what-when-how
In Depth Tutorials and Information
If the claim and the data are not accepted by other stakeholders who jointly
work with her on this task, then the stakeholder must begin to identify the objec-
tives which the task proposal will accomplish and present them as the warrant
to others.
If the claim, data, and warrant are not accepted by others, then the attributes of
those objectives (in warrant) will be declared and presented as backings to describe
the measurement criteria of the objectives and confirm that the proposal can accom-
plish the objectives by achieving good performance with each attribute.
Up to this point, after all the stakeholders present their claims, data, warrants
and backings, the initial objectives hierarchy (including all fundamental/means
objectives and attributes) of the entire team have been set up. If the claim, data,
warrant, and backing are not accepted by others, the stakeholder has a chance to
refine his/her proposal (claim) based on the group objectives hierarchy and follow
the aforementioned procedure from the beginning.
Next, if stakeholders choose not to refine their claim or the reined version
(claim, data, warrant, and backing) is still not accepted, the stakeholders will give
the qualifier, that is, instead of solely subjective opinion, the measurement result
regarding how well their proposal accomplishes the objectives given in their war-
rant, indicating the degree of their desire for the proposal. he rebuttal should be
also given in this step, as the measurement result regarding how well their pro-
posal accomplishes the objectives, indicates the probability that this proposal can
be rejected if this result is rather unsatisfactory. In this step, when all the involved
stakeholders give qualifiers and rebuttals for their proposals, they should be offered
one more chance to refine the proposal based on the measurement results and then
follow the steps.
If the stakeholder chooses not to refine his or her claim or the reined version is
still not accepted, all the arguments will be evaluated and ranked based on deter-
ministic analysis. he argument with best evaluation result will be recommended
to the group leader.
8.3.4.2.4 Step 6b—Perspective Analysis
With the well shared and reviewed objectives and perspectives in the arguments
exchange, it is possible to compare and analyze stakeholders' perspective models
and to determine the similarity of two stakeholders' perspectives for one argument
against a shared objective and the degree of agreement among these stakeholders for
choosing the arguments. We can also aggregate multiple stakeholders' perspective
models and compare their general attitudes towards each other's arguments at dif-
ferent levels of abstraction. Based on these analysis results, certain conflict resolu-
tion strategies can be suggested to the corresponding design team members.
First, we define the similarity of two perspectives (e.g.,
i
and
j
) as the “dis-
tance”
d
i
,
. If
d
i
,
equals 0, it means two perspectives are compatible. If
d
i
,
equals
1, then the two perspectives are opposite each other. here are two approaches
