Claims, Arguments, and Decisions: Formalisms for Representation, Gaming, and Coordination

Decisions in large corporations continually evolve from several group processes, shaping the focus of business activities over time. These decisions arise out of a combination of formal analyses and less formal interactions among decision makers. We address the pragmatics of group decision processes from the perspective of argumentation and analysis. We develop formalisms for the representation of argumentative knowledge, gaming the argumentation process and the coordination of the games. The representation formalism provides a framework for organizing the logic underlying the claims and arguments in a group. The gaming formalism provides a framework for conducting and regulating the group interactions. The coordination formalism addresses the issues of scheduling the games and the resolution process. The three formalisms together constitute the basis for designing computer-assisted systems that support argumentation processes in groups. We introduce the term Argumentative Reasoning Facilitation Systems ARFS, and develop a framework for their design. These systems would serve to record, organize, regulate and coordinate argumentative decision processes in organizations. The formalisms provide new windows for research on novel applications of decision support systems in organizations. Some of the systemic, organizational and behavioral research issues identified from this work are also presented.

[1]  M. O. Locks,et al.  Note---The Logic of Policy as Argument , 1985 .

[2]  Colin Potts,et al.  Recording the reasons for design decisions , 1988, Proceedings. [1989] 11th International Conference on Software Engineering.

[3]  Morten Kyng,et al.  Designing for cooperation: cooperating in design , 1991, CACM.

[4]  Anthony Ralston,et al.  Encyclopedia of Computer Science , 1971 .

[5]  Andrew B. Whinston,et al.  Modeling the going‐concern judgment using argumentation theory , 1993 .

[6]  John E. McInroy,et al.  Groupware research and technology issues with application to software process management , 1991, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern..

[7]  S. Toulmin The uses of argument , 1960 .

[8]  Jon Doyle,et al.  A Truth Maintenance System , 1979, Artif. Intell..

[9]  P. Thagard,et al.  Explanatory coherence , 1993 .

[10]  Raymond McCall,et al.  Design environments for constructive and argumentative design , 1989, CHI '89.

[11]  Terry Winograd,et al.  Understanding computers and cognition , 1986 .

[12]  Steven Orla Kimbrough,et al.  A graph representation for management of logic models , 1986, Decis. Support Syst..

[13]  Alec Fisher,et al.  The logic of real arguments: Philosophical assumptions , 2004 .

[14]  Gerardine DeSanctis,et al.  Group decision support systems: a new frontier , 1984, DATB.

[15]  Paul Lorenzen,et al.  Normative logic and ethics , 1984 .

[16]  R. Radner,et al.  Economic theory of teams , 1972 .

[17]  Jack Minker,et al.  Logic and Databases: A Deductive Approach , 1984, CSUR.

[18]  David Pager A proposal for a computer-based interactive scientific community , 1972, CACM.

[19]  S. Toulmin,et al.  An introduction to reasoning , 1979 .

[20]  Ian I. Mitroff,et al.  Policy as Argument-A Logic for Ill-Structured Decision Problems , 1982 .

[21]  Andrew B. Whinston,et al.  Organizational computing: Definitions and issues , 1991 .