Extending the Reach of Collective Decision Support Systems: Provisions for Disciplining Judgment-Driven Exercises
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Theory and Decision 48 (1):1-46 (2000)
The focus here is on analytical and instrumental requirements for those collective decision exercises that lend themselves to a judgment-driven resolution. These have not as yet received much concerted technical attention from either of the two main movements in the field. They remain somewhere beyond the purview of the objectively-predicated instruments that mainstream GDSS (Group Decision Support System) designs tend to favour. Yet neither are they so inherently ill-structured as the situations with which the GDNSS (Group Decision and Negotiation Support System) community is concerned, these usually allowing only a subjectively-predicated, compromisive or consensus-based conclusion. If the technical requirements peculiar to judgment-driven decision exercises are to be well met, it will be through the offices of analytical instruments that can help assure the rationality of the resolutions at which they arrive. The primary purpose of these pages is to offer some suggestions about the types of analytical instruments that might serve this end
|Keywords||Decision science Group decision support system (GDSS) Group decision and negotiation support system (GDNSS) Managerial decision-making Analytic methods|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Patrick Humphreys & Garrick Jones (2006). The Evolution of Group Decision Support Systems to Enable Collaborative Authoring of Outcomes. World Futures 62 (3):193 – 222.
John W. Sutherland (1990). Disciplining Qualitative Decision Exercises: Aspects of a Transempirical Protocol. Theory and Decision 28 (1):73-101.
Stephan Hartmann, Gabriella Pigozzi & Jan Sprenger (2010). Reliable Methods of Judgment Aggregation. Journal for Logic and Computation 20:603--617.
Kieran Mathieson (2007). Towards a Design Science of Ethical Decision Support. Journal of Business Ethics 76 (3):269 - 292.
Bertrand Munier & Melvin F. Shakun (1990). Introduction to the Special Issue on Group Decision and Negotiation Support Systems (GDNSS). Theory and Decision 28 (3):199-201.
John Zeleznikow (2002). An Australian Perspective on Research and Development Required for the Construction of Applied Legal Decision Support Systems. Artificial Intelligence and Law 10 (4):237-260.
Emilia Bellucci & John Zeleznikow (2005). Developing Negotiation Decision Support Systems That Support Mediators: A Case Study of the Family_winner System. [REVIEW] Artificial Intelligence and Law 13 (2):233-271.
Marc Pauly (2007). Axiomatizing Collective Judgment Sets in a Minimal Logical Language. Synthese 158 (2):233 - 250.
Jukka Varelius (2009). Collective Informed Consent and Decision Power. Science and Engineering Ethics 15 (1):39-50.
E. Bellucci & J. Zeleznikow, Trade-Off Manipulations in the Development of Negotiation Decision Support Systems.
Rick Szostak (2005). Evaluating the Historiography of the Great Depression: Explanation or Single‐Theory Driven? Journal of Economic Methodology 12 (1):35-61.
Stephan Hartmann & Gabriella Pigozzi (2006). Merging Judgments and the Problem of Truth-Tracking. In Jerome Lang & Ulle Endriss (eds.), Computational Social Choice 2006. University of Amsterdam.
Lars Sandman & Christian Munthe (2009). Shared Decision-Making and Patient Autonomy. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 30 (4):289-310.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2010-09-02
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?