what-when-how
In Depth Tutorials and Information
per use case or the total count of supported handset platform. In case of the added
attribute “support versus opposition,” each stakeholder can express their own per-
spectives via social interaction based on their expertise and understanding, and this
opinion should describe their position of either supporting or opposing the argu-
ment according to how much the objective (to which the attribute belongs) can be
accomplished if the argument is accepted.
Negotiation, where the stakeholders express and exchange their own opinions
about the objectives and attributes, is generally a very complex human phenomenon
in teamwork that consists of many inter-related psychological and organizational
factors. here is no practical way that a complete analytical modeling of negotiation
can be fully developed and incorporated for a group of decision makers. As a result,
our approach takes a rather simplified view by focusing on modeling the dynamic
impacts of negotiation (i.e., on the evolving “perspectives” of the stakeholders), as
they express their opinions toward the design arguments and the objective hierar-
chy. hese dynamically evolving perspectives are declared for the proposed objec-
tives of which the stakeholders have common interests or some expertise. In other
words, the perspective dynamically depicts a stakeholder's perceptions of his or
others' design arguments based on the objectives. hese perceptions could include
the stakeholders' desire for their ideas to succeed and their support for or disagree-
ment with how well their own or others' arguments can achieve the objectives,
either proposed by themselves or others. herefore, the perspectives indicate the
difference in the stakeholders' perceptions that cause the conflict in the technical
proposals of the tasks and put the negotiation into necessity. Moreover, these per-
spectives will be further analyzed in order to systematically evaluate the arguments
in our negotiation approach.
Although stakeholder perspectives are often highly subjective in nature, some
quantitative methods are needed in order to define the measurement scales of the
perspectives and further analyze these perspectives for argument evaluation. In our
research, we define a 1-10 measurement scale to quantify the stakeholders' perspec-
tives of either supporting or opposing the arguments. In other words, when the
task proposals were being evaluated, for the support-versus-opposition attribute,
stakeholders declared their perspectives about the proposal's value based on their
expertise and understanding. he perspective will be one of the following:
10 = Strong support, that is, the proposal will most likely help achieve the objective
8 = Support, that is, the proposal will likely help achieve the objective
6 = Neutrality (fair, unknown, or disinterested), that is, the proposal may not
either contribute to or harm the achievement of the objective; or contro-
versy, that is, the proposal may have some effect in achieving the objec-
tive, but the decision maker is not clear about what kind of effect it may
have
4 = Opposition, that is, the proposal will likely bring negative effects in achiev-
ing the objective
