DDS Related Publications: Difference between revisions

Line 5:

Laan, A., Madirolas, G., & De Polavieja, G. G. (2017). Rescuing collective wisdom when the average group opinion is wrong. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 4, 56.

Malone, T. (2006). The MIT Center of Collective Intelligence. http://cci.mit.edu

Albrecht, K. (2003). Albrect’s law. In: The power of minds at work: Organizational intelligence in action (pp. 3–16). NY: AMACOM

Line 19:

Line 17:

Miller, G.A. (1956) ‘The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limitations on our capacity for processing information’, Psychology Review, Vol. 63, pp.81–97.

Christakis, A.N. & Bausch, K.B. (2006). How people harness their collective wisdom…, Greenwich CT, Information Age Publishers.

Line 25:

Line 22:

Flanagan, T. R., & Christakis, A. N. (2010). The talking point: Creating an environment for exploring complex meaning. IAP.

Laouris et al (2014). Co-laboratories of Democracy: Best Choices for Designing Sustainable Futures. In Social Systems and Design(pp. 167-183). Springer, Tokyo.

Dye, K. M., & Conaway, D. S. (1999). Lessons learned from five years of application of the CogniScope. Approach to the food and drug administration. Pennsylvania: CWA Ltd.

Banathy, B. H. (1996). Designing Social Systems in a Changing World. NY: Plenum Press.

Warfield, J. N., & Cardenas, A. R. (1994). A handbook of interactive management. Ames: Iowa State University Press.

Line 42:

Line 38:

Özbekhan, H. (1969). Towards a general theory of planning. In E. Jantsch (Ed.), Per- spectives of planning (pp. 47–155). Paris: OECD Publications.

Özbekhan, H. (1970). On some of the fundamental problems in planning. Technological Forecasting, 1(3), 235–240.

Club of Rome. (1970). The predicament of mankind: quest for structured responses to growing world-wide complexities and uncertainties. A proposal. Geneva: Club of Rome. Retrieved 15 Mar 2020. https://www.futureworlds.eu/wiki/The_Predicament_of_Mankind

Line 51:

Line 47:

Christakis, A. N. (1996). A people science: The CogniScope system approach, Systems. Journal of Transdisciplinary Systems Sciences, 1(1), 16–19.

Christakis, A. N., & Bausch, K. C. (Eds.). (2006). CoLaboratories of Democracy: How People Harness Their Collective Wisdom to Create the Future. IAP.

Line 60:

Line 55:

Flanagan, T. R., & Christakis, A. N. (2009). The talking point: creating an environment for exploring complex meaning. IAP.

Laouris, Y. (2012). The ABCs of the science of structured dialogic design. International Journal of Applied Systemic Studies, 4(4), 239–257.

Laouris, Y., & Michaelides, M. (2018). Structured Democratic Dialogue: An application of a mathematical problem structuring method to facilitate reforms with local authorities in Cyprus. European Journal of Operational Research, 268(3), 918-931.

Laouris Y., Dye K.M.C., Michaelides M., Christakis A.N. (2014) Co-laboratories of Democracy: Best Choices for Designing Sustainable Futures. In: Metcalf G. (eds) Social Systems and Design. Translational Systems Sciences, vol 1. Springer, Tokyo

Ashby, W.R. 1956, An Introduction to Cybernetics, Chapman & Hall, 1956, ISBN 0-416-68300-2 p207. Available online: http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/ASHBBOOK.html Retrieved 15 Mar 2019.

George A. Miller, "The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two", Psych. Rev. 63(2), March, 1956, 81-97.

Herbert A. Simon, "How Big is a Chunk?", Science, 183, February 8, 1974, 482-488.

Line 102:

Line 93:

Laouris, Y., & Dye, K. (2017). “Democratic” voting without prior exploration of relationships between alternatives favors ineffective actions. Systems Research (submitted)

Özbekhan, Hasan, 2019. The Engagement Axiom. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasan_Özbekhan#Work

Line 113:

Line 103:

Warfield, J. N. (1976). Societal systems: Planning, policy and complexity. New York: Wiley.

Warfield, J. N. (1982). Interpretive structural modeling (ISM). In S. A. Olsen (Ed.), Group planning & problem solving methods in engineering (pp. 155–201). New York: Wiley.

Kayo, M. M., & Ohkami, Y. (2009, July). 5.3. 3 A Method for Analyzing Fundamental Kinesiological Motions of Human Body by Applying Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM). In INCOSE International Symposium (Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 853-864).

Line 123:

Line 111:

Singh, M. D., Shankar, R., Narain, R., & Agarwal, A. (2003). An interpretive structural modeling of knowledge management in engineering industries. Journal of Advances in Management Research, 1(1), 28-40.

Kumar, S., Luthra, S., & Haleem, A. (2013). Customer involvement in greening the supply chain: an interpretive structural modeling methodology. Journal of Industrial Engineering International, 9(1), 6.

Line 132:

Line 119:

Warfield, J. N. (1973). Binary matrices in system modeling. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, (5), 441-449.

ISM Software, (2019). Software that supports the Structured Dialogic Design Process.

Line 140:

Line 126:

Dye, K. (2006). Dye’s law of requisite evolution of observations. In A. N. Christakis, & K. Bausch (Eds.), How people harness their collective wisdom and power (pp. 166–169). Greenwich: Information Age Publishing.

Laouris, Y., & Dye, K. (2019). “Democratic” voting without prior exploration of relationships between alternatives favors ineffective actions. Systems Research & Behavioral Science (submitted for publication).

Line 148:

Line 133:

Rowe, G., Frewer, L.J., 2004. Evaluating public participation exercises: a research agenda. Science, Technology & Human Values 29, 512–556.

Sieber, R., 2006. Public participation geographic information systems: a literature review and framework. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 96, 491–507.

Midgley, G., Cavana, R. Y., Brocklesby, J., Foote, J. L., Wood, D. R., & Ahuriri-Driscoll, A. (2013). Towards a new framework for evaluating systemic problem structuring methods. European Journal of Operational Research, 229(1), 143-154.

Boyd A, Geerling T, Gregory W, Kagan C, Midgley G, Murray P and Walsh M. (2007). Systemic Evaluation: A Participative, Multi-Method Approach. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 58, 1306-1320.

Shadish W.R., Cook T.D. & Leviton L.C. (1991). 'Foundations of Program Evaluation: Theories of Practice'. Sage, London.

Quinn Patton M. (2010). 'Developmental Evaluation: Applying Complexity Concepts to Enhance Innovation and Use'. Guilford Press, New York.

Checkland P. & Scholes J. (1990). 'Soft Systems Methodology in Action'. Wiley, Chichester.

Nov, O., Arazy, O., & Anderson, D. (2011, February). Dusting for science: motivation and participation of digital citizen science volunteers. In Proceedings of the 2011 iConference (pp. 68-74). ACM.

Rotman, D., Preece, J., Hammock, J., Procita, K., Hansen, D., Parr, C., ... & Jacobs, D. (2012, February). Dynamic changes in motivation in collaborative citizen-science projects. In Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on computer supported cooperative work (pp. 217-226). ACM.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American psychologist, 55(1), 68.

https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/collective-awareness

Garland, Jr., Theodore (20 March 2015). "The Scientific Method as an Ongoing Process". UC Riverside. Archived from the original on 19 August 2016.

Scientific Method https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Trefethen, F. (1954). A history of operations research. Operations research for management, 1.

Ackermann, F., Bawden, R., Bosch, O., Brocklesby, J., Bryant, J., Buede, D., et al. (2009). Letters to the editor: The case for soft O.R. Operations Research Management Science Today, 36(2), 20–21.

Mingers, J. (2009). Taming hard problems with soft O.R.: "Soft" methodologies tackle messy problems that traditional operations research/management science can’t touch, so why isn’t it promoted in the U.S.? Operations Research Management Science Today, 36(2).

DDS Related Publications: Difference between revisions

Navigation menu

Search