46,431 research outputs found

    A Dialectical Methodology for Decision Support Systems Design

    Get PDF

    A Dialectical Methodology For Decision Support Systems Design

    Get PDF
    As organizations continue to grow in size, reaching global proportions, they have ever increasing impacts on their environments. Some believe that a much broader array of concerns should be brought into organizational decision-making processes, including greater consideration of social, political, ethical and aesthetic factors (Mitroff and Linstone, 1993; Courtney, 2001). Decision environments such as these are decidedly wicked (Rittel and Webber, 1973). Designing decision support systems in such environments where there is a high level of interconnectedness, issues are overlapping and a multiplicity of stakeholders is involved, is a very complex task. In this dissertation a methodology for the development of a DSS for wicked situations is proposed using the design theory building process suggested by Walls et al. (1992). This proposed theory is based on dialectic theory and the multiple perspective approach suggested by Linstone and Mitroff (1993). The design process consists of identifying relevant stakeholders, their respective worldviews, and conflicts in these worldviews. A design (thesis) and counter design (antithesis) are created, and a prototype systems based on these designs are developed. These prototypes are then presented to the different stakeholder groups who engage in a dialogue which leads to the development of a synthesized design. The process is repeated until all conflicts are resolved or resources are exhausted, and a final system is produced. Using action research and system development research methodologies, the proposed design theory was applied to zoning decision process in Orange County, Florida. The results of this study led to the following: 1. It is feasible to implement the MPDP methodology proposed in this dissertation. 2. The MPDP methodology resulted in a synthesized design that accommodates the different views of the stakeholders. 3. The MPDP methodology is suitable for contentious situations and may not be feasible for structured decisions. 4. Most of the subjects did achieve a more understanding of the decision process. These results suggest that the MPDP design theory can be effective in developing decision support systems in contentious situations

    Economic Freedom as Political Virtue: An Insight from the Perspective of Value Pluralism

    Get PDF
    This paper considers the market process as the essence and intrinsic core of liberal democracy. It disentangles market means from welfare ends and recognises the importance, constitutional status and independent stand of the former. Freedom is placed in the same categories as rights. Each constitutional right is protected not because it is efficient, useful or self-executable. On the contrary, rights are protected as a matter of evolutionary choice, as a matter of public principle, as an ethical rather than a practical value.Economic freedom usually leads to success. Its successfulness however sometimes transforms into its biggest enemy. Economic prosperity is a category which can find supporters more rapidly than the notion of economic freedom does. Therefore the latter is often perceived as a means to reach former. The main argument of this paper is that freedom itself loses its internal legitimacy if it is constantly subordinated to the tangible outcomes which it can eventually generate. Freedom can generate welfare, indeed, but welfare maximisation is neither an unconditional nor a quintessential feature of freedom. Freedom must be perceived as a driving force for entrepreneurial discovery, and a prerequisite to democracy, rather than as a mere component of the economic success. Freedom cannot be seen as purely rational, predictable and calculable

    Dialectical Antitrust: An Alternative Insight into the Methodology of the EC Competition Law Analysis

    Get PDF
    The main idea behind this article was to perform a theoretical analysis of the purposes and tools of antitrust policy and law. An ancient dialectical method has been applied to separate different components of competition policy with the following deconstruction of the conflicting essence of those elements without inevitable evening-out the distinctions between them. Dialectical approach to antitrust demonstrates why competition deserves to be explored independently from other legitimate economic goals and that the primary purpose of competition law logically is protection (via preventive antitrust, i.e. arts 101-106 TFEU) and promotion (via proactive antitrust, i.e. sector-specific regulation) of competition. Dialectical antitrust does not deny that consumer welfare constitutes a meta-goal of modern competition policy. Indeed in the hierarchy of economic values consumer welfare remains decisive, but methodologically it is neither exhausted nor entirely embraced by competition law, which exists in order to regulate competition. Antitrust theory has striven for a long time to reconcile the apparent dilemma between the aspiration to protect the freedom of undertakings to benefit from their successful competition on one hand, and the freedom of their less successful counterparts to participate in this competition on the other; to provide for firms liberal environment on the one hand and to fine-tune their behaviour in order to establish legal predictability and economic efficiency on the other; to protect competition on the one hand and maximise common benefits for society on the other. Essentially, those three crucial dimensions of the competition dilemma can be solved within the framework of dialectical antitrust, which on the level of methodology proposes to utilitise those conflicts by placing their different components into separate parentheses

    Argumentation for machine learning: a survey

    Get PDF
    Existing approaches using argumentation to aid or improve machine learning differ in the type of machine learning technique they consider, in their use of argumentation and in their choice of argumentation framework and semantics. This paper presents a survey of this relatively young field highlighting, in particular, its achievements to date, the applications it has been used for as well as the benefits brought about by the use of argumentation, with an eye towards its future

    On explanation of housing policy

    Get PDF
    This paper is concerned with making sense of current ways of explaining housing policy. Four different types of explanation are identified and analysed in detail: explanations in terms of systems of actors, hypothetico‐deductive explanations, realist explanations, and culturalist explanations. The characteristic ontology and epistemology of each type of explanation is made explicit. The four types of explanation are then evaluated, partly in their own terms, and partly in relation to each other. It is argued that explanations in terms of systems of actors are inherently superficial, so it is essential to go beyond and below them in order to achieve an acceptable level of explanatory adequacy. Hypothetico‐deductive explanations are rescued from realist and culturalist criticisms which tend to dismiss them altogether, but they are recognised as having serious limitations in terms of conceptual vagueness/ambiguity and contextual fragmentation. Realist explanations are considered in greater depth through an examination of regulation theory. This examination amounts to a critique of the theory as regards its application to housing policy. Finally, culturalist explanations are assessed by using Kemeny's theory as an illustration, with both ontological and epistemological problems being identified. The paper concludes with an evaluation of the logical relations and differences between explanations of the four different types

    A Dialectical Approach to Decision Support Systems Design

    Get PDF
    • 

    corecore