If by "discussion tool" you mean asynchronous,
individual-at-their-own-computer discussions (as opposed to f2f or same
time, virtual team discussions), then I'd be in partial agreement with your
The 'partially' is because of the specific meaning I'd give to the terms
"discussions" and "decisions". Following Karl Weick, we've moved away from
the language of "decision-making" in favor of "sense-making." It's really
about interweaving the right granular elements of a group's discourse with
other elements in the right ways. That doesn't really reduce to decisions
and discussions. The interweaving can happen at many different levels,
using different forms, for different purposes.
BTW a good Weick reference for the above is Weick, K. (1993). "Sensemaking
and Group Support Systems." In L. Jessup and J. Valacich (Ed.), Group
Support Systems: New Perspectives. New York: Macmillan.
Wow!!! Congratulations on the progress you guys have made.
It seems clear that you guys are in a good position to know what
works well, and what has problems.
I find it particularly noteworthy that, having actually implemented
a system that will allow carring on an IBIS-style investigation, it
is still difficult to use that medium as a discussion tool. It seems
rather as a good mechanism for recording discussions after the
fact, and tying them to the decisions that result.
Is that an accurate summary?
Community email addresses:
Post message: unrev-II@onelist.com
List owner: unrev-IIfirstname.lastname@example.org
Shortcut URL to this page:
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Wed Nov 07 2001 - 13:08:15 PST