摘要:

This essay is a story about how we might think about decisions and decision making in organizations. The story is divided into three major parts. The first part is based on a vision of decisions as resulting from intendedly rational choice. Such a vision is the dominant portrayal of decisions in social science. This vision of decisions is elaborated by considering developments associated with problems of uncertainty, ambiguity, risk preference, and conflict. The second part of the story is based on a vision of decisions as driven by a logic of appropriateness implemented through a structure of organizational rules and practices, not by a logic of consequence. The discussion of rules and rule following is extended by considering the ways in which rules of behavior evolve through experience, selection, and diffusion. The third part of the story examines ideas about decision making that challenge standard ideas of decision altogether, visions that picture the outcomes of decisions as artifactual rather than as central to understanding decision making. These visions are exemplified by discussions of networks, temporal orders, symbols, and the development of meaning.

ISSN:0737-0024    

DOI:10.1207/s15327051hci0602_1

出版商:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.    

年代:1991

数据来源: Taylor

摘要:

New computer-based communications technologies make possible new or expanded forms of group work. Although earlier researchers suggest that scant social information in these technologies might cause status equalization in groups, no experimental test of this phenomenon has been made. In a laboratory experiment, we compared face-to-face communication with electronic mail in decision-making groups whose members differed in social status. We examined status in two ways: by varying the external status of group members, and by varying the decision task to manipulate expertise. When the groups made decisions in face-to-face meetings, the high-status member dominated discussions with the three low-status members. Also, the high-status member more often was a "first advocate" in the face-to-face discussions, and first advocates were more influential than later advocates. These status inequalities in face-to-face decision making were pronounced just when the high-status member's expertise was relevant to the decision task. When the same groups made comparable decisions using electronic mail, status and expertise inequalities in participation were reduced. A striking and unexpected result was that "first" advocacy was shared by high- and low-status members in discussions using electronic mail. This behavior resulted in increased equality of influence across status and expertise. We discuss the implications of these results for research and for design of new communication technologies.

ISSN:0737-0024    

DOI:10.1207/s15327051hci0602_2

出版商:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.    

年代:1991

数据来源: Taylor

摘要:

Many poor interface features are the result of carelessness, ignorance, or neglect in the development process. For these features, methods such as user involvement in iterative design with prototyping, the use of check lists and guidelines, and even formal evaluation can be of great help. However, there are strong forces present in development environments that block the use of such methods and distort interface designs in a systematic way. Because these forces serve legitimate goals, such as making a design simpler, more easily communicated, or more marketable, they are more difficult to counter; because developers are skilled at working toward those goals, the tangential effects on the interface usually pass unnoticed. This descriptive, empirical article describes these forces in the context of large organizations developing commercial off-the-shelf software products. Most points are supported by examples and by a logical argument. Not all of the phenomena may appear in a given development organization, but the overall picture of a complex environment in which interface development requires unwavering attention is quite general.

ISSN:0737-0024    

DOI:10.1207/s15327051hci0602_3

出版商:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.    

年代:1991

数据来源: Taylor