Re: [ba-unrev-talk] Connecting the Dots...
On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Eric Armstrong wrote: (01)
> * What kinds of requirements are there for a tool that will
> allow divergent opinions to achieve congruence? (02)
Some experiences we had in the development of the (prototype) GRASS (Group
Report Authoring Suppport System) method and tool: (03)
- Have a clear goal in terms of an artifact to be constructed:
stakeholders don't just discuss but should co-author a concise report that
aims to develop answers and assess consensus on a particular research
question, i.e. 'Should we attack Iraq?' (04)
- Report has (1) introduction, (2) several sections, and (3) conclusion.
In the middle sections, sub-questions are addressed by defining positions
and coupling discussion threads to positions. Stakeholders take positions
(and may change them over time). (05)
- Report and section introductions state report goals, the conclusions
summarize results of developed positions+discussions. Introductions and
conclusions should present the whole range of views, including those
dissenting from majority. (06)
- Roles, such as author, report, and sections editors, as well as the
rights/responsibilities attached to these roles need to be clearly
defined (i.e. how to write a report conclusion in which all opinions are
incorporated). (07)
All these aspects should help in obtaining more convergence. We haven't
done anything with rating argument-elements. I agree that this could be an
important additional force for convergence. (08)
Aldo (09)
==========================================================================
---/// e-mail: ademoor@uvt.nl
IN|F/OLAB phone +31-13-4662914/3020, fax +31-13-4663069
|/// home page: http://infolab.uvt.nl/people/ademoor (010)
Dr. Aldo de Moor
Infolab, Dept. of Information Systems and Management - Tilburg University
PO Box 90153, 5000 LE Tilburg, The Netherlands
========================================================================== (011)