A debate dashboard to enhance on-line knowledge sharing

Purpose – Web 2.0 technologies have radically modified the way in which knowledge is created, managed and shared, improving productivity and accelerating innovation processes for the enterprises. These technologies have allowed enterprises to produce knowledge, leverage collective intelligence and build social capital on a scale that was unimaginable a few years ago. In this paper we focus on a particular kind of web-based collaborative platforms known as argument mapping tools and we discuss the main barriers to the adoption of them. Literature has proved that these argument mapping tools provide large and small and medium enterprise with several advantages, but nevertheless, they have low level adoption. In this paper we explore new technological solutions to support the adoption of argument mapping tools. In particular, we propose the design of a Debate Dashboard to provide visual feedback to support online deliberation. These visual feedback aims at compensating the loss of information due to the mediation of the technology. The Debate Dashboard is composed of a set of suitable visualization tools that have been selected on the basis of a literature review of the visualization tools. Design/methodology/approach - We propose a literature review of existing visualization tools. Building on the literature review we selected thirty visualization tools, which have been classified on the basis of the kind of feedback they are able to provide. We identify three classes of feedback: Community feedback (identikit of users), Interaction feedback (about how users interact) and Absorption feedback (about generated content and its organization). We distilled the Debate Dashboard features by building on results of a literature review on Web 2.0 tools for data visualization. As output of literature review we selected six visualization tools. We consider these selected tools as a sort of starting point. Indeed, our aim is the improvement of them through the addition of further features and functions in order to make them more effective in providing feedback. Originality/value – Our paper enriches the debate about computer mediated conversation and visualization tools. We propose a Dashboard prototype to augment collaborative knowledge mapping tools by providing visual feedback on conversations. The Dashboard will provide at the same time three different kinds of feedback about: details of the participants to the conversation, interaction processes and generated content. This will allow the improvement of the benefits and reduce the costs deriving from the use of mapping tools. Moreover, another important novelty is that visualization tools will be integrated to mapping tools, as until now they have been used only to visualize data contained in forums (as Usenet or Slash.dot), chat or email archives Practical implications – The Dashboard provides feedback about participants, interaction processes and generated contents, thus supporting the adoption of mapping tools as technologies able to foster knowledge sharing among remote workers or/and customers and supplier. The integration of Debate Dashboard with common online argument mapping tools aims at enabling the following advantages: 1. Reduction of misunderstanding; 2. Reduction of cognitive effort required to use argument mapping tools; 3. Improvement of the exploration and the analysis of the maps - the Debate Dashboard feedback improves the usability of the object (the map), thus allowing users to pitch into the conversation in the right place

Proceedings ICPW'07: 2nd International Conference on the Pragmatic Web, 22-23 Oct. 2007, Tilburg: NL

Proceedings ICPW'07: 2nd International Conference on the Pragmatic Web, 22-23 Oct. 2007, Tilburg: N

Framing Outcomes and Program Assessment for Digital Scholarship Services: A Logic Model Approach

This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by the Association of College and Research Libraries in College and Research Libraries in March 2021, available online: https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.82.2.142Assessing digital scholarship services offered either through academic libraries or elsewhere on campuses is important for both program development and service refinement. Digital scholarship support is influenced by fluid campus priorities and limited resources, including staffing, service models, infrastructure, and partnership opportunities available at a university. Digital scholarship support is built upon deep, ongoing relationships and there is an intrinsic need to balance these time-intensive collaborations with scalable service offerings. Therefore, typical library assessment methods do not adequately capture the sustained engagement and impacts to research support and collaboration that come from digital scholarship services. This article discusses the creation of a logic model as one approach to frame assessment of digital scholarship services in the university environment.Publisher allows immediate open acces

Choosing a Chatbot Development Tool

© 2021 IEEE.  Personal use of this material is permitted.  Permission from IEEE must be obtained for all other uses, in any current or future media, including reprinting/republishing this material for advertising or promotional purposes, creating new collective works, for resale or redistribution to servers or lists, or reuse of any copyrighted component of this work in other worksChatbots are programs that supply services to users via conversation in natural language, acting as virtual assistants within social networks or web applications. Here, we review the most representative chatbot development tools with a focus on technical and managerial aspectsThis work was partially funded by the R&D program of the Madrid Region (project FORTE, S2018/TCS4314), and the Spanish Ministry of Science (project MASSIVE, RTI2018-095255-B-I00

Calendar.help: Designing a Workflow-Based Scheduling Agent with Humans in the Loop

Although information workers may complain about meetings, they are an essential part of their work life. Consequently, busy people spend a significant amount of time scheduling meetings. We present Calendar.help, a system that provides fast, efficient scheduling through structured workflows. Users interact with the system via email, delegating their scheduling needs to the system as if it were a human personal assistant. Common scheduling scenarios are broken down using well-defined workflows and completed as a series of microtasks that are automated when possible and executed by a human otherwise. Unusual scenarios fall back to a trained human assistant who executes them as unstructured macrotasks. We describe the iterative approach we used to develop Calendar.help, and share the lessons learned from scheduling thousands of meetings during a year of real-world deployments. Our findings provide insight into how complex information tasks can be broken down into repeatable components that can be executed efficiently to improve productivity.Comment: 10 page

Collaboration in the Semantic Grid: a Basis for e-Learning

The CoAKTinG project aims to advance the state of the art in collaborative mediated spaces for the Semantic Grid. This paper presents an overview of the hypertext and knowledge based tools which have been deployed to augment existing collaborative environments, and the ontology which is used to exchange structure, promote enhanced process tracking, and aid navigation of resources before, after, and while a collaboration occurs. While the primary focus of the project has been supporting e-Science, this paper also explores the similarities and application of CoAKTinG technologies as part of a human-centred design approach to e-Learning

SUPPORTING THE THERAPIST IN ONLINE THERAPY

In the last decade, eSupport (Internet-reliant therapy) has gained substantial attention, both in research and practice. Several studies in psychology show that structured eSupport (e.g. Computerized Cognitive Behavioural Therapy), is promising both with regard to therapeutic efficacy and cost-effectiveness. However, the transition from face-to-face therapy to eSupport creates new challenges for therapists, such as lack of (traditional) structure and access to secondary information (e.g. body language) about their patients. In this paper, a design science research approach has been employed in the context of eSupport. Drawing on the knowledge base of face-to-face conversations, face-to-face therapy, and pragmatic IS theory, a framework for patient indicators has been designed. The design has been justified through both (i) descriptive evaluations based on the selected knowledge base, and (ii) experiences collected in a stakeholder-centric design process, including experimental evaluation of an eSupport platform that implement the indicator framework. The framework was designed to allow new indicators to be ?plugged in? dynamically and inserted into tailorable lists. New indicators can be created either through specialization of an indicator base class, or by configuring metadata for generic indicators that tap into an action log. Indicator values are cached, both to boost performance and to support trend analysis of patient indicators. We conclude that the indicator framework serves to improve support for therapists: It offers structure and access to both primary and secondary information in new ways. In doing so, it meets some of the key challenges that therapists encounter in the transition to eSupport

Informal eCollaboration Channels: Shedding Light on “Shadow CIT”

There is some evidence of the unabated proliferation of employee-autonomous, informal in an enterprise sense, collaborative information technologies (CITs) to perform collaborative activities despite huge investments in CIT enterprise systems. This article will introduce the metaphorical construct of “shadow CIT” (similar to “shadow IT” – Raden, 2005; Schaffner, 2007) to describe the strategic choice to use autonomous CITs instead of formal enterprise CITs. “Shadow IT” has been defined by Raden (2005) as a set of IT tools used “for performing IT functions but not part of the mainstream IT organization” (p.1). Similarly, “shadow CIT” solutions are employee-autonomous: they are not implemented as part of the organisational IT infrastructure, neither have they received any targeted organisational investment. Several research questions are explored in this paper. The existence of “shadow IT” has been argued to imply a failure on the part of enterprise IT to provide all of the services to meet their users‟ needs. Does the existence of “shadow CIT” imply a failure of enterprise CITs of a similar kind? If shadow CITs are found to be [capable of] filling gaps within enterprise CITs, what kind of gaps are these? Often, without being able to articulate why, users appear to shun solutions and good architecture within enterprise CITs in favour of the ability to get their work done through autonomous “shadow” solutions. What kind of motivation may be driving such decisions