John A. A. Sillince

Varieties of Political Process During Systems Development

This study uses a longitudinal research design with multiple data collection methods on a systems development project. Five theoretical perspectives about power have been used to evaluate the case: zero sum, processual, organizational, structurally constrained, and social shaping/social construction. Our working assumption is that power is multidimensional and therefore that any attempt to understand systems development must simultaneously use several complementary perspectives. Studies of information systems development have in the past often been based on a view of power as zero sum with winners and losers from systems development and of power as based on information. We will attempt to show that expansion from this narrow definition of power has much to offer information systems research. The paper will attempt to identify what unique and essential insights about the relationship between power and systems development are surfaced by each perspective.

Incorporating rhetorical and plausible reasoning in a system for simulating argumentation

Abstract The article introduces argumentation theory, some examples of computational models of argumentation, some application examples, considers the significance and problems of argumentation systems, and outlines the significance and difficulties of the field. Also, the article describes a system which used rhetorical reasoning rules such as fairness, reciprocity, and deterrence which was used to simulate the text of a debate. The text was modelled using modern argumentation theory, and this model was used to build the system. The article discusses the system with regard to several aspects: its ability to deal with meaningful contradiction such as claim X supporting claim Y, yet claim Y attacking claim X; recursive arguments; inconsistency maintenance; expressiveness; encapsulation, the use of definitions as the basis for rules, and making generalisations using taxonomies. The article concludes with a discussion of domain dependence, rule plausibility, and some comparisons with formal logic.

A FORMAL MODEL OF ORGANIZATIONAL ARGUMENTATION: APPLICATIONS OF INFORMAL LOGIC TO A COMMITTEE MEETING

Although the association between management and argumentation has been a longstanding one, very little research has been undertaken in formal modeling and simulation of the organizational setting and use of argumentation. Argumentation is still considered by most researchers to be undertaken between isolated individuals or within political communities. This paper aims to provide a first attempt at an organization-level model of argumentation. The model has been implemented as a computer program and has been used to simulate a committee meeting.

Extending electronic coordination mechanisms using argumentation: the case of task allocation

We identify several difficulties which exist in current electronic market systems and suggest that a knowledge-based system enabling argumentation would solve these problems. We put forward some ideas for how such a system would be designed and operated for the task allocation problem.

A System for Simulating Human Argumentation: Test Results Compared With a Realistic Institutional Setting

A prototype system is described that simulates a transcript of a business meeting based on a computational model of argumentation using the distinction between premises, conclusions, and warrants. The argumentation in the dialogue is represented as a directional weighted graph. An algorithm for calculating the strength of each conclusion is described, and the results are shown for the business meeting transcript. These results are compared with perceptions of the strength of the arguments in the meeting by a group of management graduates.

Issues of feasibility, coherence and robustness in a premise-to-claim model of argumentation: results from four experiments

Abstract The paper considers several issues. (1) The feasibility of a premise to claim model of dialogue: the results show that a rule-based system can generate claims in the same sequence as they appear in a real discussion. (2) The relationship between the increased knowledge created in the leap from premise to claim on the perceived coherence and comprehensibility of dialogue: the system’s reaction to making available all premises before run time was to provide a rapid summary of the debate, whereas the result of randomly rearranging the order of introduction of premises showed that the majority of claims were still made, and that a very similar sequence of claims was followed; for the first half the observed sequence was taken by the simulation program, because initially the number of (randomly introduced) premises was so small that they did not match the available warrants. (3) Robustness of a rule-based argumentation system in the face of expert fallibility: the test condition here was a reduced set of rules (as a proxy for lack of expert knowledge) which however, showed an overall convergence to the same claims in the same sequence as when all the rules were used.