Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
Project ID
20101114
Feasibility study
Project category
Initiator
P6
Partner
P2
Course of Discussion in Regional Assembly
•
P8 says: Study is required before funding (41+)
o
E1 replies: Study too costly for little effect (42-)
•
S2 says: Study has no negative effects (42+)
o
S5 replies: Study has no negative effects (42+)
o
A4 replies: Skepticism about practicability (44-)
•
S3 says: Study is required before funding (41+)
o
S4 says: Study is required before funding (41+)
o
A2 replies: Skepticism about practicability (44-)
•
P8 says: Spend funding for project itself (43-)
Date
08-12-2010
Supporting votes
13
Dissenting votes
3
Fig. 3.
Simulated course of discussion in the regional assembly (anonymized). Key to stake-
holder symbols: P=political, E=economic, S=social, A=administrative. The numbers indicate
the position of the argument in fig. 1; '+' and '-' refer to positive and negative arguments
respectively.
In the assembly meetings observed, projects were seldom turned down. Asked to
give a reason for that, the interviewees stated that so far the budget was far from being
exhausted, which is why the representatives felt no urge to prioritize projects and
direct funding. However, from some of the interview statements it became evident
that the stakeholders were conscious of a need to prioritize in the future:
•
“If we had more applicants, so that the budget will become tight, we will have to
talk about how to establish priorities.” (Political stakeholder)
•
“But when we are told that this is your budget, and there isn't any more, then we
will have to trade off which of the projects we can support and which we cannot.”
(Social stakeholder)
So for the simulation it appeared worthwhile to assume dynamic decisions influenced
by the course of discussion beforehand. That way, the decision results in the simula-
tion are opened for the design of alternative discussion and decision scenarios, which
aim at supporting decision mechanisms in situations where the available budget is
shrinking and projects will have to be prioritized. An impact of the discussions on the
decisions is indicated in several of the interviews. In order to maintain a consistency
of decisions and discussions inside the simulation, the agents decide predominantly
according to the proportion of the own 'pro' and 'con' arguments in the discussion to
support or dissent a project. Agents that had been silent during the discussion direct
their vote according to the total numbers of 'pro' and 'con' arguments placed, thus
being 'convinced' in the course of discussion.
