DOTS: A Generic Infrastructure for Decision-Oriented Collaborative Task Support

  • Jacques Lonchamp
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1728)


This paper describes a generic infrastructure for supporting decisionoriented collaborative tasks, i..e., structured tasks in which argumentation and decision are important aspects (e.g., brainstorming, document outlining, review/inspection, conceptual map co-design, confrontation/merging of viewpoints). Basically, the system aims at supporting asynchronous work, but can also support “occasionally synchronous” work. The approach is mainly based on fine-grain modeling of decision-oriented collaborative tasks and the use of different assistance techniques: guidance (i.e., task performance assistance), argumentative reasoning, group awareness. The paper describes the project objectives, the conceptual meta model, the task modeling language, and the current java prototype. This work is a first step in a strategy for the “conceptual integration” of different kinds of cooperation support through an extended modeling framework that should merge coarse-grain modeling of workflow management systems and fine-grain modeling as described here.


Task Model Issue Type Group Awareness Collaborative Task Computer Support Collaborative Learn 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    G. Canals, C. Godart et al., A criteria to enforce the correctness of individually cooperating applications, Information Sciences (110) 3-4, Elsevier, 1998, pp 279–302.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. Conklin, M. Begeman, M.L., gIBIS: A Hypertext Tool for Exploratorypolicy Discussion, ACM Trans. on Office Inf. Systems, 4, pp. 303–331, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    S. Easterbrook, Handling Conflict Between Domains Descriptions through Computer-Supported Negotiation, Knowledge Acquisition: an Int. Journal, 3, pp 255–289, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    A. Haake, B. Wilson, Supporting collaborative writing of hyperdocuments in SEPIA, in Proc. CSCW’92, Toronto, pp 138–146, 1992.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    P. Johnson, D. Tjahjono, Improving Software Quality through Computer Supported Collaborative Review, in Proc. of third European Conf. on CSCW, Milan, 1993.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    S. Kaplan, W. Tolone, D. Bogia, C. Bignoli, Flexible Active Support for Collaborative Work with Conversation Builder, in Proc. CSCW’92, Toronto, pp 378–385, 1992.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    M. Klein, Capturing Design Rationale in Concurrent Engineering Teams, IEEE Computer, pp 39–47, January 1993.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    N. Karacapilidis, D. Papadias, A Group Decision and Negotiation Support System for Argumentation Based Reasoning, in Learning and reasoning with complex representations, LNAI, Springer-Verlag, 1997.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    N. Karacapilidis, D. Papadias, T. Gordon, An Argumentation Based Framework for Defeasible and Qualitative Reasoning, in Advances in Artificial Intelligence, LNAI 1159, Springer verlag, pp 1–10, 1996.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    R. Kremer, Constraint Graphs: A Concept Map Meta Language, PhD Thesis, Univ. Of Calgary, 1997.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    J. Lonchamp, B. Denis, Fine-Grained Process Modelling for Collaborative Work Support: Experiences with CPCE, 7th Mini EURO Conf. on DSS, Groupware, Multimedia and EC, Bruges, 1997 (to appear in Journal of Decision Systems, Hermès).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    J. Lee, Extending the Potts and Burns Model for Recording Design Rationale, in Proc. 13th ICSE, Austin, pp 114–125, 1991.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    J.E. Mc Grath, (1984) Groups: interaction and performance, Prentice Hall, 1984.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    F. Macdonald, J. Miller, Automatic Generic Support for Software Inspection, Technical Report RR-96-198, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, 1996.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    B. Nuseibeh, A. Finkelstein, J. Kramer, Fine-Grain Process Modelling, In Proc. 7th IWSSD, Redondo Beach, IEEE Press, 1993.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    C. Potts, A Generic Model for Representing Design Methods, in Proc. 11th ICSE, Pittsburgh, pp 199–210, 1989.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    C. Potts, K. Takahashi, A. Anton, Inquiry-Based Requirements Analysis, IEEE Software, pp 21–32, March 1994Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    G. Rein, C. Ellis, rIBIS: a real-time group hypertext system, Int. J. Man-Machine Studies, 34, pp 349–367, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    C. Rolland, L’ingénierie des processus de développement de systèmes: un cadre de référence, Ingénierie des Systèmes d’Information, 4, 6, 1996.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    M. Sohlenkamp, G. Chwelos, Integrating Communication, Cooperation, and Awareness: The DIVA Virtual Office Environment, In Proc CSCW’94, Chapel Hill, pp 331–343, 1994.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    M. Stefik, G. Foster, D. Bobrow, K. Kahn, S. Lanning, L. Suchman, Beyond the Chalkboard, CACM, 30, pp 32–47, 1987.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    S. Si-Said, C. Rolland, G. Grosz, MENTOR: A Computer Aided Requirements Engineering Environment, in Proc. CAISE’96, LNCS 1080, pp 22–43, 1996.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    D. Tjahjono, Comparing the cost effectiveness of GroupSynchronous Review Method and Individual Asynchronous Review Method using CSRS: Result of Pilot Study, Tech. Report, ICS-TR-95-07, University of Hawaii, 1995.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    D. Tjahjono, Building Software Review Systems using CSRS, Tech. Rep. ICS-TR-95-06, Univ. of Hawai, Honolulu, 1995.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    D. Wan, P. Johnson, Computer Supported Collaborative Learning Using CLARE: the Approach and Experimental Findings, in Proc. CSCW’94, Chapell Hill, pp 187–198, 1994.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jacques Lonchamp
    • 1
  1. 1.LORIAVandoeuvre-lès-NancyFrance

Personalised recommendations