Search results

Many public issues, such as environmental actions, involve a large number of diverse stakeholders such as governments, corporations, organizations (e.g. NGOs), and concerned citizens. Discussions frequently become contentious as the stakeholders defend their potentially conflicting goals with various assumptions, views, and expert testimony. These issues also tend to involve a range of fields. For example, the disposition of nuclear waste includes issues of economics, science, engineering, politics, and intergenerational justice, each with large uncertainties due to dependences on indirect estimations and the long time periods involved. At the same time that these complex issues might increase in number, due to applications of new technologies, tools are being developed on the Internet to enable flexible learning, visualization, collaborative conferencing, distributed computing, and meaning‐based (semantic) context. These tools might enable improved techniques for debating and discussing these complex issues. A technique that might facilitate orderly discussion of various arguments would include explicit recording and visualization of the evidence, its assumptions and uncertainties, their relationships in constructing the overall argument, and the ways the evidence needs to be generalized to support the argument. A simple argument visualization approach is explored based on a combination of an argument logic framework and techniques for fusing generalized data that are similar to kriging in spatial analysis. This approach is then applied to a recently contested risk analysis of nuclear waste disposition that was debated in a peer‐reviewed journal, involving concerns about uses of data, complex computational models, uncertainty analysis, and expert judgment. The need for wider understanding of such complex issues might be addressed by a convergence of techniques to facilitate greater understanding and the advanced Internet technologies to lower barriers to their adoption.

In this paper the aim is to present Debate Dashboard, an online collaborative platform designed to support distributed knowledge management and decision making. The platform integrates an argument mapping tool with visual widgets with the objective of enhancing collective sense‐making and mutual understanding as well as to compensate for the costs of mediated communication in virtual collaborative environments.

The design of Debate Dashboard is based on the theory of common ground according to which participants involved in a conversation build mutual understanding thanks to the exchange of different types of feedback. Using the concept of grounding cost, the authors identified several features of the Dashboard supposed to favour mutual understanding and knowledge sharing. Such features have been implemented through six visual widgets selected through a benchmarking of currently available visualization tools.

The paper discusses the limitations and advantages of online argumentation to support online discussions and presents a review of current visualization tools. The design of a new platform able to integrate online argumentation and visualization technologies is described and it is argued that Debate Dashboard will improve online collaboration in many respects especially in terms of supporting the construction of shared knowledge representations for geographically distributed collaborative teams.

First, the work adds to the debate on the development of online argumentation platforms by offering an alternative theoretical perspective based on language and conversational studies. Second, it proposes for the first time to integrate argumentation and visualization technologies in the same tool to create an augmented collaborative platform able to overcome the limitations of both traditional online collaboration technologies, such as forums and wikis, as well as the criticalities associated with the use of argumentation technologies.

The purpose of this paper is to focus on the development of definitional standards for research information as a wicked problem. A central solution strategy for such problems, increasing transparency by argumentation visualisation, is being evaluated.

Qualitative formal content analysis is used in order to examine whether the process of definition standardisation in the project can be characterised as a wicked problem. Action Research is used to assess the effect of argumentation visualisation in the project.

The results of the content analysis confirm the interpretation of the standardisation process as a wicked problem. The implementation of argumentation visualisation shows to increase the meetings’ focus and effectiveness.

The relationship between information exchange, transparency and acceptance of the development result should be addressed in future empirical analyses. Visualisation solutions require further development in order to accommodate needs of the stakeholders.

Argumentation visualisation is of high value for finding a consensus for definitional standards and should be considered for managing and exchanging information.

Applying solution strategies from design research on wicked problems to large-scale standardisation efforts opens up new possibilities for not only handling such projects but also providing new avenues of research for both the design and research information communities.

The purpose of this study is to investigate how soft lean practices moderate the performance effects of hard lean practices. The authors provide new evidence from the pharmaceutical industry, which is characterized by a highly regulated and technical environment and has been largely uncharted in the lean literature.

Based on a review of the literature, the authors define a set of soft and hard lean practices. The authors test the hypotheses using factor analysis and moderated hierarchical linear regression on a unique dataset containing survey data and real performance measures of 351 pharmaceutical plants.

The results show that soft lean practices can be both enabling and constraining. When management engages in performance measurement, visualisation and employee empowerment the relationship between hard lean practices and performance is positively moderated. On the other hand, when managers emphasise goal setting and work standardisation the performance outcomes are reduced.

Effective lean managers build organisational commitment by motivating other employees to implement lean. They use performance measurement, visualisation and employee empowerment to focus on the “why”. Less effective managers engage in commanding and micro-management. Such managers focus on the “what” by using practices like goal setting and work standardisation.

This article contributes to the literature on lean management by empirically testing the moderator-variable interaction effects between soft and hard lean practices. In addition, it adds new evidence from the important pharmaceutical industry.

The early stages of projects are often characterised by ambiguity arising from differences in stakeholder views regarding project rationale and objectives. The purpose of this paper is to present a viewpoint on how to build a shared understanding of project goals and thus reach a shared commitment to achieving them. One of the ways to achieve shared understanding is through open dialogue, free from political and other constraints. The authors call an environment that fosters such dialogue a holding environment. The main aim is to illustrate, via a case study: how an alliance‐based approach to projects can foster a holding environment; and how argument visualisation tools such as IBIS (Issue‐Based Information System) can be used to clarify different points of view and options within such an environment.

Following a discussion of theoretical background and literature review, an alliancing case study is used to illustrate the development of a holding environment and demonstrate the utility of IBIS in the creation of such an environment.

It is seen that an alliance‐based approach to projects can provide the foundation for a holding environment. IBIS is seen to facilitate the building of shared understanding by making arguments explicit and capturing decision rationale.

The paper outlines a practical framework for improving the quality of dialogue and achieving stakeholder commitment on projects.

Achieving shared understanding and commitment to action is difficult, particularly in the early stages of projects. The paper outlines the conditions and techniques needed to facilitate this via a non‐trivial case study.

Data storytelling courses position students as agents in creating stories interpreted from data about a social problem or social justice issue. The purpose of this study is to explore two research questions: What themes characterized students’ iterative development of data story topics? Looking back at six years of iterative feedback, what categories of data literacy pedagogy did instructors engage for these themes?.

This project examines six years of data storytelling final projects using thematic analysis and three years of instructor feedback. Ten themes in final projects align with patterns in feedback. Reflections on pedagogical approaches to students’ topic development suggest extending data literacy pedagogy categories – formal, personal and folk (Pangrazio and Sefton-Green, 2020).

Data storytelling can develop students’ abilities to move from being consumers to creators of data and interpretations. The specific topic of personal data exposure or risk has presented some challenges for data literacy instruction (Bowler et al., 2017). What “personal” means in terms of data should be defined more broadly. Extending the data literacy pedagogy categories of formal, personal and folk (Pangrazio and Sefton-Green, 2020) could more effectively center social justice in data literacy instruction.

Implications for practice include positioning students as producers of data interpretation, such as role-playing data analysis or decision-making scenarios.

Data storytelling has the potential to address current challenges in data literacy pedagogy and in teaching critical data literacy.

Course descriptions provide a template for future data literacy pedagogy involving data storytelling, and findings suggest implications for expanding definitions and applications of personal and folk data literacies.

The chief contention of this paper is that, in today's interconnected world sustainable competitive advantage depends on two factors: how well networked a firm is; and how well the firm can foresee future opportunities. The second factor is the consequence of first one. These two factors together suggest a paradigm shift in the strategy crafting process: from “strategies‐for‐profit” to “strategies‐that‐connect”. The aim is to focus on these issues.

The paper draws inferences from literature review and presents a structured argument.

Increasingly, visualization of opportunities, which has not yet arisen, but will arise in due course of time, will play a key role in the strategy crafting process in the coming years.

The findings of the paper may facilitate the crafting of better strategies and reducing the risk of strategic failures.

The paper suggests a paradigm shift in crafting strategy in an interconnected world.

This paper investigates whether and how G2G collaboration for policy and decision‐making can be effectively supported by an appropriately developed information system.

The research method adopted in this paper follows the “Design Science Paradigm”, which has been extensively used in information systems research.

As resulted from the case study described in this paper, the proposed system has significant potential for supporting G2G collaboration for policy and decision‐making. It can support the collaborative understanding of social problems and needs, and the development of alternative actions or solutions for them. In addition, it can support the collaborative development of detailed action plans for the selected alternative(s). During the implementation of these actions, the system can be used for the collaborative monitoring of them, the identification of implementation problems and issues, and the development of alternatives for managing them. Finally, it can be also used for the collaborative evaluation of these actions by the involved public organizations, as well as the citizens and groups who are their recipients.

Enhanced public policy and decision‐making through the use of the proposed web‐based system.

The main contribution of this paper lies in the development of a web‐based system for supporting the G2G collaboration required for public policy and decision‐making in the public administration, as well as the creation, leveraging and utilization of the relevant knowledge. The proposed system allows for distributed, synchronous or asynchronous, G2G collaboration and aims at aiding the involved public organizations by providing them a series of argumentation, decision‐making and knowledge management features.

This paper aims to present recently published resources on information literacy and library instruction providing an introductory overview and a selected annotated bibliography of publications covering all library types.

This paper introduces and annotates English-language periodical articles, monographs, dissertations and other materials on library instruction and information literacy published in 2016.

The paper provides information about each source, describes the characteristics of current scholarship and highlights sources that contain unique or significant scholarly contributions.

The information may be used by librarians and interested parties as a quick reference to literature on library instruction and information literacy.

Managers are increasingly presented with complex, ambiguous decision problems that affect multiple stakeholder groups. Such problems cannot be tackled solely by classical approaches that prescribe rational methods to weigh evidence and select an optimal course of action. Yet most courses on decision making still focus on these methods. This paper draws attention to the complementary nature of rational decision making and sensemaking techniques in management decision making, and describes a practical pedagogy that demonstrates how the two can be integrated into management curricula.

Based on an in-depth review of relevant research, the authors propose a conceptual model that highlights the complementary nature of rational and sensemaking methods for making decisions relating to complex and ambiguous problems. They then describe a course on decision making as an illustration of how the model can inform decision making pedagogy.

Decision makers need to think of their decision problems in terms of two distinct types of uncertainty: those for which uncertainty can be quantified and those for which it cannot. When faced with the latter, decisions are best made by working with relevant stakeholders to collectively frame the problem using practical sensemaking tools prior to applying rational decision making techniques to address it. Decision making under ambiguity is an iterative, social process requiring a combination of rational decision making methods and sensemaking techniques.

The paper seeks to increase awareness about the complementary nature of sensemaking and rational decision making. It emphasizes the need to integrate the two in management curricula and provides details on how this can be done via an example of a course implemented at an Australian Business School. The techniques described will also be of interest to practitioners.

The paper describes a practical pedagogy that blends rational decision making and collective sensemaking techniques in a way that fosters managers’ decision making skills in contexts characterized by ambiguity.