Abstract
The aim of this paper is to propose a methodology for evaluating the quality of collective decisions in sociotechnical systems (STS). We propose using a foundational ontology for conceptualizing the complex hierarchy of information involved in decisions in STS (e.g., normative, conceptual, factual, perceptual). Moreover, we introduce the concept of transparency of decisions as a necessary condition in order to assess the quality of decision-making in STS. We further view transparency as an entitlement of the agent affected by the decision: i.e., the collective decision should be justified.
In order to formally grasp the concept of justification, we use welfare economics and social-choice theory to define the concepts of fairness and efficiency of collective decisions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
These conditions are to be taken in a normative way. They are not, of course, descriptively adequate, as several results in behavioral game theory show. However, the point of this approach is to show that even when individuals are fully rational—i.e., they conform to the rationality criteria that we have just introduced—the aggregation of their preferences is problematic.
References
Arrow, K. (1963). Social choice and individual values. Cowles foundation for research in economics at Yale University, Monograph 12. Yale: Yale University Press.
Boella, G., Lesmo, L., & Damiano, R. (2004). On the ontological status of plans and norms. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 12(4), 317–357.
Boella, G., Pigozzi, G., Slavkovik, M., & van der Torre, L. (2011). Group intention is social choice with commitment. In Proceedings of the 6th international conference on coordination, organizations, institutions, and norms in agent systems, COIN@AAMAS’10, pp. 152–171, Berlin, Heidelberg, Springer-Verlag.
Bottazzi, E., & Ferrario, R. (2009). Preliminaries to a DOLCE ontology of organizations. International Journal of Business Process Integration and Management, Special Issue on Vocabularies, Ontologies and Business Rules for Enterprise Modeling, 4(4), 225–238.
Brandt, F., Conitzer, V., & Endriss, U. (2013). Computational social choice. In G. Weiss (Ed.), Multiagent systems. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Dietrich, F., & List, C. (2009). The aggregation of propositional attitudes: Towards a general theory. Technical report.
Emery, F. E., & Trist, E. L. (1960). Socio-technical Systems. In C. W. Churchman & M. Verhulst (Eds.), Management science, models and techniques (Vol. 2, pp. 83–97). Pergamon.
Endriss, U., Grandi, U., & Porello, D. (2012). Complexity of judgment aggregation. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 45, 481–514.
Guarino, N., Ferrario, R., & Sartor, G. (2012). Open ontology-driven sociotechnical systems: Transparency as a key for business resiliency. In M. De Marco, D. Teʼeni, V. Albano, & S. Za (Eds.), Information systems: Crossroads for organization, management, accounting and engineering. Berlin: Springer.
Kornhauser, L. A., & Sager, L. G. (1993). The one and the many: Adjudication in collegial courts. California Law Review, 81(1), 1–59.
List, C., & Pettit, P. (2002). Aggregating sets of judgments: An impossibility result. Economics and Philosophy, 18, 89–110.
List, C., & Puppe, C. (2009). Judgment aggregation: A survey. In P. Anand, C. Puppe, & P. Pattanaik (Eds.), Handbook of rational and social choice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Masolo, C., Borgo, S., Gangemi, A., Guarino, N., & Oltramari, A. (2003). Wonderweb deliverable d18. Technical report, CNR.
Masolo, C., Vieu, L., Bottazzi, E., Catenacci, C., Ferrario, R., Gangemi, A., & Guarino, N. (2004). Social roles and their descriptions. In Proc. of the 6th Int. Conf. on the principles of knowledge representation and reasoning (KR-2004), pp. 267–277.
Neumann, J. V., & Morgenstern, O. (1944). Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Pettit, P. (2001). Deliberative democracy and the discursive dilemma. Philosophical Issues, 11(1), 268–299.
Porello, D., & Endriss, U. (2014). Ontology merging as social choice: Judgment aggregation under the open world assumption. Journal of Logic and Computation, 24(6), 1229–1249.
Porello, D., Setti, F., Ferrario, R., Cristani, M. (2013). Multiagent socio-technical systems: An ontological approach. In Proceedings of COIN@AAMAS/PRIMA 2013, pp. 42–62
Taylor, A. D. (2005). Social choice and the mathematics of manipulation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
van Benthem, J. (2011). Logical dynamics of information and interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Woolridge, M. (2008). Introduction to multiagent systems. New York: Wiley.
Acknowledgments
D. Porello is supported by the VisCoSo project, financed by the Autonomous Province of Trento, “Team 2011” funding program.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Porello, D. (2016). On the Quality of Collective Decisions in Sociotechnical Systems: Transparency, Fairness, and Efficiency. In: Cecconi, F. (eds) New Frontiers in the Study of Social Phenomena. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23938-5_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23938-5_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-23936-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-23938-5
eBook Packages: Physics and AstronomyPhysics and Astronomy (R0)