Helena M. Mentis
Paula M. Bach
John M. Carroll
ABSTRACT
This study explores the characteristics of rationale development in a complex group decision making task and considers design implications for better supporting rationale development in group decision making. Twelve three-person, multi-role teams performed three instances of a collaborative decision making task with physical maps. We used rhetorical structure theory to analyze the structure of their decision making discourse. We found that groups begin their reasoning processing by stating and relating information and finish their reasoning through a point-counterpoint discussion. We also found that established groups reduced their need to analyze information during the last moments of a decision. Implications for the design of group decision support systems to encourage rationale development are presented.
- Carley, K. (1986). Knowledge acquisition as a social phenomenon. Instructional Science, 14(3-4), pp. 381--438.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Convertino, G., Mentis, H.M., Rosson, M.B., Carroll, J.M., Slavkovic, A.,&Ganoe, C. (2008). Articulating Common Ground in Cooperative Work: Content and Process. Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1637--1646. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Conklin, J. and Begeman, M.L. (1987). gIBIS: a hypertext tool for team design deliberation. Conference on Hypertext and Hypermedia, pp.247--251. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Dennis, A.R. (1996). Information exchange and use in group decision making: You can lead a group to information, but you can't make it think. MIS Quarterly, 20 (4), pp.433--457. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Fawcett, R.P.&Davies, B.L. (1992). Monologue as a turn in dialogue: Towards an integration of exchange structure and rhetorical structure theory. In R. Dale, E. Hovy, D. Rösner and O. Stock (Eds.), Aspects of Automated Language Generation (pp. 151--166). Berlin: Springer. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Fisher, B.A.&Ellis, D. (1990). Anatomy of communication in decision-making groups: Improving effectiveness. In D. Ellis&B.A. Fisher (Eds.), Small Group Decision Making, 3d ed., (pp.170--200). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
- Gigone, D.&Hastie, R. (1993). The common knowledge effect: Information sharing and group judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(5), pp. 959--974.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Herrera-Viedma, E., Herrera, F. and Chiclana, F. (2002). A consensus model for multiperson decision making with different preference structures. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics Part A: Systems and Humans, 32 (3), pp. 394--402. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Karacapilidis, N. and Papadias, D. (2001). Computer supported argumentation and collaborative decision making: the HERMES system. Information Systems, 26 (4), pp.259--277. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Landis, J.R.&Koch, G.G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33, pp. 159--174.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Lee, J. (1990). SIBYL: a tool for managing group design rationale. Proceedings of the Conference on Computer-supported Cooperative Work, pp. 79--92. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mann, W. C.&Thompson, S. A. (1988). Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text 8 (3), pp. 243--281.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Mann, W.C., Matthiessen, C.,&Thompson, S.A. (1992). Rhetorical Structure Theory and text analysis. In W. C. Mann and S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Discourse Description: Diverse Linguistic Analyses of a Fund-Raising Text (pp. 39--78). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
- Mathieu, J.E., Heffner, T.S., Goodwin, G.F., Salas, E.,&Cannon-Bowers, J.A. (2000). The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(2), pp. 273--283.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Mennecke, B. E. (1997). Using group support systems to discover hidden profiles: an examination of the influence of group size and meeting structures on information sharing and decision quality. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 47, pp. 387--405. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Monk, A. (2003). Common ground in electronically mediated communication: Clark's theory of language use, in J.M. Carroll (Ed.), Toward a multidisciplinary science of HCI. MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Nahavandi, A.,&Aranda, E. (1994). Restructuring teams for the reengineered organization. Academy of Management Executive, 8(4), pp. 58--68.Google Scholar
- Nisbett, R.E.&Wilson, T.D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, pp. 231--259.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Schafer W., Ganoe C., Carroll J.M. (2007). Supporting Community Emergency Management Planning through a Geocollaboration Software Architecture. CSCW, 16(4-5), pp. 501--537. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Shafir, E., Simonson, I.,&Tversky, A. (1993). Reason-based choice. Cognition, 49(1-2), pp. 11--36.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Stasser, G. (1992). Information salience and the discovery of hidden profiles by decision-making groups: a 'Thought Experiment'. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 52, pp. 156--181.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Stent, A. (2000). Rhetorical structure in dialog, Proceedings of First International Conference on Natural Language Generation (INLG'2000) (pp. 247--252). Google ScholarDigital Library
- Taboada, M. (2004). Rhetorical relations in dialogue: A contrastive study. In C. L. Moder and A. Martinovic-Zic (Eds.), Discourse across Languages and Cultures (pp. 75--97). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
- Taboada, M&Mann, W. C. (2006a). Applications of Rhetorical Structure Theory. Discourse Studies, 8(4), pp. 567--588.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Taboada, M.&Mann, W.C. (2006b). Rhetorical Structure Theory: Looking back and moving ahead. Discourse Studies, 8(3), pp. 423--459.Google ScholarCross Ref
Index Terms
- Development of decision rationale in complex group decision making
Recommendations
The design of AHPEC in web-based decision support system for making decision
AIC'10/BEBI'10: Proceedings of the 10th WSEAS international conference on applied informatics and communications, and 3rd WSEAS international conference on Biomedical electronics and biomedical informaticsThis paper presents the architecture of the WDSS using AHPEC for making decision. The WDSS-AHPEC involves client, user interface, server, web server, database, and DSS model. The DSS model in this study is using AHPEC method. In applying AHPEC, it ...
Decision Making in Agile Development: A Focus Group Study of Decisions and Obstacles
AGILE '11: Proceedings of the 2011 Agile ConferenceThe process and effectiveness of decision making in agile development is critical yet poorly understood. This research examines decisions made across the four stages of the sprint cycle: Sprint Planning, Sprint Execution, Sprint Review and Sprint ...
Collaborative Decision Making
<P>A synthesis of the work of three noted authors provides a framework for collaborative decisions built on the foundation of decision analysis. A Nobel Prize winner provides a psychological foundation for the framework, an authority on harnessing the ...
Comments