1 / 21

Voting before discussing

Voting before discussing. Computer voting as social communication. Rational decision making. Factual task information Persuasive arguments Review alternatives Rational decision making. Design Analyse alternatives Arguments Resolve contradictions. RESULT. RESULT. Intelligence

leo-delgado
Download Presentation

Voting before discussing

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Voting before discussing Computer voting as social communication

  2. Rational decision making • Factual task information • Persuasive arguments • Review alternatives • Rational decision making

  3. Design Analyse alternatives Arguments Resolve contradictions RESULT RESULT Intelligence • Generate ideas • Brainstorm • Exchange task information Traditional rational group decision making model Rational choice • Choose best alternatives • Correct answer • Rational voting

  4. Voting as a rational choice tool • Formal - difficult to do • Used once only • Towards the end of the process • As a groupware tool is rarely used (7%) • Rational choice tool of last resort

  5. Cognitive three-process model • Resolving the task: Informational influence • Relating to others: Personal influence • Representing the group: Normative influence

  6. Normative influence • No task information exchange • No arguments • No review of options • Individuals think not groups • Group exchanges position information • Social decision making

  7. Social choice Choose group norm Acceptability Social voting RESULT RESULT Normative group decision making model Intelligence • Generate ideas • Brainstorm • Exchange position information

  8. E-Voting as a Social Choice Tool • Informal - easy to do • Dynamic - can change your mind • Central rather than marginal • A form of social communication E-voting is as different from face-to-face voting as e-mail is from letter writing

  9. Advantages of normative decision making • No need for discussion • Avoids uncertainty • Avoids personality clashes • Works for non-rational tasks • Quicker • Safer for personal relations • Better for group unity

  10. Social choice Social choice Acceptability Social vote RESULT RESULT Intelligence • Generate ideas • Brainstorm • Exchange task information Proposed voting-before-discussing group decision method FTF Discussion • Arguments • Analysis • Rational choice

  11. Expected benefits • Avoids time wasted discussing proposals everyone already agrees with • “Hopeless causes” are either avoided or proposer can prepare for opposition • Avoids meeting getting bogged down in early disagreement • Encourages group unity

  12. Useful when • Meetings are being sidetracked by personality conflicts • Lack of group unity and agreement is causing a problem • A lot of time is wasted discussing things that are already agreed

  13. Method • Subjects: Six marketing staff • Task: Develop a marketing plan • Analyse current situation • SWOT analysis of organisation • Marketing objectives • Strategies • Three sessions (6.5, 4 and 4 hours)

  14. Software • A communication environment • Over 150 alterable “rules of interaction” • No central facilitator • End-users initiate actions • e.g. Ss could stop voting and add a new idea - others were advised there was a new item for voting

  15. Group Interaction Procedure • Electronic brainstorming • Anonymous entry of ideas • Read other peoples ideas, and if you disagree suggest something better • Electronic voting - reveals group position • Face-to-face discussion • Clarification and removal of duplicates • Advocacy and discussion

  16. Voting 1. Strongly disagree - Abstain 2. Disagree ? Don’t understand 3. Slightly disagree 4. In the middle 5. Slightly agree 6. Agree 7. Strongly agree

  17. Vote information exchange 1555?6 Slightly agree • Votes anonymous • One person strongly disagreed, and one didn’t understand • Group is slightly agree • Item automatically raised for discussion

  18. Results • 75+% items did not need discussion • Personality clashes reduced • Helped cohesiveness • Agreement could be fragile • Still a need for discussion • End product unpolished had to be reworked • Overall subjects felt computer contribution was beneficial

  19. Comments “I certainly think it helped our group in terms of our cohesiveness …” “I found we were more aligned and more thinking on the same track than … if I’d been asked prior to the event would have said.”

  20. Conclusion 1 • Despite predictions of media-richness and cues restricted theories . . . • Computer mediated interaction can generate group agreement.

  21. Conclusion 2 • C3P model expands the possibilities of computer support beyond the simple task information exchange implied by one-process rational information exchange models, into the realm of group social influence.

More Related