Including Credibility and Expertise in Group Decision-Making Process: An Approach Designed for UbiGDSS

Supporting group decision-making when the decision-makers are spread around the world is a complex process. The mechanisms of automated negotiation, such as argumentation, can be used in Ubiquitous Group Decision Support Systems to help decision-makers find a solution based on their preferences. However, there are some other important issues that affect the decision-making process beyond typical preferences over criteria and alternatives. In this paper, we propose an algorithm that will allow agents to reason about self-expertise and other decision makers’ credibility. This way, we intend agents to achieve better quality and more consensual decisions. Our algorithm includes not only the decision-maker’s preferences but also his intentions in the process. By using the proposed model, agents achieved a stronger consensus in all scenarios that were considered and higher satisfaction levels in the most complex scenarios.

[1]  Miriam J. Metzger,et al.  Digital Media and Youth: Unparalleled Opportunity and Unprecedented Responsibility , 2008 .

[2]  Paulo Novais,et al.  A general template to configure multi-criteria problems in Ubiquitous GDSS , 2015 .

[3]  Paulo Novais,et al.  Dealing with Agents' Behaviour in the Decision-Making Process , 2015, Intelligent Environments.

[4]  J. Hackman,et al.  Group tasks, group interaction process, and group performance effectiveness: A review and proposed integration , 1975 .

[5]  Euiho Suh,et al.  UbiDSS: a proactive intelligent decision support system as an expert system deploying ubiquitous computing technologies , 2005, Expert Syst. Appl..

[6]  G. Marreiros,et al.  Using satisfaction analysis to predict decision quality , 2015 .

[7]  Helmut Lamm,et al.  Group versus individual performance on tasks requiring ideational proficiency , 1973 .

[8]  A. Osborn.  Applied imagination : principles and procedures of creative problem-solving , 1957 .

[9]  C. Cramton.  The Mutual Knowledge Problem and Its Consequences for Dispersed Collaboration , 2001 .

[10]  José Neves,et al.  Context-Aware Emotion-Based Model for Group Decision Making , 2010, IEEE Intelligent Systems.

[11]  S. Bonaccio,et al.  Advice taking and decision-making: An integrative literature review, and implications for the organizational sciences , 2006 .

[12]  Robin M. Hogarth,et al.  Quality of Group Judgment , 1977 .

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

[14]  Jonathan Grudin,et al.  Group dynamics and ubiquitous computing , 2002, CACM.

[15]  Gerardine DeSanctis,et al.  A foundation for the study of group decision support systems , 1987 .

[16]  Philip Yetton,et al.  An integration of process and decision scheme explanations of group problem solving performance , 1988 .

[17]  G. W. Hill.  Group versus individual performance: are n + 1 heads better than one?" psychological bulletin , 1982 .

[18]  R. Scott Tindale,et al.  Emerging Perspectives on Judgment and Decision Research: Cognitions, Preferences, and Social Sharedness: Past, Present, and Future Directions in Group Decision Making , 2003 .

[19]  Warren E. Watson,et al.  Member competence, group interaction, and group decision making: A longitudinal study. , 1991 .

[20]  E.,et al.  GROUPS : INTERACTION AND PERFORMANCE , 2001 .

[21]  Fred Luthans,et al.  Perilaku Organisasi ; Organizational Behavior , 2006 .

[22]  I. Steiner.  Group process and productivity , 1972 .

[23]  Alan R. Dennis,et al.  Information Exchange and Use in Group Decision Making: You Can Lead a Group to Information, but You Can't Make It Think , 1996, MIS Q..

[24]  Reeshad S. Dalal,et al.  The effects of member expertise on group decision-making and performance , 2002 .