Group support systems features and their contribution to technology strategy decision-making: A review and analysis

Collective decision-making processes require careful design considerations in organizations. On one hand, the inclusion of a greater number of actors contribute to a wider knowledge base, on the other, it can become a diffuse process and be distorted from the principles initially established. This paper observes a specific collective decision making process in organizations—technology strategy formulation—and, through a critical review of the literature, analyzes how the advances in features of group support systems support improvements in different stages of this process. This paper also discusses the implications of GSS appropriation in group dynamics.This research was supported by Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (SFRH/ BD/ 33727/ 2009), within the framework of the MIT Portugal Program.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Distinct effects of IPSU and suvorexant on mouse sleep architecture

Dual orexin receptor (OXR) antagonists (DORAs) such as almorexant, SB-649868, suvorexant (MK-4305), and filorexant (MK-6096), have shown promise for the treatment of insomnias and sleep disorders. Whether antagonism of both OX1R and OX2R is necessary for sleep induction has been a matter of some debate. Experiments using knockout mice suggest that it may be sufficient to antagonize only OX2R. The recent identification of an orally bioavailable, brain penetrant OX2R preferring antagonist 2-((1H-Indol-3-yl)methyl)-9-(4-methoxypyrimidin-2-yl)-2,9-diazaspiro[5.5]undecan-1-one (IPSU) has allowed us to test whether selective antagonism of OX2R may also be a viable strategy for induction of sleep. We previously demonstrated that IPSU and suvorexant increase sleep when dosed during the mouse active phase (lights off); IPSU inducing sleep primarily by increasing NREM sleep, suvorexant primarily by increasing REM sleep. Here, our goal was to determine whether suvorexant and IPSU affect sleep architecture independently of overall sleep induction. We therefore tested suvorexant (25 mg/kg) and IPSU (50 mg/kg) in mice during the inactive phase (lights on) when sleep is naturally more prevalent and when orexin levels are normally low. Whereas IPSU was devoid of effects on the time spent in NREM or REM, suvorexant substantially disturbed the sleep architecture by selectively increasing REM during the first 4 h after dosing. At the doses tested, suvorexant significantly decreased wake only during the first hour and IPSU did not affect wake time. These data suggest that OX2R preferring antagonists may have a reduced tendency for perturbing NREM/REM architecture in comparison with DORAs. Whether this effect will prove to be a general feature of OX2R antagonists vs. DORAs remains to be see