Facilitation of e-Meetings: State-of-the-Art Review

Macaulay, Linda; Alabdulkarim, A.

doi:10.1109/eee.2005.73

Cited by 17 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In a very real sense, many of the points made in § §5.2 and 5.3 relate to the need for facilitators in a decision conference (Ackermann 1996, Macauley and Alabdulkarim 2005, Phillips and Phillips 1993. A facilitator is someone with no responsibility or accountability for the consequences of the decision per se, who joins the group to structure, smooth, and enhance the deliberative processes.…”

Section: Facilitationmentioning

confidence: 97%

e-Participation and Decision Analysis

2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

D ecision analytic methods are being increasingly used to help to articulate and structure debate and deliberations among citizens and stakeholders in societal decisions. Methods vary, but, essentially, a public authority or agency, when faced with a significant set of issues, may organise one or more workshops with stakeholders and citizens as participants. Such methods of public engagement and participation are, by and large, conducted face to face. However, the advent of the World Wide Web brings the possibility of conducting citizen and stakeholder interactions in a distributed, possibly asynchronous fashion. In this paper we discuss the challenges that have to be addressed and overcome if such e-participation is to be a valid tool within a modern democracy. The difficulties are many and varied, but the pressures towards e-government, and better regulation in general, mean that such methods will be used in the near future. Thus, we outline a program of research and debate in which we believe that the professional decision analysis community should engage.

show abstract

Section: Facilitationmentioning

confidence: 97%

e-Participation and Decision Analysis

2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A wide range of social computing technologies have developed to replace full/partial function of human argumentation process [3], [4], [7], [11], [15], [20], [21], [25], [27], [33], [35].…”

Section: Related Work and Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

Argument placement recommendation and relevancy assessment in an intelligent argumentation system

Liu

Jiang

et al. 2013

2013 International Conference on Collaboration Technologies and Systems (CTS)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Argumentation is a critical process for many social activities that need collaborative intelligence. Existing intelligent argumentation systems allow multiple stakeholders from distributed geographical locations to share their opinions and contribute to a decision making process. In the current system, a stakeholder needs to read all the existing arguments posted by other stakeholders before contributing his/her own ideas/arguments. However, when information accumulates and an argumentation network becomes considerably large, it will cost tremendous time and effort for the stakeholder to read and comprehend all existing arguments. In this paper, we propose methods to implement a recommendation component built into an intelligent argumentation system. The recommendation component can automatically assist a stakeholder to better understand the current state of an argumentation by summarizing and identifying a subset of existing arguments that are relevant to the stakeholder. Thus, our proposed work will allow a stakeholder to efficiently and effectively express his/her thoughts in an intelligent argumentation system in relevant argumentation thread. We also empirically evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed recommendation component, and the empirical results indicate it is effective according to a real dataset.

show abstract

“…This involves understanding group processes and the complexity of meetings. Guiding the meeting requires an understanding of individual, social and political issues (Macaulay and Alabdulkarim 2005). Some of the tasks of the facilitator are: encouraging the participants to take responsibility for their decisions; keeping the group focused on the objectives; managing conflicts; ensuring equal member participation; leading and managing meetings; using the agenda to guide the group; preparing the meeting and its activities beforehand and reinforcing meeting rules (Ho 2000).…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Computational Indicators to Assist Meeting Facilitation

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In many group work settings, meetings take up a reasonable amount of time and often do not achieve satisfactory outcomes. One of the techniques that has been introduced to ensure meetings run smoothly and reach their goals places an individual in the role of meeting facilitator. Facilitation involves putting together the meeting agenda, designing meeting dynamics and overseeing the meeting at run time, to ensure goals are met. This may involve intervening or adjusting meeting structure to produce desired results. Thus, a facilitator should be able to act according to perceived group dynamics or problems. In this paper, we investigate information needs during facilitation activities. Based on initial investigations, we describe a meeting support system constructed to aid the facilitator in assessing meeting dynamics and a preliminary evaluation. Our goal is to provide information to the facilitator so he or she can better decide when to act and what to do.

show abstract

Facilitation of e-Meetings: State-of-the-Art Review

Cited by 17 publications

References 30 publications

e-Participation and Decision Analysis

e-Participation and Decision Analysis

Argument placement recommendation and relevancy assessment in an intelligent argumentation system

Computational Indicators to Assist Meeting Facilitation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About