Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Collaborative Activities and Methods

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Computer-Supported Collaborative Decision-Making

Part of the book series: Automation, Collaboration, & E-Services ((ACES,volume 4))

Abstract

Having described the context for collaborative activities (in Chap. 1), and reviewed the basic aspects of computer supported decision-making activities (in Chap. 2), we will present in this section several specific methods used in collaborative decision making. The methods and techniques presented in the chapter are independent of the information technologies upon they are instantiated.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Adla A, Zaraté P, Soubie J L, Taghezout N (2010) Case and model based hybrid reasoning for group decision making. In: Respício A, Adam F, Phillips-Wren G, Teixeira C, Telhada J (eds), Frontiers in AI and Applications, vol 212, IOS Press, Amsterdam, The Netherlands: p. 309–320.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amiyo M, Nabukenya J, Sol H J (2012) A repeatable collaboration process for exploring business process improvement alternatives In: Proceedings of the 45th Hawaiian Internal Conference on System Sciences(HICS), IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos: p. 326–335.

    Google Scholar 

  • Appelman J H, Driel J (2005) Crisis-response in the Port of Rotterdam: can we do without a facilitator in distributed settings? In: Proceedings of the 38th Hawaiian Internal Conference on System Sciences, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos: p. 17b.

    Google Scholar 

  • ArgKit (2016) ArgKit. http://www.argkit.org/. Accessed 15 July 2016.

  • Arrow K J (1963) Social Choice and Individual Values. 2nd edition, Cowles Foundation, New Haven.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arrow K J, Sen A K, Suzumura K (eds) (2002). Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare. Vol. 1, Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arrow K J, Sen A K, Suzumura K (eds) (2011). Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare. Vol. 2, Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baral C (2003) Knowledge Representation, Reasoning and Declarative Problem Solving. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baroni P, Caminada M, Giacomin M (2011) An introduction to argumentation semantics. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 26: 365–410.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borda de J-C (1781) Mémoire sur les élections au scrutin. Histoire de l’Académie Royale des Sciences, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouveret S, Chevaleyre Y, Maudet N (2016) Fair allocation of indivisible goods. In: Brandt F, Conitzer V, Endris U, Lang J, and Procaccia A D (eds.), Handbook of Computational Social Choice. Cambridge University Press: pp. 284–310.

    Google Scholar 

  • BPMN (2011) Business Process Model And Notation (BPMN) Version 2.0 (available at: http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/2.0/ accessed on 15.07.2016).

  • Brabham D C (2008) Crowdsourcing as a model for problem solving. An introduction and cases. Convergence: the International Journal of Research into the New Media Technologies, 14(1): 75–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brabham D C (2013) Crowdsourcing. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brams S J, Fishburn P C (1978) Approval Voting. The American Political Science Review, 72(3): 831–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brams S J, Taylor A D (1995) An envy-free cake division protocol. American Mathematical Monthly, 102(1): 9–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brams S J, Taylor A D (1996) Fair Division: From Cake-cutting to Dispute Resolution. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandt F, Conitzer V, Endriss U, Lang J, Procaccia A D (eds) (2016) Handbook of Computational Social Choice. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Briggs R O (2015) Computer-supported cooperative work and social computing, Business & Information Systems Engineering, 7(3): 217–220.

    Google Scholar 

  • Briggs R O, de Vreede G J, Nunamaker Jr J F (2003) Collaboration engineering with ThinkLets to pursue sustained success with GSS, Journal of Management Inf. Systems, 19: 31–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Briggs R O, Kolfschoten G L, de Vreede G J, Albrecht C, Lukosch S G, Dean D L (2014) Six Layer Model of Collaboration, In: Nunamaker Jr J F, Romano N C, and Briggs RO Collaboration Systems: Concept, Value, and Use, M.E. Rutledge, Taylor & Francis Group, London: p: 211–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Briggs R O, Kolfschoten G L, Vrede de G J, Albrecht C, Lukosch S, Dean D L (2015). A six-layer model of collaboration. In: Nunamaker J F, Romano Jr N C, and Briggs R O (eds) Collaborative Systems: Concept, Value, and Use. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, London: 211–227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Briggs R O, Kolfschoten G L, Vreede G J, Lukosch S, Albrecht C C (2013) Facilitator-in-a-box: process support applications to help practitioners realize the potential of collaboration technology, Journal of Management Information Systems, 29: 159–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Budish E (2011) The combinatorial assignment problem: Approximate competitive equilibrium from equal incomes. Journal of Political Economy 119(6): 1061–1103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Camarinha-Matos L M, Afsarmanesh H, Galeano N, Molina A (2009) Collaborative networked organizations. Concepts and practice in manufacturing enterprise. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 57: 46–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Camilleri G, Zaraté P (2014) EasyMeeting A Group-Decision Support System, IRIT Report: RR–2014–10—FR, (available at: ftp://ftp.irit.fr/pub/IRIT/SMAC/DOCUMENTS/PUBLIS/EasyMeeting.pdf, accessed on 16.07.2016).

    Google Scholar 

  • Caminada M (2006) On the issue of reinstatement in argumentation. In: Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on Logics in Artificial Intelligence (JELIA). Vol. 4160 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Fisher M, van der Hoek W, Konev B, and Lisitsa A, eds, Springer: p. 111–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caminada M W A, Alcântara S, Sá J, Dvořák W (2015) On the equivalence between logic programming semantics and argumentation semantics. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 58: 87–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caminada M W A, Pigozzi G (2011) On Judgment aggregation in abstract argumentation. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 22(1): 64–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen F, Briggs R O (2015) An empirical test of the focus theory of group productivity. In: Nunamaker Jr. J F, Romano N C, and Briggs R O (eds) Collaboration Systems: Concept, Value and Use, Rutledge, Taylor & Francis Group. London: 56–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheng K-E, Deek F P (2012) Voting tools in group decision support systems: theory and implementation. Int. J. Management and Decision Making,12(1): 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chevaleyre Y, Dunne P E, Endriss U, Lang J, Lemaître M, Maudet N, Padget J, Phelps S, Rodríguez-Aguilar J A, Sousa P (2006) Issues in multiagent resource allocation. Informatica, 30, p. 3–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chevaleyre Y, Lang J, Maudet N, Monnot J (2011) Compilation and communication protocols for voting rules with a dynamic set of candidates. In: Proceedings of the 13th Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge (TARK), 153–160, ACM, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiu C M, Liang T P, Turban E (2014) What can crowdsourcing do for decision support? Decision Support Systems, 65: 40–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Compendium Institute (2016) Compendium institute (available at http://compendiuminstitute.net, accessed 15 July 2016).

  • Condorcet de M. (1785) Essai sur l’application de l’analyse à la probabilité des décisions rendues à la pluralité des voix. Imprimerie Royale, 1785. Facsimile published in 1972 by Chelsea Publishing Company, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conitzer V, Sandholm T (2005) Communication complexity of common voting rules. In: Proceedings of the 6th ACM conference on Electronic Commerce: pp. 78–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conitzer V, Walsh T (2016) Barriers to manipulation in voting. In: Brandt F, V Conitzer V, Endriss U, Lang J, and Procaccia A D (eds), Handbook of Computational Social Choice. Cambridge Univ. Press: p. 127–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conklin J, Begeman M (1988) gIBIS: A hypertext tool for exploratory policy discussion, Proceedings of the 1988 ACM conference on Computer-supported Cooperative Work (CSCW ‘88): 140–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • COST-IC1205 (2016). COST Action IC1205 on Computational Social Choice (available at: http://www.illc.uva.nl/COST-IC1205/ accessed on 15.06.2016).

  • DebateGraph (2016) DebateGraph. (available at http://debategraph.org, accessed 15.07.2016).

  • Debian (2016) Debian Voting Information, Available at: http://www.debian.org/vote/ accessed on 14.07.2016).

  • Dennis A R, George J F, Jessup L M, Nunamaker Jr. J F, Vogel D R (1998) Information technology to support electronic meetings, MIS Quarterly, 12(4): 591–624.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dietrich F, List C (2007) Judgment aggregation by quota rules: majority voting generalized, Journal of Theoretical Politics, 19(4): 391–424.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dietrich F, Mongin P (2010) The premise-based approach to judgment aggregation. Journal of Economic Theory 145(2): 562–582.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dung P M (1995). On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence, 77(2): 321–358.

    Google Scholar 

  • Endriss U (2016) Judgment Aggregation. In: Brandt F, Conitzer V, Endriss U, Lang J, and Procaccia A D (eds.), Handbook of Computational Social Choice. Cambridge University Press: p. 399–426.

    Google Scholar 

  • Enserink B (2003) Creating a scenariologic—design and application of a repeatable methodology. In: Proceedings of the 36th Hawaiian Internal Conference on System Sciences, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos: p. 21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Estellés-Arolas E, Gonzales-Ladron-de-Guevara F (2012) Towards an integrated crowdsourcing definition. Journal of Information Science, 38(2): 189–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Felsenthal D S (2010) Review of paradoxes afflicting various voting procedures where one out of m candidates (m ≥ 2) must be elected. In: Assessing Alternative Voting Procedures, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Filip F G (1990). System analysis and expert systems techniques for operative decision making. Journal of Syst. Anal. Model. Simul. 8(2): 296–404.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn P C (1977) Condorcet social choice functions, SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics, 33: 469–489.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn P C, Brams S J (1983) Paradoxes of preferential voting, Mathematics Magazine, 56: 207–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaertner W (2009) A Primer in Social Choice Theory. Revised Edition. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gavish B, Gerdes J H (1997) Voting mechanisms and their implications in a GDSS environment, Annals of Operations Research, 71: 41–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbard A (1973) Manipulation of voting schemes: A general result. Econometrica, 41: 587–601.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, J, Procaccia A D (2014) Spliddit: Unleashing fair division algorithms. SIGecom Exchanges 13(2): 41–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray P, Johansen B, Nunamaker J, Rodman J, Wagner G R (2011) GDSS past, present, and future. In: Decision Support. An Examination of the DSS Discipline. Schuff D, Paradice D, Burnstein F, Power D J, and Sharda R (eds) Springer Science + Business Media LLC, New York: p. 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haines C G, Hains B H (1921) Principles and Problems of Government. Harper & brothers, digital version 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harder R J, Keeter J M, Woodcock B W, Ferguson J W, Wills F W (2005) Insights in implementing collaboration engineering. In: Proceedings of the 38th Hawaiian Internal Conference on System Sciences, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hare T (1859) Treatise on the Election of Representatives, Parliamentary and Municipal. Longman, Green, Reader, and Dyer, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heiko T(2012) Cloud-based collaborative decision making, Journal of Decision Support System Technology 4: 39–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hengst M. den, van de Kar E A M., Appelman J (2004) Designing mobile information services: User requirements elicitation with GSS design and application of a repeatable process. In: Proceedings of the 37th Annual Hawaii Int. Conf. on System Sciences, IEEE Computer Society; 5–8 January, Big Island, Hawaii: p. 1-10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herreiner D, Puppe C (2002) A simple procedure for finding equitable allocations of indivisible goods, Social Choice and Welfare, 19, (2): 415–430.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hopper A, Needham R M (1988). The Cambridge fast ring networking system. Computers, IEEE Transactions on, 37(10): 1214–1223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howe J (2006) The rise of crowdsourcing. Wired 14(6): 176–183.

    Google Scholar 

  • IAF (2016) IAF Methods Database (available at: http://www.iaf-methods.org accessed on 15.06.2016).

  • Karacapilidis N, Papadias D (2001) Computer supported argumentation and collaborative decision making: The Hermes system, Information Systems, 26(4): 259–277.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koch M, Schwabe G, Briggs R O (2015) CSCW and Social Computing, Bus Inf Syst Eng, DOI 10.1007/s12599-015-0376-2.

  • Kock N (2005) What is e-collaboration. Editorial essay. International Journal of e-Collaboration 1(1): I–VII.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kock N (2009) A basic definition of e-collaboratiotion and underlying concepts. In: Kock N (ed) E-collaboration: Concepts Methodologies, Tools and Applications. IGI Global, p. 1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kock N, Davison R, Wazlawic R, Ocker R (2001) E-collaboration: A look at past research and future challenges. Journal of Systems and Information Technology, 5(1):1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kock N, Nosek J (2005) Expanding the boundaries of e-collaboration. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 48 (1):1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolfschoten G L, Lowry P B, Dean D L, de Vreede G-J, Briggs R O (2015) Patterns in collaboration. In: Nunamaker Jr J F, Romano Jr. N C, Briggs R O (eds.), Collaboration Systems: Concept, Value, and Use, Rutledge, Taylor&Francis Group, London: p. 3–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolfschoten G L, Nunamaker Jr. J F (2015a) Organizing the theoretical foundation of collaboration engineering. In: Nunamaker Jr. J F, Romero Jr. N C, and Briggs R O (eds) Collaboration Systems: Concept, Value, and Use. Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, London: p. 27–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolfschoten G L, Nunamaker Jr. J F (2015b) Collaboration support technology patterns of successful collaboration support based on three decades of GSS research and use. In: Nunamaker Jr. J F, Romero Jr. N C, and Briggs R O (eds) Collaboration Systems: Concept, Value, and Use. Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, London: p. 189–198.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kornhauser L A, Sager L G (1993) The one and the many: adjudication in collegial courts. California Law Review, 81(1):1–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramer G H (1977) A dynamical model of political equilibrium, J. Economic Th. 16: 310–334.

    Google Scholar 

  • List C, Pettit P (2002) Aggregating sets of judgments: an impossibility result, Economics and Philosophy, 18: 89–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • List C, Pettit P (2004) Aggregating sets of judgments: two impossibility results compared. Synthese 140(1–2): 207-235.

    Google Scholar 

  • List, C (2013) Social choice theory In: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Vinter 2013 Edition, Zalta E N (ed) (available at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/social-choice/ accessed on 14.07.2016).

  • Mametjanov A, Kjeldgaard D, Pettepier T, Albrecht C, Lukosch S, Briggs R (2011) Arcade: Action-centered rapid collaborative application development and execution, 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), IEEE Computer Society Press: p. 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • May K (1952) A Set of independent, necessary and sufficient conditions for simple majority decision. Econometrica, 20(2–3): 680–684.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mittleman D D., Murphy J D, Briggs R O (2015) Classification of collaboration technology. In: Nunamaker Jr. JF, Romero Jr. N C, Briggs R O (eds) Collaboration Systems: Concept, Value, and Use. Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, London: p. 42–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montague M, Aslam J A (2002) Condorcet fusion for improved retrieval. In: Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM’02), ACM, McLean, Virginia, USA: 538–548.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moulin H (1983) The Strategy of Social Choice. North Holland, Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moulin H (1988) Condorcet’s principle implies the no show paradox, Journal of Economic Theory 45: 53–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Munkvold B E, Anson R (2001) Organizational adoption and diffusion of electronic meeting systems: A case study. In: Ellis C S, Zigurs I (eds) Proceedings of the 2001 International ACM SIGGROUP of Supporting Group Work. ACM, New York: p. 279–287.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nof S Y, Ceroni J, Jeong W, Moghaddam M (2015) Revolutionizing Collaboration through e-Work, e-Business and e-Service. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nunamaker Jr. J F, Dennis A R, Valacich J S, Vogel D, George J F (1991) Electronic meeting systems to support group work. Communications of ACM, 34(7): 40–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nunamaker Jr J F, Briggs R O, Mittleman D D, Vogel D R, Balthazard PA (1997) Lessons from a dozen years of group support systems research: A discussion of lab and field findings. Journal of MIS, 13(3):163–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nunamaker Jr. J F, Briggs R O, Romero Jr. N C (2015a) Introduction to collaboration systems. Part I: A brief history and lessons learned. In: Nunamaker Jr. J F, Romero Jr. N C, Briggs R O (eds). Collaboration Systems: Concept, Value and Use. Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, London: p. 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nunamaker, Jr., J F, Romero Jr., N C, Briggs R O (2015b) Collaboration Systems. Part II: Foundations. In: Nunamaker Jr. J F, Romero Jr. N C, Briggs R O (eds). Collaboration Systems: Concept, Value and Use. Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, London: p. 9–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • OpenSpace-Online (2016) (available at: http://openspace-online.com/ accessed on 15.07.2016).

  • Ouerdane W, Muadet N, Tsoukiàs A (2010) Argumentation theory and decision aiding In: Figueira J, Greco S, and Ehrgott M (eds) International Series in Operations Research and Management Science, 1, Vol. 142, Trends in Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: p. 177–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plott C R (1973) Path independence, rationality, and social choice, Econometrica, 41:1075–1091.

    Google Scholar 

  • Procaccia A D (2016) Cake cutting algorithms In: Brandt F, Conitzer V, Endriss U, Lang J, and Procaccia A D (eds) Handbook of Computational Social Choice. Cambridge University Press, p. 311–322.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rahwan I, Tohḿe F (2010) Collective argument evaluation as judgment aggregation. In: van der Hoek, Kaminka, Lesṕerance, Luck, and Sen (eds), Proc. of 9th Int. Conf. on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems: p. 417–424.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reed C, Rowe G (2004). Araucaria: Software for argument analysis, diagramming and representation. International Journal of AI Tools, 14:3–4: 961–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ricci F, Rokach L, Shapira B, Kantor P B (2011) Recommender Systems Handbook. Springer, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodriguez M A, Steinbock D J (2004) Group holographic modeling for societal-scale decision-making systems. In: Proc. of the N. American Assoc. for Computational Social and Organizational Science Conf., Pittsburgh.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roy S R (2012) Virtual collaboration. The skills needed to collaborate in a virtual environment. Journal of Internet Social Networking & Virtual Communities, 1:1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sajithra K, Patil R (2013). Social media–history and components. Journal of Business and Management, 7(1):69–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Satterthwaite M A (1975). Strategy proofness and Arrow’s conditions: Existence and correspondence theorems for voting procedures and social welfare functions. Journal of Economic Theory: 10:187–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen A K. (1984) Resources, Values and Development, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shim J P, Warketin M, Courtney J F, Power D J, Sharda R, Carlsson C (2002) Past, present and future of decision support technology. Decision Support Systems, 33(2):111–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shmuel N (2010) Collective Preference and Choice. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon H A (1981) The sciences of the artificial. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson P B (1969) On defining areas of voter choice, Quarterly J. Econ. 83:478–490.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith J (1973) Aggregation of preferences with variable electorate. Econometrica, 41(6):1027–1041.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steiner I D (1972) Group Process and Productivity. Academic Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steinhaus H (1948) The problem of fair division. Econometrica, 16:101–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suduc A M, Bizoi M, Filip F G (2009). Exploring multimedia web conferencing. Informatica Economica, 13(3):5–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • ThinkTank (2016) The platform for collective intelligence (2016) (available at: http://thinktank.net/ accessed on 15.06.2016).

  • Tideman T N (1987). Independence of clones as a criterion for voting rules. Social Choice and Welfare, 3:185–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • TOAST (2016) The Online Argument Structures Tool. http://toast.arg-tech.org. Accessed 15 July 2016.

  • Tomlinson R (2009) The first network email. A History from Ray Tomlinson, the Inventor of Email. Raythen. BBN Technologies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turban E, Liang T P, Wu S P J (2011) A framework for adopting collaboration 2.0 tools for virtual group decision making. Group Decision and Negotiation 20(2):137–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turoff M (1991). Computer-mediated communication requirements for group support. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 1(1): 85–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turoff M., Hiltz S., Cho H., Li Z, Wang Y (2002) Social decision support system (sdss), Proceedings of the 35th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, IEEE Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vreede de G J, Briggs R O, Kolfschoten G L (2006). ThinkLets: A pattern language for facilitated and practitioner-guided collaboration processes, International Journal of Computer Applications in Technology, 25(2–3):140–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young H P (1974) An axiomatization of Borda’s rule, Journal of Economic Theory, 9: 43–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zamfirescu B C, Candea C, Radu C (2014) A stigmergic approach for social interaction design in collaboration engineering, Neurocomputing, Elsevier, 146:151–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhong H, Reyes Levalle R, Moghaddam M, Nof S Y (2015) Collaborative intelligence - definition and measured impacts on internetworked e-work. Management and Production Engineering Review, 6(1):67–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zubizarreta R (2006) Manual for Jim Rough’s Dynamic Facilitation Method. The Co-Intelligence Institute, (available at: http://www.co-intelligence.org/DFManual.html, accessed on 16.07.2016).

  • Zwicker W S (2016) Introduction to the theory of voting. In: Brandt F, Conitzer V, Endris U, J. Lang J, and Procaccia A D(eds.), Handbook of Computational Social Choice. Cambridge University Press: p. 23–56.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Information Science and Technology Section, INCE and BAR, The Romanian Academy, Bucharest, Romania

    Florin Gheorghe Filip

  2. Faculty of Engineering, Department of Computer Science and Automatic Control, Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu, Sibiu, Romania

    Constantin-Bălă Zamfirescu

  3. Department of Economic Informatics and Cybernetics, ASE Bucharest—The Bucharest University of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania

    Cristian Ciurea

Authors
  1. Florin Gheorghe Filip
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Constantin-Bălă Zamfirescu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Cristian Ciurea
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Florin Gheorghe Filip .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Filip, F.G., Zamfirescu, CB., Ciurea, C. (2017). Collaborative Activities and Methods. In: Computer-Supported Collaborative Decision-Making. Automation, Collaboration, & E-Services, vol 4. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47221-8_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47221-8_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-47219-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-47221-8

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation