing after
at least eighteen months under the direction of both action plans and partici-
pants from tbe Advantage Auckland Meeting.

The distribution of projects by duration for each of the seven meetings selected for
study is summarized in Table 2. The characteristics of these four groups of projects
are briefly described here.

Projects that Became Inactive within One Month

Initially, all projects lacked a stable organizational fonn and funding. However, on all
of the thirty-six projects studied, at least one team member spent a minimum of one
day on the project. Most participants appear to have honored at least some of the
commitments made in the closing phases of the Advantage Auckland Meeting. As
expected, some of the projects appeared to lapse after the first few weeks. While these
 GSS IN NEW ZEALAND'S ECONOMY 145

projects clearly failed to meet their stated objectives, project members considered that
the Advantage Auckland Meeting was valuable for other reasons. The following is an
excerpt from one of lhe interviews:
The Advantage Auckland Meeting was certainly useful to me and my company. We
were not doing too badly ai the lime, mainly because of our exports. I went along pri-
marily to leam what else was happening in agricultural technology.

Positive comments on the educational value f 15] of the Advantage Auckland Meeting
were made by all other representatives of the twelve projects that became inactive
within one month.

Projects Ihat Became Mostly Inactive after One Month and before Eighteen Months

Most projects in this category were the focus of at least two weeks' entrepreneurial
activity. This activity was performed by unpaid volunteers in addition to their
normal business and family responsibilities. Project staff lacked significant insti-
tutional support and funding until the projects became mostly inactive. Key assets
were the resourcefulness and commitment of lhe project team members and the
support network built as a result of lhe Advantage Auckland Meeting. As time
progressed, some projects failed to gain the support of major stakeholder groups.
For example, participants in the furniture industry meeting engaged the services
of a professional to develop a national marketing plan. After ihe equivalent of nine
months* full-time effort, the plan was abandoned because of lack of support from
furniture retailers.
Occasionally a difficult project or a less important project was abandoned in favor
of one of the olher projects created in the Advantage Auckland Meeting. Some
members of abandoned or mostly inactive projects remained positive about their
experiences and some did not. The most disappointed participants were those from
the U)urist industry meetings who spent months planning an annual Auckland Festival
and Olher major totirisi aitractions, but were unable to attract the necessary financial
backing. In all, seven projects became mostly inactive between one month and
eighteen months after the Advantage Auckland Meeting (see Table 2).

Continuing Joint Projects

Mosl projects in this category wore lhe focus of several months of equivalent full-time
activity. Examples from lhe tourist industry include the establishment of a maritime
museum and the construction of wharves primarily for leisure/tourist use. Advantage
Auckland groups have been active in creating detailed development plans, forming
community action groups, and identifying and meeting wilh other major stakeholders.
Groups working on these projecis needed not just resourcefulness and commiunent,
but the ability to attract professional assistance and/or funding and lhe ability to secure
town planning approvals.
While some of these projects may ultimately be successful, progress is slow.
146 SHEFFIELD AND GALLUPB

Table 2 Duration of Implcmcnlation Activities

Number of projects Industry

Ihat were; Ag-Tech Furni- Small Software Tourism Tourism Yachting Totais
ture bus. 1 2
Inactive within one 2 2 3 3 2 12
month
Mostly inactive 1 3 2 1 7
after 1-18 months
Continuing joint 1 2 1 1 S
projects
Continuing stand- 1 3 1 1 6 12
alone projects

Totais 2 5 3 6 8 5 7 36

Because of the size and difficulty of projects such as these, five Advantage Auckland
groups have Joined forces with other organizations.

Active Stand-Alone Projects

Twelve projects were continuing eighteen months or more after the original Advan-
tage Auckland Meeting under the direction of both action plans and participants from
the Advantage Auckland Meeting (Table 2). In total, the magnitude of the personnel
time invested in developing these twelve projects is of the order of ten person-years
of effort. This compares with the six person-months of effort involved in attending the
seven Advantage Auckland Meetings studied.
Neither the members of project teams nor the government officials responsible for
ongoing support of industry-level initiatives could provide reliable quantitative mea-
sures of the impact of the action plans. At the time of the followup study, the New
Zealand economy was no longer in recession. B usiness confidence was high, primarily
becatise of increases in export earnings. While macrolevci measures (e.g., industrywide
increases in foreign-exchange earnings) existed, these figures could not reliably be
attributed to the implementation of meeting plans. Microlevel measures (e.g., export
orders received by individual companies as a result of recent industrywide trade
shows) were frequently not divulged. In the absence of clear measures of the
outcomes of plan implementation, the most telling measures of the longer-term
impact of the meetings were the magnitude and duration of a rich array of industry-
level developmental activities.
To summarize implementation activities and outcomes, some of the initiatives died
out quickly, but the majority were the subject of intense implementation activities.
Approximately half of the projects arc still ongoing. While most respondents indicated
that the meetings were a positive force, few could provide quantitative meastires of
their economic impact.
 OSS IN NEW ZEALAND'S ECONOMY 147

Advantage Auckland Meetings as "Unfreezing" Events . • »

The Advantage Auckland Meeting activities and procedures were designed to un-
freeze substantive and relationship issues. An analysis of the followup interviews
revealed patterns associated with both the relationship and substantive aspects of
interorganizational learning and industry-level change. In evaluating the longer-term
impact of electronically supported meetings, respondents frequently mentioned the
four factors identified in figure 3 as key elements of an "unfreezing" event. These four
factors are (1) absence of perceived confiict, (2) participation, (3) information ex-
change, and (4) consensus for cooperative action. The role of the electronic meetings
as an unfreezing event is briefiy reviewed here.

Absence of Perceived Confiict

Porter's Diamond Model [13] describes industries that are competitive in world
markets as those where rivalfirmscompete to produce a range of high-quality products
to meet the demands of sophisticated national and foreign consumers. At the time of
the Advantage Auckland Meetings, the New Zealand economy was in recession. In
many industry sectors diminished disposable income and deregulation had lead to
ovcrsupply, competition on price, heavy discounting, and persistent infighting.
To create and exploit synergistic relationships among the elements of the Diamond
Model, firms must leam when to compete fiercely and when to cooperate. However,
the followup interviews revealed that some or all of the industry associations thatcould
have provided the vehicle for such interorganizational learning appeared to have been
rendered ineffective by the infighting of industry members and nonmembers (e.g.,
"Before the meeting many of us didn't believe in talking to the opposition").
Most of those interviewed for the followup study made reference to the fact that
confiict had been managed successfully during their meeting.

Participation

When asked what they remembered most about the electronically supported meeting,
respondents from all industry sectors remarked on the positive value of communica-
tion by anonymous text which is freely available to all. This medium of communi-
cation was credited with increasing psychological comfort by decreasing
dysfunctional confiict stemming from personalities and internal politics. Participants
commented that the simultaneous use of the keyboards aided creativity and allowed
everybody's comments to be treated fairly (e.g., "The meeting made it easy to lay
your thoughts out without putting your neck on the line").

Information Exchange

A key objective for a large minority of participants was simply to leam what was
happening in the industry. For these participants, the process employed in the meeting,
the printed report, and an expanded network of industry contacts seemed to meet their
148 SHEFFIELD AND GALLUPE

needs. All comments regarding the infonnation exchange process were positive (e.g.,
"The computer medium was very helpful").

Consensus for Cooperative Action

In the Advantage Auckland Meetings, much of the information was exchanged with
the expectation that collective action would follow. Comments made at the close of
the meeting often reaffumed commitment to plan implementation. However, eighteen
months or more after the meeting, only four of the seven groups monitored (furniture,
small business, software, and yachting) felt they had achieved substantial success in
implementing their action plans.
The relatively small number of continuing projects in the tourist industry provides a
grim reminder that even enthusiastic commitment to collective action cannot guarantee
success. The objective of many of these projects was to create amenities for the "public
good." Project members either as individuals or as company representatives possessed a
diffuse and indirect fmancial relationship with projects, each of whichrequiredsubstantial
capital investment Some observers commented that the Advantage Auckland teams were
volunteers who were 01-equipped to play politics against the professionals.
A majority of respondents in the furniture, small-business, and software groups
confirmed that success was a direct result of the meeting. Respondents from the
yachting industry (which had initiated some changes before the Advantage Auckland
Meeting) agreed that the meeting was a major event in a campaign to upgrade the
industry [2]. Respondents from all four industry groups had a particularly sharp
recollection of their experience twenty-two months after the meeting.

Summary of Advantage Auckland Meetings as "Unfreezing" Events

To summarize, it appears that the electronic meeting technology was a key factor in
the change process. In particular, anonymity allowed ideas to be shared in a large and
diverse group and resulted in "xinftieezing" from beliefs that perpetuated the status quo.
Electronic meeting technology enabled relevant information to be shared and speeded
the work. Participants perceived opportunities for mutual gain. The face-to-face work
in task force teams built ownership and commitment for cooperative action.

Role of Meetings in "Change" and "Refreezing"

It is our view that the Advantage Auckland Meetings met their goal of promoting
"unfreezing." Did the meetings influence the "change" and "refreezing" process as
well?

Change

The results of the followup interviews reported above indicate that the meetings were
successful in "unfreezing" many participants. Attitudes such as viewing other industry
players as opponents, and behaviors such as infighting, had been temporarily sus-
pended. Each meeting started with positive, constructive dialogue and ended with
 GSS IN NEW ZEALAND'S ECONOMY 149

commitment to cooperative action. But unfreezing by itself is not enough. Lewin [10]
and Schein [14] emphasize that change efforts will be abandoned unless support is
provided. The Advantage Auckland task force members had to develop new skills and
see which proved successftil.
At the close of the Advantage Auckland Meetings, many participants conunented
on their desire to anend additional facilitated, electronically supported meetings to
broaden support for industry-level change. The followup interviews showed that most
of the project team's implementation activities took the form of phone calls and small
meetings in a variety of locations. In spite of their willingness to organize and/or attend
additional electronically assisted meetings, the original project participants discovered
that they did not need such meetings for the intemal management of their projects,
and hence did not undertake them.
However, the Advantage Auckland Meetings inspired a large number of additional
electronic meetings that focused on industry-level change (Table 3).
• The Advantage Auckland Meetings led directly to the establishment of a group
support facility at the Victoria University of Wellington. This facility supported
a campaign known as "Absolutely, Positively Wellington" which has goals
similar to those of Advantage Auckland.
• The Pacific Island Project is a direct extension of the Advantage Auckland
Meetings and employed the same process, facilitator. Porter Diamond Model,
and so on. Interestingly, participants in these eleven meetings were from the
Polynesian culture. The short-term results of these meetings are very similar to
those reported in our earlier paper.
• So far, the Advantage Auckland facilitator has staged additional electronically
supported meetings for participants in all but two (fiiminire and small business)
of the seven industry sectors followed up.
• In total, an additional fifly-eight electronically supported meetings involving
approximately 1,000 participants have been conducted.

ji . - .• '•• • •' • ,

Refreezing

The Advantage Auckland Meetings recommended that the task force teams should
adopt a variety of organizational forms, including:
1. Business cooperative,
2. Joint venture, ,• , -.,,:
3. Industry association, and
4. Government-supported, industrywide task forces known as Joint Aciion
Groups.
Most project groups that survived as stand-alone projects for eighteen months or more
(Table 2) adopted one or more of the recommended organizational forms. This has
undoubtedly assisted them to "refreeze" or lock in their new attitudes and behaviors
so that cooperation to enhance industry competitiveness has become the new norm.
150 SHEFFIELD AND GALLUPE

Table 3 Addiiional One-Day Electronic Meetings Inspired by the Advantage

Auckland Meetings

Ini Li alive Numbcr of mcelings

New campaigns sinv'lar to Advantage Auckland:
Absolutely, Positively Wellington 1992- 15 meetings
Pacific Island Project 1992-93 11 meetings

Multi-industry initiatives:
Tradenz exporting workshops 1992 2 meetings
Multi-industry EDI project 1994 6 meetings

Single industry initiatives:

Forestry industry 1993- 7 meetings
Other industries 1992- 11 meetings

Single company initiatives:

Companies of Advantage Auckland participants 1992- 6 meetings

Total number of additional one-day electronic meetings 58 meetings

Although the Advantage Auckland Meetings were designed to "unfreeze" partici-

pants, they contributed directly to the "change" and "refreezing" steps of the Lewin
model. By virtue of their importance, number, size, and success, the Advantage
Auckland Meetings and additional elecu-onic meetings constitute a discontinuity in
induslry-level policy development in New Zealand.

Situational Determinants of Success

Distinctive patterns of success and failure emerge in the above analysis of action plans
and change processes. Because of their particular situation, groups differed markedly
in the benefits they emphasized while describing their Advantage Auckland Meeting.
Groups also differed on the basis of whether or not they held additional meetings to
involve related groups, and whether or not they received institutional support to "lock
in" change. These siiuational factors are shown in Table 4, along with an indication
of those groups that perceived success in plan implementation.
All groups valued the electronic meeting for participation and information ex-
change. Most groups have hold additional electronic meetings. However, neither of
these two factors appears to differentiate between success and failure in plan imple-
mentation.
Three groups (agricultural technology and the two tourism groups) perceived that
they were unsuccessful in plan implementation. Two different situational factors may
explain these failures:
1. Plan implementation was not a priority. The leader of the agricultural technol-
ogy projects was one of a significant minority of participants who attended
 GSS IN NEW ZEALAND'S ECONOMY 151

Table 4 Situational Determinants of Success

Characterisiics Industry
Ag- Fumi- Small Soft- Tour- Tour- Yachi- Totals
Tech mre bus. ware ism 1 ism 2 ing
Stage 1: Advantage Auckland Meeting process, bene^ts emphasized:
1. Absence of Y Y Y 3
perceived conflict
2. Participation Y V Y Y Y Y Y ?
3. Information Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 7
exchange - ,:
4. Consensus for . : Y. Y Y Y Y Y 6
cooperative action

Stage 2: Change , ,
Additional eiectronic Y . t Y Y Y 5
meetings held to invoive ,
related groups . '

Stage 3: Refreezing , - .
Recommended • Y Y Y Y 5
organizationai form
adopted

Perceived success in Y Y Y V 4. •.'-

plan implementation

mainly tofindout what others in the industry were doing. He fell ihat lhe meeting
was a success for educational reasons.
2. Resources were unavailable. The tourism projecis were largely unsuccessful
primarily because they were complex and required significant instiiulional
support and financial resources Ihat were unavailable.
Four indusu^ groups (furniture, small-business, software, and yachting) reported
success in plan implemeniation. Success appears to be related to two different
siuialional factors:

1. Conflict management. Three out of the four meetings that achieved significant
success in plan implementation were those whose previous meetings had been
marked by dysfunctional conflict. Based on comments from project leaders,
intemal conflicts were severe in the fumiiure, small-business, and yachting
sectors. There was litUc support for collective action. Respondents comments
indicated that ihc meeting using an clecu-onic meeting system had been success-
ful where previous meetings had failed. The Advaniage Auckland Meetings
created a dialogue, and the exchange of valuable information fostered openness
and trust. Individuals in these meetings colleclively possessed resources which,
when shared and focused in the absence of perceived conflict, were sufficient
to support successful initiatives.
152 SHEFFIELD AND CALLUPE

2. Institutional support. In all four of the industries reporting substantial success,

project groups have matured into new business institutions (e.g., business
cooperatives, joint ventures, indusiry associations, Tradenz Joint Action
Groups) that generate or aitract the funding required for their continuation.

Discussion and Lessons Learned

THE MAIN FINDING OF Tins STUDY IS THAT the Advantage Auckland Meetings were
a "catalyst for cooperalive action" for the industries that participated. The evidence
indicates that most meeting participants not only could remember their meeting held
one to two years before, but could point to specific industry initiatives that were a
direct result of lhe Advantage Auckland Meeting process. Many participants felt that
it was the intensity of the meeting process—the electronic meeting tools, the use of
the Porter Diamond Model, and the large number of participants—that resulted in the
longer-term effects.
It is clear, however, that the longer-term effects are not uniform across industries.
This is to be expected for ihis kind of economic initiative. The meetings were only
one element in a long chain of events.
We believe that there are a number of practical and research-oriented lessons that
can be leamcd from the Advantage Auckland Meetings. On the practical side,
electronic meeting systems (along with skilled meeting facilitation) ean be effective
vehicles for "unfreezing" current industry conditions. Information sharing and ano-
nymity features of these systems seemed to facilitate a more open discussion of
industry problems and a willingness on the pait of meeting participants to share
cooperative, industrywide initiatives and ideas.
Second, the impact of these meetings went beyond simply "unfreezing" to actual
industry change. These meetings had a long-term impact on the participating indus-
tries. Although the types of impacts and the strengths of the effects varied across
industries, every sector could point to one or more ongoing initiative that had its
genesis at the Advantage Auckland Meetings. It is significant that most respondents
remember their Advantage Auckland Meeting vividly and feel that the meetings had
an impact on their indusu-ies* performance.
Finally, the Advantage Auckland Meetings were a successful way to bring together
industry competitors to develop common initiatives lo enhance their entire industry.
Where industries are facing severe external threats, not just to expansion but to
survival, this approach may offer an effective solution.
For research, the main lesson is that this type of followup study is important but
difficult to conducL We used well-established qualitative research techniques such as
interviews and secondary data analysis lo assess the impacts of these meetings. "Hard"
data such as increase in dollar sales or export earnings that are directly attributable to
the initiatives generated at the meetings could not be detennined.
This should not detract future researchers from investigating the longer-term im-
pacts of olher high-profile, computer-supported meetings. These future studies will
 GSS IN NEW ZEALAND'S ECONOMY 153

add to our knowledge about ihe factors that affcci the successful or unsuccessful tise
of group support systems.

REFERENCES
1. BIA News Gloating Industry Association News) (March-April 1993), 3.
2. Copeland.D.G., and McKcnney, J.L. "Airlinercservaiion systems: lessons from history."
MIS Quarterly. 12, 3 (September 1988), 353-370.
3. Crocombe. G.T.; Enright, M.J.; and Porter. M.E. Upgrading New Zealand's Competitive
Advantage. Auckland: Oxford University Press, 1991.
4. Dennis, A.R.; Heminger, A.R.; Nunamaker, J.F., Jr.; and Vogel, D.R. Bringing automated
support to large groups: the Burr Brown experience. Informationand Management, 18,3 (1990),
111-121.
5. DeSanctis, G., and Lewis, H. Using compuiing to improve tlie quality team process: some
initial observations from the IRS-Minnesota Project. Proceedings of ihe Twenty-Fourth Annual
Hawaii InternationalCoriferenceonSystemSciences,yol4,c<i.hy)a,yF.NunamakciT,h., 1991,
pp. 750-757.
6. }iusc,E.F., an6Cummmgs,T.G.Organization Development andChange,3d&d.SLPa\ii,
MN: West Publishing, 1985.
7. Isabella, L.A. Evolving interpretations as a change unfolds: how managers corwtrue key
OTgaiuzalionalevenls.Academy of Management Journal. 33, 1 (1990).7-41.
8. Kolb, DA., and Frohman, A.L. An organization development approach to consulting.
Sloan Management Review, 12 (1970), 51-65.
9. Kotter, J.P., and Schcsinger, L.A. Choosing strategies for change. Harvard Business
Review {Mmch-Apii\ 1979).
10. Lewin, K. Frontiers in group dynamics: concept, method and reality in social science.
Human Relations, 1,1 (1947), 5-41.
11. Afa/iagem^n/. Grim reckoning. (May 1991).
12. Nunamaker. J., Jr.; Vogel, D.; Heminger, A.; Martz, B.; Grohowski. R.; and McGoff, C.
Experiences at IBM with group support systems: a field study. Decision Support Systems, 5,2
(1989). 183-196.
13. Porter, M.E. The Competitive Advantage of Nations.Hew York: The Free Press, 1990.
14. Schein, E.H. How can organizations leam faster? the challenge of entering the green
room. Sloan Management Review (Winter 1993), 85-92.
15. Senge, P. M. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization.
New York: Doubleday. 1990.
16. Sheffield, J., and Gallupe, R.B. Using electronic meeting technology to support economic
policy development in New Zealand: short-term results. Journal of Management information
Systems, 10, 3 (Winter 1993-94). 97-116.
17. Tradenz (board paper). The JAG (Joint Action Group) concept and proposed operaiional
guidelines. (1992).
18. TraJcnz.NewZealandin the global marketplace: a strategic overview and corporateplan
1992-93. (August 1992).
19. Tradenz. Stretching for growth; building an export strategy for New Zealand 1993-
94. (September 1993).