Advertisement

Theory-based negotiation frameworks for supporting group work

  • Beth Adelson
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 733)

Abstract

In this paper we begin by presenting a taxonomy of impasses in group work situations. The taxonomy includes factors such as goal conflicts and resource limitations. We then present a prescriptive theoretical framework designed to support negotiation during these impasses. We also describe NegotiationLens, a system which embodies the framework by supporting the actions prescribed by the theory. We then analyze the adequacy of the framework which stresses a collaborative form of negotiation. From this analysis we suggest a line of research which would lead to an expanded taxonomy. We hypothesize the expanded taxonomy would include interpersonal factors such as inequalities in the power of negotiating parties. We then discuss the framework and tools which would be useful given this expanded view of causes of group work impasses. Lastly we suggest the relevance of these factors to other classes of groupware.

Keywords

Computer Supported Cooperative Work Task And User Analysis Negotiation as a Support for Group Work 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    Adelson, B. Educational tools for what you wanted to do anyway. Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 1991.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Adelson, B. A collaborative negotiation tool. SIGCHI Bulletin. October, 1991a.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Adelson, B. and Jordan, T. Uncovering design rationale through the negotiation process. Research in Engineering Design. In press.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Adelson B. and Jordan, T. The act of negotiating during design. Submitted.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Bellotti, V. MacLean, A and Moran, T. Structuring the Design Space by Formulating Appropriate Design Rationale Questions. SIGCHI Bulletin. 1991. Vol. 23,(4), 85–86.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Brockner, J. and Rubin, J. Entrapment in Escalating Conflicts NY: Springer-Verlag. 1985.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Carroll, J. The Nurnberg funnel: Designing Minimalist instruction for practical computer skill. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA. 1990.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Conklin, J. and Begeman, M. gIBIS: A hypertext tool for exploratory policy discussion. In Tatar, D. (ed.) Proceedings of the Second Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work. ACM press. 1988.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Crowston, K. Towards a Coordination Cookbook: Recipes for Multi-Agent Action Doctoral Dissertation, MIT Slaon School. 1990.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Fisher, R. and Uri, W. Getting to Yes. NY: Penguin. 1981.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Fisher, R. and Brown, S. Getting Together. NY: Penguin. 1988.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Greif, I. Computer supported cooperative work. I. Greif (ed.). Morgan Kaufmann: San Mateo, CA. 1988.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Groenbaek, K. Grudin, J. Bodker, S. and Bannon, L. Cooperative System Design. In Participatory Design. Schuler & Namioka (eds.) Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ. 1991.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Grudin, J. Why CSCW applications fail. In Tatar, D. (ed.) Proceedings of the Second Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work. ACM press. 1988.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    Grudin, J. Systematic sources of suboptimal interface design in large product development organization. HCI. June, 1991.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    Kolb, D. The Mediators. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA. 1983.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    Kolodner, Simpson and Sycara. A process model of case-based reasoning in problem-solving. IJCAI 85.in problem-solving. IJCAI 85.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    Lai, K., Malone, T., Yu, K. “Object Lens: A 'spreadsheet’ for Cooperative Work” ACM Transaction on Office Information Systems, 6(4) pp. 332–353. 1989.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    Lee, J. Sibyl: A qualitative decision management system. In P. Winston (ed.). AI at MIT Vol. 1, MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    Lee, J. and Malone, T. How can groups communicate when they use different languages? In R. Allen (ed.) Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Office Information Systems. Palo Alto, CA. 1988.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    Malone, T. and Crowston, K. Toward an Interdisciplinary Theory of Coordination. MIT Center for Coordination Science Tech. Report CCS TR 120. 1991.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    Pruitt, D. and Rubin, J. Social Conflict: Escalation, statement and settlement. Random House: NY. 1986.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    Raiffa, H. The art and science of negotiation. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA. 1982.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    Simpson, R. A Computer Model of CBR in Problem-Solving. GA Tech PhD thesis, 1985.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    Susskind, L. and Cruikshank, J. Breaking the Impasse: Consensual Approaches to Resolving Public Disputes. Basic Books: NY. 1987Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Beth Adelson
    • 1
  1. 1.Rutgers UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations