Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
the perception of the criteria not being satisfied,
and the judgment that something should be done
with respect to it. This creates a goal
g
1
that could
be defined as:
decision capabilities of the people entering the
conversation.
Enlarging the set of perceptions may be the
result of enlarging the set of perceptions of the
state of affairs, the set of criteria, and the set of
available actions. As with
P
C
, one can view for-
mally such enlargement as unions:
•
To validate the issue as an actual problem;
•
Given that the issue is an actual problem,
to assess the relevance or urgency of solv-
ing it in the frame of other issues that must
be considered;
S
= ∪
S
S
∪ ∪
S
C
1
2
n
C
=
C
∪
C
∪ ∪
C
(2)
C
n
1
2
•
Given both above, to select from different
courses of action or options, one that ex-
pectably will lead to satisfying the criteria.
A
= ∪
A A
∪ ∪
A
C
1
2
n
One can note that the first two equations in (2)
may express a reframing of the issue. The third
equation means that the set of options and the set
of valuations may grow:
In any case, the DM will perceive or conceive
of a set of available actions
A
1
, from which a subset
must be chosen, forming an option. This formula-
tion allows defining the set of options
O
1
, as the
power set of
A
1
, i.e., all possible combinations of
taking or not taking the actions in
A
1
.
Using a set of criteria
C
1
that includes
R
1
, the
person will valuate the consequences of each
option, creating a set of valuations,
V
1
=
C
1
(
O
1
)
from which the decision should follow.
By asking other
n
- 1 people to contribute
through conversations, the DM can potentially
enlarge the set of perceptions he disposes to a set
P
C
. Formally, one can view such set as the union
of perceptions of each person:
O
=
=
powerset(
A
)
C
C
(3)
V
C O
(
)
C
C
C
Equations (2) and (3) can base a measure - if
only qualitative - of the gains that conversations
can carry to decisions. If the CODSS offers fa-
cilities for determining such measures and for
classifying issues and their complexity, DMs will
be in position to tune the use of conversations in
the most profitable way.
The analysis and formalism above suggest that
a CODSS should support UDPs through collect-
ing and registering contributions in a way that
makes evident the statement of the issue or goal
for initiating the decision process, the information
about the state of affairs, the possible actions and
the criteria, consequent options and valuations
from each contribution.
P
= ∪
P
P
2
∪ ∪
P
(1)
C
n
1
There will be a potential gain in terms of a better
decision for the DM if
P
C
strictly includes
P
1
:
P
C
⊃
P
1
. Otherwise, the DM gets no new inputs and
her decision cannot be different from the situation
of taking the decision alone. In this case, he (and
the organizational domain) may incur effectively
a loss by the costs inherent in the conversation
that took place. However, a subjective gain may
be considered to come from either enlarged con-
fidence on the decision or from a warning on the
flow of the decision process
Let us imagine roughly how a UDP with conversa-
tion would go. Say that an issue has been raised.
This means that, at least, a description
S
1
of a
Search WWH ::
Custom Search