Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Group Decision (group + decision)
Selected AbstractsGroup decision and distributed technical supportINTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS IN OPERATIONAL RESEARCH, Issue 4 2004M.F. Norese Abstract A group of 45 decision-makers (local authorities and representatives from the communities) worked together for 16 months, with a facilitator group, to identify relevant criteria to analyze the consequences of a plant location. Two multi-criteria models, one for an incinerator and the other for a waste disposal plant, were elaborated and an ELECTRE method was used to compare sites and rank them, with the aim of selecting the best sites for which an environmental impact assessment procedure will be activated. A virtual team, from different organizations, supported this work from a technical point of view. This kind of ,distributed support' to a multi-criteria decision required actions of coordination and knowledge filtering and interpreting. The paper proposes an analysis of this participatory decision process and synthesizes the difficulties and results of the multi-criteria decision aid intervention. [source] Group decisions in oncology: Doctors' perceptions of the legal responsibilities arising from multidisciplinary meetingsJOURNAL OF MEDICAL IMAGING AND RADIATION ONCOLOGY, Issue 3 2008MA Sidhom Summary There is growing consensus that multidisciplinary meetings (MDMs) are the optimal means of arriving at a comprehensive treatment plan for cancer patients. However, if a patient was grieved by a decision made by an MDM and wished to recover damages, the courts would find all involved consultants responsible for decisions related to their area of expertise. The aim of this study was to assess (i) whether doctors participating in oncology MDMs are aware that they are individually accountable for the MDM decisions and (ii) whether MDMs are conducted in a way that reflects this individual responsibility. A 35-question survey was developed and peer reviewed. Doctors attending MDMs in four Australian tertiary-care hospitals were invited to respond. One hundred and thirty-six responses (91% response rate) were received from 18 MDMs across 4 hospitals. Only 48% of doctors believe they are individually liable for decisions made by the MDM. This awareness was greater for an MDM where the patient attends, than in those that were ,discussion only' (58 vs 37%; P = 0.036). Seventy-three per cent stated they would like further education about their legal responsibilities in MDMs. Thirty-three per cent of doctors feel that the MDM discussion environment is suboptimal and radiation oncologists are significantly more likely to hold this view. Even though 85% of doctors have disagreed with the final MDM decision in an important way at some time, 71% did not formally dissent on those occasions. Doctors should be made aware of the legal implications of their participation in MDMs. A greater awareness of these responsibilities and improved team dynamics should optimize patient outcomes while limiting exposure of participants to legal liability. [source] Do conflict management styles affect group decision making?HUMAN COMMUNICATION RESEARCH, Issue 4 2000Evidence from a longitudinal field study This study examined the relationship between group conflict management styles and effectiveness of group decision making in 11 ongoing, naturally occurring workgroups from 2 large U.S. organizations. The major postulate of the study was that groups develop norms regarding how they will manage conflicts that carry over to affect other activities, such as decision making, even when these activities do not involve open conflict. To determine the impact of conflict management style on decision effectiveness, a longitudinal design was used that identified conflict management styles in the initial portion of each team's series of meetings and then analyzed a group decision taken in a meeting near the end of that series. Group conflict management styles were determined using observational methods, and decision effectiveness was measured using multiple indices that tapped member, facilitator, and external observer viewpoints. Task complexity also was considered as a possible moderating variable. The findings suggest that groups that developed integrative conflict management styles made more effective decisions than groups that utilized confrontation and avoidance styles. Groups that never developed a stable style were also less effective than groups with integrative styles. [source] When groups decide to use asynchronous online discussions: collaborative learning and social presence under a voluntary participation structureJOURNAL OF COMPUTER ASSISTED LEARNING, Issue 2 2009H.-J. So Abstract The purpose of this study is to explore how groups decide to use asynchronous online discussion forums in a non-mandatory setting, and, after the group decision is made, how group members use online discussion forums to complete a collaborative learning project requiring complex data gathering and research processes. While a large body of research on computer-mediated communication (CMC) has documented successful intervention strategies to promote and sustain online discussion forums, little of the research has examined the use of online discussion forums in voluntarily contexts, wherein the decision to use online discussion forums is a personal decision and participation is not a graded component. This study approaches the research questions using a naturalistic case study of one graduate-level blended learning course with 55 students. Employing both student interviews and content analysis methods, this study revealed that the factors affecting the group decision to use online discussion forums are (1) successful or unsuccessful experiences during the first trial, (2) perceived affordances of CMC tools, and (3) the interplay between the nature of collaborative tasks and perceived efficiency. The content analysis of online postings in two voluntary groups revealed that when groups decided to use online discussion forums, participation levels were almost equal among individual group members, and discussion threads were sustained until the final completion of the collaborative project. [source] Informational intra-group influence: the effects of time pressure and group sizeEUROPEAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, Issue 1 2008Bryan L. Bonner The judgments of groups have immense impact on our daily lives. This paper theorizes that three families of intra-group influence affect the collective estimation process. These different forms of influence map to different levels of task demonstrability, or the extent to which correct answers are transparent to problem-solvers. When demonstrability is low, group estimates are disproportionately influenced by proposals closer to the intra-group mean (centrality). When demonstrability is high and groups are small, group decisions are disproportionately influenced by proposals closer to the correct answer (accuracy). Finally, when demonstrability is high and groups are larger, group decisions are disproportionately influenced by proposals offered by generally more accurate individuals across a set of judgments (expertise). Three laboratory studies support our predictions with regard to informational influence in cooperative groups. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [source] Effects of pre-trial publicity and jury deliberation on juror bias and source memory errorsAPPLIED COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY, Issue 1 2007Christine Ruva We examined the effects of exposure to pre-trial publicity (PTP) and jury deliberation on juror memory and decision making. Mock jurors either read news articles containing negative PTP or articles unrelated to the trial. They later viewed a videotaped murder trial, after which they either made collaborative group decisions about guilt or individual decisions. Finally, all participants independently attributed specific information as having been presented during the trial or in the news articles. Exposure to PTP significantly affected guilty verdicts, sentence length, perceptions of defendant credibility, and misattributions of PTP as having been presented as trial evidence. Jury deliberation had significant effects on jury verdicts, perceptions of defendant credibility, source memory for trial items, and confidence in source memory judgements, but did not affect sentences or critical source memory errors. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [source] Velvet Revolution: An Actor-based ModelPEACE & CHANGE, Issue 2 2006Patrick Van Inwegen Using a process-oriented theoretical model I explain why some revolutions are violent while others are velvet. Velvet revolutions (those with little or no violence) occur because of a peculiar interaction between dissidents and the state. A dynamic model illustrates how dissidents, the state, and the mass public interact in revolution, emphasizing each group's decisions and the impact this has on the other groups. Successful velvet revolutions occur when (1) dissidents committed to nonviolence are (2) sufficiently organized to successfully provoke the state into (3) ineffectively repressing dissidents or inadequately implementing reform. I utilize the 1986 Philippines revolution to test this model and hypothesis. [source] | |||||||||||||