Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T05:45:48.108Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Conflict management as part of an integrated exception handling approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2009

Mark Klein
Mark Klein
Affiliation:
Information Systems Department, The Applied Research Laboratory, P.O. Box 30, State College, PA 16804–0030, U.S.A.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Collaborative design conflicts are an important type of process “exception,” that is, a real-life contingency such as a process change, execution error, or missed opportunity that leads to suboptimal performance of a collaborative process. This paper presents an integrated computational approach to collaborative process exception handling that avoids important weaknesses in current conflict management methods through the synergistic integration of conflict, workflow, and rationale technology. The approach is based upon an inclusive dependency language plus coordination services for dependency capture, process enactment, and exception handling. An initial implementation of this method called “iDCSS” is presented and challenges for future evolution of this technology are identified.

Keywords

Collaborative DesignConflictExceptionsRationaleWorkflow Processes
Type
Articles
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 9 , Issue 4 , September 1995 , pp. 259 - 267
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bahler, D., Dupont, C., & Bowen, J. (1994). Mediating conflict in concurrent engineering with a protocol based on utility. Concurrent Engineering Research and Applications: Special Issue on Conflict Management in Concurrent Engineering 11 (3), 197–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blanchard, B.S., & Fabrycky, W.J. (1981). Systems engineering and analysis. Prentice-Hall, Industrial and Systems Engineering, New York.Google Scholar
Bowen, J., & Bahler, D. (1993). Constraint-based software for concurrent engineering. IEEE Computer 26 (1), 66–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, D.C. (1985). Failure handling in a design expert system. Butterworth and Co, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Descotte, Y., & Latombe, J.C. (1985). Making compromises among antagonist constraints in a planner. Artif. Intell. 27, 183–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Easterbrook, S. (1994). Coordinating distributed viewpoints: The anatomy of a consistency check. Concurrent Engineering Research and Applications: Special Issue on Conflict Management in Concurrent Engineering 11 (3), 209–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faragher-Horwell, R., Klein, M., & Zarley, D. (1992). Overview and Functional Specifications for TCAPS Task Coordination and Planning System: A Computer-Supported Workflow Management System. Tech. Rep. BCS-G2010–130, Boeing Computer Services Tech. Rep., The Boeing Company, December 1992.Google Scholar
Fischer, G., Lemke, A.C., McCall, R., & Morch, A.I. (1991). Making argumentation serve design. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 6(3–4), 393–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, M.S., & Smith, S.F. (1984). ISIS — A knowledge-based system for factory scheduling. Expert Systems (July).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstein, I. (1975). Bargaining between goals. Proceedings of the IJCAI, 175–180.Google Scholar
Gross, M.D. (1994). Avoiding conflicts in architectural subsystem layout. Concurrent Engineering Research and Applications: Special Issue on Conflict Management in Concurrent Engineering 11 (3), 163–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grudin, J. (1994). Groupware and social dynamics: Eight challenges for developers. Communications of the ACM 37(1), 93–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hewitt, C. (1986). Offices are open systems. ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems 4(3), 271–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kannapan, S., & Taylor, L. (1994). The interplay of context, process, and conflict in concurrent engineering. Concurrent Engineering Research and Applications: Special Issue on Conflict Management in Concurrent Engineering 11 (3).Google Scholar
Karbe, B.H.,& Ramsberger, N.G. (1990). Influence of Exception Handling on the Support of Cooperative Office Work. In Multi-user Interfaces and Applications (Gibbs, S., Ed.), pp. 355–370. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Klein, M. (1991). Supporting conflict resolution in cooperative design systems. IEEE Systems Man and Cybernetics 21(6).Google Scholar
Klein, M. (1992). DRCS: An integrated system for capture of designs and their rationale. In Proc. of Second Internal. Conf. Artif. Intell. Design.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, M. (1993). Capturing design rationale in concurrent engineering teams. IEEE Computer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, M. (1995). Integrated coordination in cooperative design. Int. J. Prod. Econ. Special Issue on Integration and Collaboration Systems.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, M., & Lu, S.C.Y. (1990). Conflict resolution in cooperative design. Int. J. Artif. Intell. Eng. 4(4), 168–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, M., & Lu, S.C.Y. (1991). Detecting and resolving conflicts among cooperating human and machine-based design agents. Int. J. Artif. Intell. Eng. (July), 143–162.Google Scholar
Lander, S., & Lesser, V.R. Negotiation to resolve conflicts among design experts. Tech. Rep. Dept. of Computer and Information Science, August 1988.Google Scholar
Lee, J., & Lai, K.Y. (1991). What's in design rationale? Hum.-Comput. Interact. 6(3–4), 251–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lu, S.C.Y. (1991). Integrated and cooperative knowledge processing technology for concurrent engineering. In Knowledge-Based Engineering Systems Research Laboratory Annual Report, (Lu, S.C.Y., Ed.), University of Illinois.Google Scholar
MacLean, A., Young, R., Bellotti, V., & Moran, T. (1991). Questions, options and criteria: Elements of a design rationale for user interfaces. J. Hum. Comput. Interact.: Special Issue on Design Rationale 6 (3–4), 201–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marcus, S., Stout, J., & McDermott, J. (1987). VT: An expert elevator designer. Artif. Intell. Magazine 8(4), 39–58.Google Scholar
Marcus, S., & McDermott, J. (1989). SALT: A knowledge acquisition language for propose-and-revise systems. J. Artif. Intell. 39, 1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mark, W., & Dukes-Schlossberg, J. (1994). Cosmos: A system for supporting engineering negotiation. Concurrent Engineering Research and Applications: Special Issue on Conflict Management in Concurrent Engineering 11 (3), 173–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCall, R. (1987). PHIBIS: Procedurally hierarchical issue-based information systems. In Proc. Conf. Planning and Design in Architecture.Google Scholar
Mi, P.W., & Scacchi, W. (1991). Modelling articulation work in software engineering processes. In Proc. First Int. Conf. Software Process, 188–201.Google Scholar
Petrie, C. (1992). A minimalist model for coordination. In Enterprise Integration Modelling (Petrie, C., Ed.). MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramesh, B., & Sengupta, K. (1994). Managing cognitive and mixedmotive conflicts in concurrent engineering. Concurrent Engineering Research and Applications: Special Issue on Conflict Management in Concurrent Engineering 11 (3), 223–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, W.N. (1994). Interactive decision support for requirements negotiations. Concurrent Engineering Research and Applications: Special Issue on Conflict Management in Concurrent Engineering 11 (3), 237–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, R.G. (1980). The contract net protocol: High-level communication and control in a distributed problem solver. IEEE Transactions on Computers C- 29 (12), 1104–1113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, K., Karandikar, H., Rinderle, J., Navinchandra, D., & Reddy, S. (1991). Representing and managing constraints for computer-based cooperative product development. In Third Annual Symposium on Concurrent Engineering, 475–490.Google Scholar
Stefik, M.J. (1981). Planning with constraints (Molgen: Part 1 &2). Artif. Intell. 16(2), 111–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Subrahmanian, E., Konda, S., Levy, S., Reich, Y., Westerberg, A., & Monarch, I. (1993). Equations aren't enough: Informal modeling in design. AI EDAM 7(4).Google Scholar
Suchman, L.A. (1983). Office procedures as practical action: Models of work and system design. ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems 1(4), 320–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sussman, G.J., & Steele, G.L. (1980). Constraints — A language for expressing almost-hierarchical descriptions. Artif. Intell. 14, 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tiwari, S., & Franklin, H.A. (1994). Automated configuration management in concurrent engineering projects. Concurrent Engineering Research and Applications: Special Issue on Conflict Management in Concurrent Engineering 11 (3), 149–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tong, C. (1987). AI in engineering design. Artif. Intell. Engin. 2(3), 130–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilensky, R. (1983). Planning and understanding. Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Winograd, T. (1986). A language oblique action perspective on the design of cooperative work. In Proc. of CSCW '86.Google Scholar
Yakemovic, K.C.B., & Conklin, E.J. (1990). Report on a development project use of an issue-based information system. In CSCW 90 Proceedings, 105–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zlotkin, G., & Rosenschein, J.S. (1990). Negotiation and conflict resolution in non-cooperative domains. AAAI-90, 100–105.Google Scholar