A Transferable ThinkLet Based Process Design for Integrity Risk Assessment in Government Organizations

Kolfschoten, Gwendolyn L.; Kosterbok, Jur; Hoekstra, Alain

doi:10.1007/s10726-014-9402-x

Cited by 7 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A second and connected avenue for further research concerns the development of GDS competences (Keys, 2006;Kolfschoten et al, 2011;Kolfschoten et al, 2015;Ormerod, 2008;Tavella and Papadopoulos, 2015b). To develop the future generation of GDS practitioners, we need to create training materials based on real GDS practice in workshops as well as other settings such as, for example, elicitation interviews, progress meetings, and project presentations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Group Decision Support Practice ‘as It Happens’

Franco¹,

Greiffenhagen²

2020

Handbook of Group Decision and Negotiation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Historically, studies of Group Decision Support (GDS) have focused on assessing the degree to which using a GDS makes groups more effective, typically via carefully designed experiments and case study reports. More recently, we have witnessed a growing interest in getting close to GDS practitioners to see how their work is actually done in 'real time', 'there-and-then'. What motivates this interest is the recognition that in order to develop better GDS practice we must first pay attention to how it is actually used by those involved in situ. By zooming in on what GDS practitioners actually do with their craft, and the critical role of these doings on generating group outputs and outcomes, a more nuanced understanding of GDS practice can be achieved. Furthermore, this understanding can inform the development of more effective GDS practitioner training and teaching materials. In this chapter we introduce a particular way of studying GDS practice, 'as it happens' on the ground, based on ethnomethodology (EM). To illustrate the approach, we provide an example of its application to study GDS practice in a facilitated, computer-supported causal mapping workshop. Overall, the analysis reveals the various ways in which actual GDS practice is accomplished over time, as it happens on the ground, and with what effects. We conclude the chapter by summarising the distinctive contribution that an ethnomethodologically-informed perspective makes to GDS theory and practice, and outlining some potentially useful avenues for future research.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Group Decision Support Practice ‘as It Happens’

Franco¹,

Greiffenhagen²

2020

Handbook of Group Decision and Negotiation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Finally, it appears to be useful to develop design support to help collaboration engineers in ensuring the completeness and transferability of their process design. To this end, first steps have been made concerning the transfer of process designs to practitioners (Kolfschoten, Duivenvoorde, Briggs, & de Vreede, 2009;Kolfschoten, Kosterbok, & Hoekstra, 2008), and on supporting the actual design activities of collaboration engineers (Kolfschoten, Briggs, & de Vreede, 2007;.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Transferring Collaboration Process Designs to Practitioners

Kolfschoten

Hulst

Hengst-Bruggeling

et al. 2012

International Journal of E-Collaboration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Collaboration Engineering (CE) is an approach to design and implement sustained collaboration support for collaborative work practices. A collaboration engineer designs a collaboration process and trains a practitioner to execute it on a recurring basis, without further support from professional facilitators. The CE design should be predictable and transferable for successful reuse by the practitioner. The documentation requirements for a CE design are addressed so it can be effectively transferred to practitioners. This documentation or script should contain precise instructions and interventions that the practitioner should make to guide the group in achieving their goals. To detail the requirements for this design document, the authors analyzed the tasks of a facilitator as a basis to derive the tasks of a practitioner. Cognitive Load Theory was used to derive documentation requirements with respect to the CE process design. The authors validated these requirements in an expert validation session and through two case studies.

show abstract

Group Support Systems: Past, Present, and Future

Ackermann

2020

Handbook of Group Decision and Negotiation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A Transferable ThinkLet Based Process Design for Integrity Risk Assessment in Government Organizations

Cited by 7 publications

References 18 publications

Group Decision Support Practice ‘as It Happens’

Group Decision Support Practice ‘as It Happens’

Transferring Collaboration Process Designs to Practitioners

Group Support Systems: Past, Present, and Future

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About