Collaborative design : managing task interdependencies and multiple perspectives

This paper focuses on two characteristics of collaborative design with respect to cooperative work: the importance of work interdependencies linked to the nature of design problems; and the fundamental function of design cooperative work arrangement which is the confrontation and combination of perspectives. These two intrinsic characteristics of the design work stress specific cooperative processes: coordination processes in order to manage task interdependencies, establishment of common ground and negotiation mechanisms in order to manage the integration of multiple perspectives in design

The Application of UTA Method for Support Evaluation Negotiation Offers

The MCDA technique has been extensively and successfully applied for supporting decision making in negotiation processes. The mostly used techniques SAW, AHP or TOPSIS are based on direct preference information which requires from negotiator a clear and precise definition all the parameters of the preference model (e.g. issue weights, option rates, aspiration and reservation values etc.), so those techniques can be successfully applied in well-structured negotiation problems. But, many real negotiation problems are illstructured, that means that the negotiation space is imprecisely defined, and the negotiator’s preferences the vagueness or imperfect. The main purpose of this paper is to investigate the potentials and the applicability the UTA method, one of the techniques based on indirect preference information, in evaluation of negotiation offers, especially in ill-structured negotiation problems. The UTA (Jacquet-Lagreze and Siskos, 1978, 1982, 2001) is a multicriteria decision making method which is based on the linear programming model for inferring additive utility functions from a set of representative decision data. The example is also presented to elaborate and demonstrate the holistic judgment and the usefulness UTA approach for evaluation negotiation [email protected] of Economics and Management, University of BialystokBana e Costa C., Vansnick J.-C., 1999, The MACBETH approach: Basic ideas, software, and an application, [in:] Advances in Decision Analysis, N. Meskens, M. Roubens (eds.), Springer.Brzostowski J., Wachowicz T., Roszkowska E., 2012a, Using an Analytic Hierarchy Process to Develop a Scoring System for a set of Continuous Feasible Alternatives in Negotiation, “Operations Research and Decisions”, No. 4.Brzostowski J., Roszkowska E., Wachowicz T., 2012b, Supporting Negotiation by Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods, “Optimum. Studia Ekonomiczne”, nr 5 (59).Figueira J., Greco S., Słowiński R., 2009, Building a set of additive value functions representing a reference preorder and intensities of preference: GRIP method, “European Journal of Operational Research”, 195.Górecka D., Roszkowska E., Wachowicz D., 2014, MARS – a hybrid of ZAPROS and MACBETH for verbal evaluation of the negotiation template, [in:] Group Decision and Negotiation 2014, GDN 2014, Proceedings of the Joint International Conference of the INFORMS GDN Section and the EURO Working Group on DSS , P. Zaraté, G. Camilleri, D. Kamissoko, F. Amblard (eds.), Toulouse University, France.Górecka D., Roszkowska E., Wachowicz T., 2016, The MARS Appoach in the Verbal and Holistic Evaluation of the Negotiation Template, Group Decision and Negotiaion, DOI:10.1007/s10726-016-947592016.Greco S., Mousseau V., Slowiński R., 2008, Ordinal regression revisited: Multiple criteria ranking using a set of additive value functions, “European Journal of Operational Research”, 191.Jacquet-Lagrèze E., Siskos J., 1978, Une méthode de construction de fonctions d’ utilité additives explicatives d’ une préférence globale, “Cahier du LAMSADE”, 16, Université de Paris-Dauphine.Jacquet-Lagrèze E., Siskos Y., 1982, Assessing a set of additive utility functions for multicriteria decision making: The UTA method, “European Journal of Operational Research”, 10 (2).Jacquet-Lagrèze E., Siskos Y., 2001, Preference disaggregation: 20 years of MCDA experience, “European Journal of Operational Research”, 130 (2).Ishizaka A., Nemery P., 2013, Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis. Methods and Software, Wiley, United KindgdomKadziński M., Greco S., Słowiński R, 2012, Selection of a representative value function in robust multiple criteria ranking, and choice, “European Journal of Operational Research”, 217.Kersten G. E., Lai H., 2007, Negotiation support and e-negotiation systems: an overview, “Group Decis Negot”, 16(6).Kersten G. E, Noronha S. J., 1999, WWW-based negotiation support: design, implementation, and use, “Decis Support Sys”, 25(2).Larichev O. I., Moshkovich H. M., 1995, ZAPROS-LM – A method and system for ordering multiattribute alternatives, “Eur J Oper Res”, 82(3).Larichev O. I., Moshkovich H. M., 1997, Verbal decision analysis for unstructured problems, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston.Moshkovich H. M., Mechitov A. I., Olson D. L., 2005, Verbal Decision Analysis, [in:] Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys, J. Figueira, S. Greco, M. Ehrgott (eds.), Springer, New York.Mustajoki J., Hamalainen R. P., 2000, Web-HIPRE: Global decision support by value tree and AHP analysis, “INFOR J”, 38(3).Raiffa H., 1982, The Art and Science of Negotiation, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge (MA).Raiffa H., Richardson J., Metcalfe D., 2002, Negotiation Analysis, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Roszkowska E., Brzostowski J., Wachowicz T., 2014a, Supporting Ill-Structured Negotiation Problems, [in:] Human-Centric Decision-Making Models for Social Sciences, P. Guo, W. Pedrycz (eds.) Springer, London.Roszkowska E., Wachowicz T., 2014, The Multi-Criteria Negotiation Analysis Based on the Membership Function, “Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric”, Mechanisms and Methods of Decision Making (ed. E. Roszkowska), 37(50).Roszkowska E., Wachowicz T., 2015a, Application of fuzzy TOPSIS to scoring the negotiation offers in ill-structured negotiation problems, “Eur J Oper Res”, 242(3).Roszkowska E., Wachowicz T., 2015b, Holistic evaluation of the negotiation template – comparing MARS and GRIP approaches, [in:] The 15th International Conference on Group Decision and Negotiation Letters, B. Kamiński, G. Kersten, P. P. Szufel, M. Jakubczyk, T. Wachowicz (eds.), Warsaw School of Economics Press, Warsaw.Roszkowska E., Wachowicz T., 2016, Negocjacje. Analiza i wspomaganie decyzji, Wolter Kluwer, WarszawaSaaty T. L., 1980, The Analytic Hierarchy Process, McGraw Hill, New York, N.Y.Siskos Y., Grigoroudis E., Matsatsinis N. F., 2005, UTA methods. Multiple criteria decision analysis: State of the art surveys, Springer.Salo A., Hamalainen R. P., 2010, Multicriteria Decision Analysis in Group Decision Processes, [in:] Handbook of Group Decision and Negotiation, D. M. Kilgour, C. Eden (eds.), Springer, New York.Schoop M., Jertila A., List T., 2003, Negoisst: a negotiation support system for electronic business-to-business negotiations in e-commerce, “Data & Knowledge Engineering”, 47(3).Siskos Y., Grigoroudis E., Matsatsinis N. F., 2005, UTA methods. Multiple criteria decision analysis: State of the art surveys, Springer.Wachowicz T., Błaszczyk P., 2013, TOPSIS based approach to scoring negotiating offers in negotiation support systems, “Group Decision and Negotiation”, 22.Wachowicz T., Brzostowski J., Roszkowska E., 2012, Reference Points-Based Methods in Supporting the Evaluation of Negotiation Offers, “Operations Research and Decisions”, No. 4.144-1622(80)14416

Designing electronic collaborative learning environments

Electronic collaborative learning environments for learning and working are in vogue. Designers design them according to their own constructivist interpretations of what collaborative learning is and what it should achieve. Educators employ them with different educational approaches and in diverse situations to achieve different ends. Students use them, sometimes very enthusiastically, but often in a perfunctory way. Finally, researchers study them and—as is usually the case when apples and oranges are compared—find no conclusive evidence as to whether or not they work, where they do or do not work, when they do or do not work and, most importantly, why, they do or do not work. This contribution presents an affordance framework for such collaborative learning environments; an interaction design procedure for designing, developing, and implementing them; and an educational affordance approach to the use of tasks in those environments. It also presents the results of three projects dealing with these three issues

Managing risk in community practice: nursing, risk and decision-making

The development of modern nursing practice was closely linked to the development of health care institutions such as hospitals and asylums in the nineteenth century and its development outside such settings occurred more recently, mainly in the second half of the twentieth century. Since these two settings differ both in the type of risk which nurses are likely to experience and in the ways in which nurses assess and manage risk, I will compare and contrast these two settings before considering in more detail risk in community nursing practice

A concept analysis of befriending

Aim. To report an analysis of the concept of Befriending. Background. Befriending is an intervention used in a range of nursing, health and social care settings to provide support for individuals who are socially isolated or lack social support. However, in many cases befriending and its impact remains poorly understood and under researched. Concept analysis provides clarification of the concept and basis for further research and development. Design. Concept analysis. Data sources. AMED, Psyc Articles, Psych Info, Medline, MedlinePlus, Social Science Index and CINHAL databases were searched for literature published between 1993–2013 using the search term Befriending. Methods. Walker and Avant’s method of concept analysis was chosen. This combined with insights from Risjord’s work produced a theoretical concept analysis which focused on the concept in peer reviewed academic literature. Results. There are currently several ways the mechanisms of befriending and its effects on individuals and communities are understood. It is possible however to identify key attributes which define the concept and differentiate it from related concepts, such as peer support and mentoring. Key attributes are that it is an organised intervention, involving the creation of an emotionally connected friendlike relationship, where there is a negotiation of power. Conclusion. This concept analysis has clarified current understandings and uses of befriending. It provides the basis for widening the focus of research into the effectiveness and impact of befriending on those who are befriended, those who befriend and the communities where befriending takes place

Scaling Up Deliberative Democracy as Dispute Resolution in Healthcare Reform: A Work in Progress

Simultaneous Localisation and Mapping (SLAM) denotes the problem of jointly localizing a moving platform and mapping the environment. This work studies the SLAM problem using a combination of inertial sensors, measuring the platform's accelerations and angular velocities, and a monocular camera observing the environment. We formulate the SLAM problem on a nonlinear least squares (NLS) batch form, whose solution provides a smoothed estimate of the motion and map. The NLS problem is highly nonconvex in practice, so a good initial estimate is required. We propose a multi-stage iterative procedure, that utilises the fact that the SLAM problem is linear if the platform's rotations are known. The map is initialised with camera feature detections only, by utilising feature tracking and clustering of  feature tracks. In this way, loop closures are automatically detected. The initialization method and subsequent NLS refinement is demonstrated on both simulated and real data

Rich environments for active learning in action: Problem‐based learning

Rich Environments for Active Learning (REALs) are comprehensive instructional systems that are consistent with constructivist theories. They promote study and investigation within authentic contexts; encourage the growth of student responsibility, initiative, decision making and intentional learning; cultivate collaboration among students and teachers; utilize dynamic, interdisciplinary, generative learning activities that promote higher‐order thinking processes to help students develop rich and complex knowledge structures; and assess student progress in content and learning‐to‐learn within authentic contexts using realistic tasks and performances. Problem‐Based Learning (PBL) is an instructional methodology that can be used to create REALs. PBL's student‐centred approach engages students in a continuous collaborative process of building and reshaping understanding as a natural consequence of their experiences and interactions within learning environments that authentically reflect the world around them. In this way, PBL and REALs are a response to teacher‐centred educational practices that promote the development of inert knowledge, such as conventional teacher‐to‐student knowledge dissemination activities. In this article, we compare existing assumptions underlying teacher‐directed educational practice with new assumptions that promote problem solving and higher‐level thinking by putting students at the centre of learning activities. We also examine the theoretical foundation that supports these new assumptions and the need for REALs. Finally, we describe each REAL characteristic and provide supporting examples of REALs in action using PB

Rich environments for active learning: a definition

Rich Environments for Active Learning, or REALs, are comprehensive instructional systems that evolve from and are consistent with constructivist philosophies and theories. To embody a constructivist view of learning, REALs: promote study and investigation within authentic contexts; encourage the growth of student responsibility, initiative, decision making, and intentional learning; cultivate collaboration among students and teachers; utilize dynamic, interdisciplinary, generative learning activities that promote higher-order thinking processes to help students develop rich and complex knowledge structures; and assess student progress in content and learning-to-learn within authentic contexts using realistic tasks and performances. REALs provide learning activities that engage students in a continuous collaborative process of building and reshaping understanding as a natural consequence of their experiences and interactions within learning environments that authentically reflect the world around them. In this way, REALs are a response to educational practices that promote the development of inert knowledge, such as conventional teacher-to-student knowledge-transfer activities. In this article, we describe and organize the shared elements of REALs, including the theoretical foundations and instructional strategies to provide a common ground for discussion. We compare existing assumptions underlying education with new assumptions that promote problem-solving and higher-level thinking. Next, we examine the theoretical foundation that supports these new assumptions. Finally, we describe how REALs promote these new assumptions within a constructivist framework, defining each REAL attribute and providing supporting examples of REAL strategies in action