首页> 外文会议> >Non-networked group decision support system: effects of devil's advocacy and dialectical inquiry
【24h】

Non-networked group decision support system: effects of devil's advocacy and dialectical inquiry

机译:非网络团体决策支持系统:魔鬼倡导和辩证探究的效果

获取原文

摘要

The research presents an experimental study on the comparisons of two different structured conflict generation approaches, devil's advocacy (DA) and dialectical inquiry (DI), in a decision conferencing environment (a kind of non-networked GDSS). The study uses consensus (C) as the control. The main objectives were to investigate the development, management and productivity of conflicts. It thus extends the earlier studies on DA and DI from the manual group work to the computer aided group work. 20 groups, involving 116 students, participated in this study. A factorial design was used where each group achieved consensus decisions on two separate tasks. The process of decision conferencing was used to help the groups in arriving at the decision. The results are mixed. It was found that, in terms of generating conflicts there were no differences among DI, DA and C groups. For the conflict management strategies, however, DI and DA groups used fewer avoidance strategies than the C groups. The study also did not find any differences among DI, DA and C in terms of the productivity of conflict. It was, however, observed that task type plays an important role and future studies on GDSS should, therefore, be aimed at dealing with multiple tasks.
机译:该研究提出了关于两种不同结构冲突的比较,魔鬼的宣传(DA)和辩证查询(DI)在决策会议环境(一种非联网GDS)中的比较的实验研究。该研究使用共识(c)作为对照。主要目标是调查冲突的发展,管理和生产力。因此,从手动组工作到计算机辅助组工作,延伸了对DA和DI的早期研究。 20组涉及116名学生,参加了这项研究。使用阶乘设计,其中每个组在两个单独的任务中实现了共识决定。决策会议的过程被用来帮助群体到达决定。结果混合了。结果发现,在产生冲突方面,DI,DA和C组之间没有差异。然而,对于冲突管理策略,DI和DA组使用比C组更少的避免策略。该研究在冲突生产率方面也没有发现DI,DA和C之间的任何差异。然而,观察到任务类型发挥着重要作用,因此应该旨在处理多项任务。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号