ResearchPromoting consensus in small decision making groups
References (37)
- et al.
An Automated Idea Consolidation Tool for Computer Supported Cooperative Work
Information and Management
(1992) - et al.
Bringing Automated Support to Large Groups: The Burr-Brown Experience
Information and Management
(1990) - et al.
The Effects of Three Social Decision Schemes on Decision Group Processes
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance
(1980) Graduate Students as Surrogates for Managers in Experiments on Business Decision Making
Journal of Business Research
(1986)The Practice of Social Research
(1992)- et al.
An Integrated Framework for Group Decision Support Systems Design
Information and Management
(1987) Discussion and Group Methods: Theory and Practice
(1975)Social Judgement Theory and the Analysis of Interpersonal Conflict
Psychological Bulletin
(1976)Practical Nonparametric Statistics
(1980)- et al.
The Dependability of Behavioral Measurement: The Theory of Generalizability for Score and Profiles
(1972)
Hardware: Offline
A Foundation for the Study of Group Decision Support Systems
Management Science
Productivity Loss in Brainstorming Groups: Towards the Solution of a Riddle
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Analysis of Covariance: A Delicate Instrument
American Education Research Journal
Small Group Decision Making: Communication and the Group Process
A Study of Collaborative Work with and without Computer-Based Support
Information Systems Research
The ‘Science of the Sophomore’ Revisited: From Conjecture to Empiricism
Academy of Management Review
Behavioral Correlates of Perceptions of Quality in Decision-Making Discussions
Communication Monographs
Cited by (28)
Cloud service evaluation method-based Multi-Criteria Decision-Making: A systematic literature review
2018, Journal of Systems and SoftwareCitation Excerpt :Eight CSEMs used an expert interview method to verify the evaluation criteria. Lastly, two CSEMs used IEEE Standard 1061 (Tan et al. 1995) to verify the identified evaluation criteria. Hence, the majority of CSEMs failed to provide trustworthiness evidence of the proposed evaluation criteria.
A novel semi-quantitative Fuzzy Cognitive Map model for complex systems for addressing challenging participatory real life problems
2016, Applied Soft Computing JournalCitation Excerpt :That notwithstanding, a large sample size of FCMs or perceptions leads to finding out the relevant variables and connections among variables with more certainty [37], reducing additional new variables, stable connection strength values as well as high reliability in the combined knowledge [33], and a better representation of the problem [13]. A collection of different perceptions is particularly useful for decision making as it encapsulates a wide range of skills, interests and knowledge representation [55], and it leads to useful information [39]. Therefore, to improve the accuracy of outcomes and obtain a reliable and acceptable consensus representation of knowledge from several individual stakeholders, the individual perceptions (FCMs) are aggregated into a group or combined FCMs [32,34].
Environmental impacts on the Galapagos Islands: Identification of interactions, perceptions and steps ahead
2014, Ecological IndicatorsCitation Excerpt :Due to its iterative nature and controlled feedback, forging a avoiding conflicts and consensus increases after each round, although its is not always evident (Orsi et al., 2011). In this research, several elements might have contributed to generate consensus: (1) the use of Chu and Hwang's (2008) five point Likert scale which proved to be efficient to measure consensus; (2) because consensus is easily achieved with participants that have similar societal perspectives (particularly towards biodiversity conservation); (3) because small groups tend to reach consensus faster (Tan et al., 1995); and (4) because the best argument determines the outcome (Habermas, 2006). In this regard, Bolger and Wright (2011) argue that in social decision scheme theory (SDST)… “– the best argument wins – in which it is assumed that if there is a group member who actually knows the best argument, then she or he will be able to persuade the rest of the group of this fact.
Designing knowledge chain networks in China - A proposal for a risk management system using linguistic decision making
2010, Technological Forecasting and Social ChangeCitation Excerpt :Another challenge is to select a decision method that can aggregate uncertain information such as market trends, technology implementation, and product quality from a heterogeneous group of experts with highly diverse backgrounds, social capital, knowledge, skills, personal objectives and interests. Not all experts are able or like to provide evaluation as a “crisp” number, i.e. in the interval [0, 1] (e.g., [65–67]), preferring instead to use terms such as ‘does not matter’ or ‘very important’, or even complete sentences. This soft consensus is a linguistic quantifier (see details in [68,69]).
Compensating effects of GSS on group performance
1999, Information and ManagementRho: A decision support system for pricing in law firms
1998, Information and Management