U.S. patent application number 14/639600 was filed with the patent office on 2015-10-22 for autonomic group decision making using impedance scores.
The applicant listed for this patent is INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION. Invention is credited to Velda Bartek, Eric L. Masselle, Patrick G. McGowan.
Application Number | 20150302309 14/639600 |
Document ID | / |
Family ID | 54322293 |
Filed Date | 2015-10-22 |
United States Patent
Application |
20150302309 |
Kind Code |
A1 |
Bartek; Velda ; et
al. |
October 22, 2015 |
AUTONOMIC GROUP DECISION MAKING USING IMPEDANCE SCORES
Abstract
A method for autonomic group decision making may include
presenting a plurality of decision options and receiving at least
one decision option selected by each decision maker. A decision
result may be presented including an indication of the preference
for each option. Each decision maker may be allowed to revise the
previously selected option for convergence to a single decision
option for the group. An impedance score is determined for each
decision maker in response to a decision maker selecting a
different decision option. The impedance score may be based on one
or more actions by the decision maker regarding selecting the
decision option. A level of the impedance score indicates either
progress toward or away from convergence. The impedance score may
be revised each time a revised option is selected. The single
decision option may be presented in response to the decision makers
converging on the single decision option.
Inventors: |
Bartek; Velda; (Apex,
NC) ; Masselle; Eric L.; (Raleigh, NC) ;
McGowan; Patrick G.; (Chapel Hill, NC) |
|
Applicant: |
Name |
City |
State |
Country |
Type |
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION |
Armonk |
NY |
US |
|
|
Family ID: |
54322293 |
Appl. No.: |
14/639600 |
Filed: |
March 5, 2015 |
Related U.S. Patent Documents
|
|
|
|
|
|
Application
Number |
Filing Date |
Patent Number |
|
|
14258449 |
Apr 22, 2014 |
|
|
|
14639600 |
|
|
|
|
Current U.S.
Class: |
706/11 |
Current CPC
Class: |
G06Q 10/109 20130101;
G06N 5/045 20130101; G06Q 10/06 20130101; G06Q 10/101 20130101;
H04L 67/10 20130101 |
International
Class: |
G06N 5/04 20060101
G06N005/04 |
Claims
1. A method for autonomic group decision making, comprising:
presenting, by a computer system, a plurality of decision options
to each decision maker of a group of decision makers; receiving, by
the computer system, at least one decision option selected by each
decision maker from the plurality of decision options; presenting,
by the computer system, a decision making result to each decision
maker, the decision making result comprising an indication of the
preference for each of the decision options by the group of
decision makers; allowing, by the computer system, each decision
maker to revise the at least one decision option previously
selected by the decision maker for convergence to a single decision
option by the group of decision makers; determining, by the
computer system, an impedance score for each decision maker in
response to at least one decision maker selecting a different at
least one decision option from one previously selected, the
impedance score of each decision maker being based on at least one
action of a set of actions by the decision maker regarding
selecting the at least one decision option, wherein a level of the
impedance score indicates either a progression toward convergence
to the single decision option or away from convergence to the
single decision option by the decision maker associated with the
impedance score; revising, by the computer system, the impedance
score for a particular decision maker each time the particular
decision maker selects a revised at least one decision option; and
presenting, by the computer system, the single decision option in
response to the decision makers converging on the single decision
option.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein a lower impedance score indicates
the at least one action of the set of actions by the decision maker
progressing toward convergence to the single decision option and a
higher impedance score indicates the at least one action of the set
actions by the decision maker moving away from convergence to the
single decision option, the set of actions for lowering the
impedance score comprising: changing to the at least one decision
option selected by a greater number of decision makers; a shorter
time duration between selecting the revised at least one decision
option than selecting a previous at least one decision option in
progression toward convergence of the single decision option;
selecting a larger number of preferred decision options than
previously selected; foregoing an option to rank preferred
selections of a group of decision options; and modifying the at
least one decision option to accommodate the selection of other
decision makers for converging on the single decision option in
less than a preset time period.
3. The method of claim 1, further comprising: presenting a revised
decision making result each time at least one decision maker
selects a different at least one decision option from one
previously selected until the group of decision makers converge on
the single decision option or expiration of a preset time period
before the decision makers converge on the single decision option;
determining a revised impedance score for affected decision makers
in response to the at least one decision maker selecting the
different at least one decision option; and presenting the revised
impedance score for each affected decision maker to at least the
affected decision maker.
4. The method of claim 3, further comprising selecting the single
decision option in response to the expiration of the preset time
period, the single decision option being selected based on the at
least one decision option selected last by each decision maker and
the impedance score of each decision maker, wherein the impedance
score of the decision maker is used to weight the last at least one
decision option by the decision maker to provide a score, the lower
impedance score corresponding to a higher weight, the at least one
decision option with the highest score being selected as the single
decision option.
5. The method of claim 3, wherein the at least one decision option
selected by each decision maker comprises a multiplicity of
decision options selected by each decision maker, and wherein
selecting the single decision option in response to expiration of
the preset time period comprises: determining a weighting
associated with each decision maker based on the impedance score of
each decision maker; assigning a value to each of the multiplicity
of decision options based on a preference for a particular decision
option by each decision maker, a highest preferred decision option
being assigned a highest value and a lowest preferred decision
option being assigned a lowest value; calculating a score for each
of the multiplicity of decision options selected by each decision
maker by multiplying the weighting associated with the decision
maker by the value of each of the multiplicity of decision options
selected by the decision maker; and adding the scores from each
decision maker for each respective decision option of the
multiplicity of decision options selected by each decision maker,
wherein the decision option having the highest score is selected as
the single decision option.
6. The method of claim 5, wherein the weighting for a particular
decision maker is determined by I-(I.sub.dm-I.sub.min/I.sub.range),
wherein I.sub.dm is the impedance score of the particular decision
maker, I.sub.min is a minimum impedance score and I.sub.range is a
range from a lowest impedance score to a highest impedance score
for the group of decision makers.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein determining the impedance score
comprises dynamically determining a new impedance score during a
decision making process based on the convergence to the single
decision option in response to a different at least one decision
option being selected by at least one of the group of decision
makers.
8. The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving a
multiplicity of decision options selected by each decision maker,
wherein the multiplicity of decision options are ranked by each
decision maker based on a preference for each of the multiplicity
of decision options; assigning a value to each of the multiplicity
of decision options from each decision maker based on the
preference for each of the multiplicity of decision options by each
decision maker; and determining the single decision option based on
the impedance score for each decision maker and the assigned value
of each of the multiplicity of decision options of each decision
maker.
9. The method of claim 8, wherein assigning the value to each of
the multiplicity of decision options from each decision maker
comprises assigning a highest preference value to a highest
preferred decision option by each decision maker and assigning a
lowest preference value to each lowest preferred decision
option.
10. The method of claim 1, wherein allowing each decision maker to
revise the at least one decision option selected by the decision
maker for convergence to the single decision option comprises
presenting a graphical user interface to each decision maker
comprising: a number of decision makers that selected each decision
option; the impedance score for at least the decision maker; and a
feature for selecting a different at least one decision option from
the at least one decision option previously selected by the
decision maker.
11.-20. (canceled)
Description
CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS
[0001] This application is a continuation application of U.S.
patent application Ser. No. 14/258,449, filed Apr. 22, 2014, the
contents of which are incorporated herein by reference is its
entirety.
BACKGROUND
[0002] Aspects of the present invention relate to decision making,
and more particularly to a method, system and computer program
product for autonomic group decision making using impedance
scores.
[0003] Reaching convergence in a decision making process between
two people or many people can be a difficult and challenging task.
Reaching convergence or a consensus may be exacerbated when the
decision making process involves multiple sets of decision options
and the participants in the decision making process may have
competing interests, wants or needs. Decision making processes may
typically follow one of two methods, an originator's preference
model or a polling/voting model. The originator's preference model
may be driven by a preference put forth by an individual
originating the decision making process. For example, a meeting
time may be proposed by the person who wants to schedule the
meeting and the other meeting participants or invitees may either
accept or reject the proposed time or times. If rejected, the
"solution" (calendar entry) may be modified (moved/rescheduled),
resulting in the same fundamental behavior, i.e., a new solution or
meeting time is proposed and the other participants either accept
or reject the new time. The process may continue in this
inefficient manner until a consensus or solution is reached. In the
polling/voting model a person, typically the originator, may submit
a number of proposals for other participants to vote on the
different proposals. Such processes are inefficient and do not
provide any social, behavioral or group dynamics information for
facilitating the group decision making process.
BRIEF SUMMARY
[0004] According to one aspect of the present invention, a method
for autonomic group decision making may include presenting, by a
computer system, a plurality of decision options to each decision
maker of a group of decision makers and receiving, by the computer
system, at least one decision option selected by each decision
maker from the plurality of decision options. The method may
additionally include presenting, by the computer system, a decision
making result to each decision maker. The decision making result
may include an indication of the preference for each of the
decision options by the group of decision makers. The method may
further include allowing, by the computer system, each decision
maker to revise the at least one decision option previously
selected by the decision maker for convergence to the single
decision option by the group of decision makers. The method may
also include determining an impedance score for each decision maker
in response to at least one decision maker selecting a different at
least one decision option from one previously selected. The
impedance score of each decision maker may be based on at least one
action of a set of actions by the decision maker regarding
selecting the at least one decision option. A level of the
impedance score indicates either a progression toward convergence
to the single decision option or away from convergence to the
single decision option by the decision maker associated with the
impedance score. The method may further include revising the
impedance score for a particular decision maker each time the
particular decision maker selects a revised at least one decision
option. The single decision option may be presented in response to
the decision makers converging on the single decision option.
[0005] According to another aspect of the present invention, a
system for autonomic group decision making may include a processor
and a group decision making module operating on the processor. The
group decision making module may be configured to perform a set of
functions that may include presenting a plurality of decision
options to each decision maker of a group of decision makers;
receiving at least one decision option selected by each decision
maker from the plurality of decision options; presenting a decision
making result to each decision maker, the decision making result
comprising an indication of the preference for each of the decision
options by the group of decision makers; allowing each decision
maker to revise the at least one decision option previously
selected by the decision maker for convergence to the single
decision option by the group of decision makers; determining an
impedance score for each decision maker in response to at least one
decision maker selecting a different at least one decision option
from one previously selected, the impedance score of each decision
maker being based on at least one action of a set of actions by the
decision maker regarding selecting the at least one decision
option, wherein a level of the impedance score indicates either a
progression toward convergence to the single decision option or
away from convergence to the single decision option by the decision
maker associated with the impedance score; revising the impedance
score for a particular decision maker each time the particular
decision maker selects a revised at least one decision option; and
presenting the single decision option in response to the decision
makers converging on the single decision option.
[0006] According to another aspect of the present invention, a
computer program product for autonomic group decision making may
include a computer readable storage medium having program
instructions embodied therewith. The program instructions are
executable by a device to cause the device to perform a method that
may include presenting a plurality of decision options to each
decision maker of a group of decision makers; receiving at least
one decision option selected by each decision maker from the
plurality of decision options; presenting a decision making result
to each decision maker, the decision making result comprising an
indication of the preference for each of the decision options by
the group of decision makers; allowing each decision maker to
revise the at least one decision option previously selected by the
decision maker for convergence to the single decision option by the
group of decision makers; determining an impedance score for each
decision maker in response to at least one decision maker selecting
a different at least one decision option from one previously
selected, the impedance score of each decision maker being based on
at least one action of a set of actions by the decision maker
regarding selecting the at least one decision option, wherein a
level of the impedance score indicates either a progression toward
convergence to the single decision option or away from convergence
to the single decision option by the decision maker associated with
the impedance score; revising the impedance score for a particular
decision maker each time the particular decision maker selects a
revised at least one decision option; and presenting the single
decision option in response to the decision makers converging on
the single decision option.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWINGS
[0007] The present invention is further described in the detailed
description which follows in reference to the noted plurality of
drawings by way of non-limiting examples of embodiments of the
present invention in which like reference numerals represent
similar parts throughout the several views of the drawings and
wherein:
[0008] FIGS. 1A-1C (collectively FIG. 1) are a flow chart of an
example of a method for autonomic group decision making in
accordance with an embodiment of the present invention.
[0009] FIG. 2 is an example of a graphical user interface for
presentation of decision making results in accordance with an
embodiment of the present invention.
[0010] FIG. 3 is a block schematic diagram of an example of a
system for autonomic group decision making in accordance with an
embodiment of the present invention.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION
[0011] The present invention may be a system, a method, and/or a
computer program product. The computer program product may include
a computer readable storage medium (or media) having computer
readable program instructions thereon for causing a processor to
carry out aspects of the present invention.
[0012] The computer readable storage medium can be a tangible
device that can retain and store instructions for use by an
instruction execution device. The computer readable storage medium
may be, for example, but is not limited to, an electronic storage
device, a magnetic storage device, an optical storage device, an
electromagnetic storage device, a semiconductor storage device, or
any suitable combination of the foregoing. A non-exhaustive list of
more specific examples of the computer readable storage medium
includes the following: a portable computer diskette, a hard disk,
a random access memory (RAM), a read-only memory (ROM), an erasable
programmable read-only memory (EPROM or Flash memory), a static
random access memory (SRAM), a portable compact disc read-only
memory (CD-ROM), a digital versatile disk (DVD), a memory stick, a
floppy disk, a mechanically encoded device such as punch-cards or
raised structures in a groove having instructions recorded thereon,
and any suitable combination of the foregoing. A computer readable
storage medium, as used herein, is not to be construed as being
transitory signals per se, such as radio waves or other freely
propagating electromagnetic waves, electromagnetic waves
propagating through a waveguide or other transmission media (e.g.,
light pulses passing through a fiber-optic cable), or electrical
signals transmitted through a wire.
[0013] Computer readable program instructions described herein can
be downloaded to respective computing/processing devices from a
computer readable storage medium or to an external computer or
external storage device via a network, for example, the Internet, a
local area network, a wide area network and/or a wireless network.
The network may comprise copper transmission cables, optical
transmission fibers, wireless transmission, routers, firewalls,
switches, gateway computers and/or edge servers. A network adapter
card or network interface in each computing/processing device
receives computer readable program instructions from the network
and forwards the computer readable program instructions for storage
in a computer readable storage medium within the respective
computing/processing device.
[0014] Computer readable program instructions for carrying out
operations of the present invention may be assembler instructions,
instruction-set-architecture (ISA) instructions, machine
instructions, machine dependent instructions, microcode, firmware
instructions, state-setting data, or either source code or object
code written in any combination of one or more programming
languages, including an object oriented programming language such
as Smalltalk, C++ or the like, and conventional procedural
programming languages, such as the "C" programming language or
similar programming languages. The computer readable program
instructions may execute entirely on the user's computer, partly on
the user's computer, as a stand-alone software package, partly on
the user's computer and partly on a remote computer or entirely on
the remote computer or server. In the latter scenario, the remote
computer may be connected to the user's computer through any type
of network, including a local area network (LAN) or a wide area
network (WAN), or the connection may be made to an external
computer (for example, through the Internet using an Internet
Service Provider). In some embodiments, electronic circuitry
including, for example, programmable logic circuitry,
field-programmable gate arrays (FPGA), or programmable logic arrays
(PLA) may execute the computer readable program instructions by
utilizing state information of the computer readable program
instructions to personalize the electronic circuitry, in order to
perform aspects of the present invention.
[0015] Aspects of the present invention are described herein with
reference to flowchart illustrations and/or block diagrams of
methods, apparatus (systems), and computer program products
according to embodiments of the invention. It will be understood
that each block of the flowchart illustrations and/or block
diagrams, and combinations of blocks in the flowchart illustrations
and/or block diagrams, can be implemented by computer readable
program instructions.
[0016] These computer readable program instructions may be provided
to a processor of a general purpose computer, special purpose
computer, or other programmable data processing apparatus to
produce a machine, such that the instructions, which execute via
the processor of the computer or other programmable data processing
apparatus, create means for implementing the functions/acts
specified in the flowchart and/or block diagram block or blocks.
These computer readable program instructions may also be stored in
a computer readable storage medium that can direct a computer, a
programmable data processing apparatus, and/or other devices to
function in a particular manner, such that the computer readable
storage medium having instructions stored therein comprises an
article of manufacture including instructions which implement
aspects of the function/act specified in the flowchart and/or block
diagram block or blocks.
[0017] The computer readable program instructions may also be
loaded onto a computer, other programmable data processing
apparatus, or other device to cause a series of operational steps
to be performed on the computer, other programmable apparatus or
other device to produce a computer implemented process, such that
the instructions which execute on the computer, other programmable
apparatus, or other device implement the functions/acts specified
in the flowchart and/or block diagram block or blocks.
[0018] During a group decision making event or process, a group of
decision makers typically desire or need to converge to a single
decision option chosen from a set of options. An impedance score
may be associated with each participant or decision maker in the
group decision-making event. The impedance score of each
participant may be based upon the behavior of the participant
during the decision making process. A participant with a higher
impedance score compared to others may indicate a greater
resistance by the participant to convergence to the single decision
option, whereas a participant with a lower impedance score may
indicate behaviors by the participant that are conducive to
convergence to the single decision option. Behaviors conducive to
convergence may include, but are not necessarily limited to actions
such as specifying a larger number of preferred options, foregoing
the option to rank preferred selections, quicker modification of
preferred selections to accommodate the choices of others or
earlier acceptance or selection during the decision making process
of the decision option preferred by most other participants or
decision makers, and any other actions that may reduce the time for
convergence to the single decision option by all or at least most
participants.
[0019] Each participant's impedance score may be dynamically
calculated while they are participating in the decision making
event. Participants may see their current impedance score and be
advised of the degree to which their selection or selections may be
weighted if a selection engine were to make the final determination
of the group's selection, at that moment. The system may also
provide insight into the effect that a considered action might
have, if the action were to be taken at that moment. However, the
decision making process may be extremely dynamic and the outcomes
may change in response to a decision making participant selecting a
new decision option to move toward convergence of the single
decision option. Accordingly, participants or decision makers are
prompted to weigh and balance actions motivated by personal
interests against actions taken to aid the group in achieving
convergence.
[0020] If the group of decision makers cannot converge upon the
single selection or decision option, a selection engine may
calculate or determine a final selection or single decision option
using the preferences of the decision makers and the impedance
scores of those decision makers or participants. The impedance
scores may be utilized to weight the preferences of participants
with lower impedance scores more highly. For example, the
preferences or preferred decision options selected by participants
having lower impedance scores compared to others may be scored or
valued higher by the selection engine. In accordance with an
embodiment, a preset time period may be specified within which the
group of decision makers need to reach convergence before selecting
the single decision option may be turned over to the selection
engine.
[0021] There are multiple ways in which the calculations performed
by the selection engine can be performed to select the single
decision option. In accordance with at least one embodiment, each
participant or decision maker may be ranked from a lowest impedance
score to a highest impedance score and a range of impedance scores
may be calculated or determined (I.sub.range). A minimum impedance
score (I.sub.min) may be subtracted from the impedance score for a
particular participant or decision maker (I.sub.Pn) and divided by
the range of impedance scores (I.sub.range). This result may be
subtracted from 1 to provide a weighting for the particular
decision maker or participant based on the decision maker's
impedance score. This resulting values or weighting will be between
0 and 1. A value or weighting of 1 may be assigned to the decision
maker or decision makers having the lowest impedance score.
Accordingly, weighting for other decision makers may fall between 0
and 1 depending upon the impedance score of the particular decision
maker. The equation for determining the weighting of each decision
maker may be expressed as:
W.sub.Pn=1-(I.sub.Pn-I.sub.min/I.sub.range)
[0022] Where Pn is Participant n. I.sub.Pn is the impedance score
of Participant n, and W.sub.Pn is the weighting for Participant n
based on Participant n's impedance score.
[0023] The resulting values provide insight into the `weighting`
that may be applied to the decision option or options selected by
each participant or decision maker. Presenting the weighting or
value associated with the decision maker to at least the decision
maker allows the decision maker in real-time to understand how well
or poorly they have balanced their own desires or interest with the
need to allow the group to come to convergence on the single
decision option. The weighting may be presented to the decision
maker before the selection is submitted so that the decision maker
may be aware of the impact his potential selection may have on the
group decision making process toward convergence.
[0024] As an example of how the selection engine may operate, a
group of decision makers may be presented a plurality of decision
options from which to select. Each decision maker might be directed
to select a top three decision options, in order of preference. If
three decision options are selected, then a first selection or most
preferred decision option for a given decision maker may be
assigned a value of 3. A second most preferred decision option may
be assigned a value of 2 and the third selection or lowest
preferred decision option may be assigned a value of 1. The values
for each of these selected decision options may then be multiplied
by that participant's weighting (W.sub.Pn), determined similar to
that described above. When all participants choices or selections
are thus scored, the scores from each participant may be added for
each decision option. The set of decision options may be ranked
from the highest total score to lowest total score. The option with
the highest total score is determined to be the group's selection.
Of course, other variations of this method are possible, and some
variations may apply better to certain scenarios than others.
[0025] The first, second and third most preferred options need not
be expressly stated as such. The ranking of preferred options may
also be inferred or determined based on the particular order that a
decision maker may revise his selection of decision options in
order to facilitate convergence. For example, the first decision
option by a decision option may be considered the decision makers
most preferred decision option. The first revised decision option
selected by the decision maker may be considered as the second most
preferred decision option and so forth with each subsequent revised
decision option.
[0026] FIGS. 1A-1C (collectively FIG. 1) are a flow chart of an
example of a method 100 for autonomic group decision making in
accordance with an embodiment of the present invention. In block
102, a plurality of decision options may be presented to each
decision maker of a group of decision makers.
[0027] In block 104, at least one decision option selected and
submitted by each decision maker may be received. If the decision
makers are permitted to select multiple decision options, the
decision options may be ranked by the respective decision makers.
For example, the decision maker may rank the selected decision
options from a most preferred decision option to a lesser preferred
this decision option or may use some other ranking to indicate a
level of preference.
[0028] In block 106, a decision making result may be presented to
each decision maker. An example of a graphical user interface for
presenting the decision making results will be described with
reference to FIG. 2. The decision-making results may include an
indication of preference for each decision option by the group of
decision makers, a number of decision makers that preferred each
decision option, and impedance score for each decision maker, a
feature or mechanism to revise a previously selected decision
option or options and any other information that may be helpful in
allowing the decision maker to revise the selection of decision
options in order to converge to a single decision option for the
group of decision makers. Optionally, an identification (ID) of the
decision makers selecting each decision option may be presented.
The impedance score of a particular participant or decision maker
may be presented only to the particular participant or to all of
the decision makers.
[0029] In block 108, each decision maker may be allowed to revise a
previously selected decision option or selected set of decision
options until convergence on the single decision option by the
group of decision makers or an expiration of a preset set time
period before convergence on the single decision option by the
group of decision makers. A graphical user interface may be
presented to each decision maker that may include a feature or
mechanism for selecting a different decision option or set of
decision options from that previously selected by the decision
maker. The graphical user interface may also permit the decision
maker to re-rank the decision options if multiple decision options
may be selected by the decision maker or participant. An impedance
score, as described below, of the decision maker may also be
presented so that the decision maker may realize how his revised
selection may impact his impedance score and convergence toward the
single decision option prior to submitting the revised selection or
confirmation of selection of the revised selection.
[0030] In block 110, an impedance score may be determined for each
decision maker in response to at least one decision maker selecting
at least one different decision option from the one previously
selected. The impedance score of each decision maker may be based
on a behavior or set of actions by the decision maker regarding
selection of a decision option or options that moves the group
decision process either toward convergence or away from convergence
to the single decision option by the group of decision makers. A
level of the impedance score indicates either a progression toward
convergence to the single decision option or away from convergence
to the single decision option by the decision maker associated with
the impedance score. For example, a lower impedance score may
indicate an action or actions performed by the decision maker that
would result in movement toward convergence to the single decision,
and a higher impedance score may indicate performance of an action
or actions by the decision maker that result in moving away from
convergence to the single decision option.
[0031] An example of a set of actions or behaviors by a decision
maker that may lower the impedance score and represent movement
toward convergence may include, but is not necessarily limited to:
changing to a decision option or options selected by a greater
number of decision makers; a shorter time duration between
selecting a revised decision option or options compared to
selecting a previous decision option or options which demonstrates
a motivation by the decision maker to reach the single decision
option by the group more quickly and efficiently; selecting a
larger number of preferred decision options than previously
selected which demonstrates more flexibility in offering more
choices by the decision maker that may be selected as the single
decision option by the group and therefore reaching a resolution as
quickly and efficiently as possible; foregoing an option to rank
preferred selections of a group of decision options thus providing
more flexibility in reaching resolution sooner; modifying the
decision option to accommodate the selection of other decision
makers for converging on the single decision option in less than a
preset time period; and any other actions or behaviors that make
convergence easier or more efficient.
[0032] A revised impedance score may be dynamically determined each
time one of the decision makers selects a revised decision option
or a decision option or options different from the one previously
selected by the decision maker. As described in more detail herein,
the impedance score and revised impedance score may be determined
by an impedance engine.
[0033] In block 112, the revised decision making results may be
presented in response to receiving a revised decision option
selection or selections from at least one decision maker. A revised
decision-making result may be presented each time at least one
decision maker selects a different decision option or set of
decision options from that previously selected until the group of
decision makers converges on the single decision option or
expiration of the preset set time period without the decision
makers converging on the single decision option. A revised
impedance score may also be determined for affected decision makers
in response to the at least one decision makers selecting the
different decision option or set of decision options. An affected
decision makers may be any decision maker whose impedance score has
changed because of the new decision option or options selected by
the at least one decision maker and received by the system.
[0034] In block 114, a determination may be made if a preset time
period has expired. If the preset time period has expired, the
method 100 may advance to block 116. In block 116, a determination
may be made if there is convergence to the single decision option.
If the group of decision makers have not converged to the single
decision option, the method 100 may return to block 110 and the
method 100 may continue similar to that previously described. If
the group of decision makers have converged to the single decision
option in block 116, the method 100 may advance to block 118. In
block 118, the single decision option may be presented in response
to the decision makers converging on the single decision
option.
[0035] Returning to block 114, if the preset time period has
expired the method 100 may advance to block 120. In block 120, a
determination may be made if the decision makers have selected
multiple decision options and ranked the decision options based on
preferences. If the decision makers have only been allowed to
select a single decision option, the method 100 may advance to
block 122. In block 122, the single decision option may be selected
based on the impedance score for each decision maker being used to
weight the decision option selected last by the decision maker to
provide a score for each decision option. The single decision
option is the decision option of the plurality of decision options
with the highest score.
[0036] In accordance with an embodiment, similar to that previously
described, an order in which each decision maker selected new or
revised decision options may also be ranked. For example, the first
selected decision option may be considered the most preferred
option by a decision maker and assigned a highest value. The second
or first revised decision option selected may be considered the
next most preferred option by the decision maker and assigned a
lower value than the first selected or most preferred option and so
forth for subsequently selected or revised decision options. The
series of decision options or revised decision options by each
decision maker may then be weighted or multiplied by a value
corresponding to the impedance score of the decision maker that
selected the series of decision options or revised decision
options. This provides a score for each decision option. The
weighting for the impedance score of each decision maker may be
determined similar to that previously described or by some other
mechanism. The scores for each decision option for each decision
maker may then be added to provide an accumulated score for each
decision option. The decision option with the highest total score
may be selected as the single decision option for the group.
[0037] In block 120, if the decision makers have been permitted to
select multiple decision options and rank the multiple decision
options according to their respective preferences, the method 100
may advance to block 124. In block 124, the multiplicity of
decision options selected by each decision maker may be received
and ranked according to the respective preferences of each of the
decision makers.
[0038] In block 126, a weighting associated with each decision
maker may be determined based on the impedance score associated
with each decision maker. The weighting may be determined similar
to that previously described or some other mechanism for
determining the weighting of each decision maker based on the
impedance scores may be utilized.
[0039] In block 128, a value may be assigned to each of the
multiplicity of decision options from each decision maker based on
the preference ranking by each decision maker. For example a
highest preferred decision option may be assigned a highest value
and a lowest preferred decision option may be assigned a lowest
value with intermediate preferences being assigned some value in a
continuum between the lowest and highest values.
[0040] In block 130, a score may be calculated for each of the
multiplicity of decision options from each decision maker by
multiplying the weighting associated with each respective decision
maker by the value of each decision option submitted or selected by
the decision maker.
[0041] In block 132, the score from each decision maker for each
respective decision options selected by each decision maker is
added. In block 134, the single decision option is selected as the
decision option with the highest total score.
[0042] FIG. 2 is an example of a graphical user interface (GUI) 200
for presenting decision making results in accordance with an
embodiment of the present invention. The GUI 200 may include one or
more tables 202 and 204. While the exemplary GUI 200 presenting
decision-making results is illustrated in FIG. 2 as including two
tables the information may be contained or formatted in a single
table or may be presented in a format other than a table or tables
as illustrated in FIG. 2. The first table 202 may include a first
column 206 for identifying decision options. Accordingly, each row
or cell of the decision column 206 may identify a different
decision option for convergence to a single decision option by the
autonomic group decision making process described herein.
[0043] A second column 208 may be provided for indicating the
number of decision makers that selected each decision option
identified in column 206. A ranked score column 210 may be provided
for providing a ranked score corresponding to each decision option
when more than one decision option may be selected by each decision
maker and the multiple decision options selected may be ranked, for
example, from a most preferred decision option to a lesser
preferred decision option similar to that previously described.
[0044] In accordance with an embodiment, a column 212 for
identifying the decision makers selecting each decision option may
optionally be provided. Under some circumstances, decision makers
may want to remain anonymous and may not want other decision makers
to know which options they selected. Under other circumstances,
identifying the decision makers may more efficiently drive the
decision makers to convergence on a single decision option because
of group dynamics that may be associated with the selections of
being know by all the decision makers.
[0045] The table 202 may also include a column 214 for other data
or information that may assist the decision makers in selecting new
decision options for facilitating convergence to the single
decision option. The table 202 may further include a column 216 to
allow the decision maker to revise his previously selected and
submitted decision option by entering and submitting a new decision
option.
[0046] The GUI 200 may optionally include a second table 204 for
identifying information associated with each of the decision
makers. Accordingly, the second table 204 may include a first
column 218 for identifying each of the decision makers; a second
column 220 for indicating an impedance score associated with each
decision maker; a third column 222 for indicating a weight
associated with each decision maker; and a column 224 for other
information that may facilitate convergence to the single decision
option during the decision making process. The weight in column 222
may be calculated based on the impedance score similar to that
previously described. The second table 204 may be optional
presented in that decision makers may not want their particular
information related to the decision-making process presented to the
other decision makers. In other embodiments, the information
associated with a particular decision maker may only be presented
to that decision maker. However, optionally presenting the
selection information associated with each decision maker to all
the decision makers may more efficiently drive the decision makers
to convergence on the single decision option because of group
dynamics.
[0047] The following is an example of a group decision making
process for selecting a meeting time in accordance with an
embodiment of the present invention. In this application, the
system described above may be augmented by a calendar tool. The
participants in the decision making process are shown the complete
range of possible meeting times (based on well-established group
free time search methods). This can happen in a synchronous context
(e.g. an online meeting or a group chat), or asynchronous context
(e.g. a team room calendar). Given the range of possible meeting
times, each participant can indicate n number of preferred meeting
times (n could be a system configuration), and preferences could be
ranked or unranked (another system configuration). For example,
each participant may indicate three preferred times, which may be
ranked from most preferred to least preferred. As participants
begin indicating preferences (or subsequently change preferences),
all participants may see which time slots are common (picked by
others), the size of commonality (the number of participants who
prefer the same time slots), and the degree of commonality (the
merged preference level). Participants could easily see where
"blocker(s)" might exist, i.e., a single person who has no common
times. Adjustments may be made by either the blocker modifying his
schedule or others could modify their schedule to accommodate the
blocker. Picking times best for the group, removing obstacles, etc.
would all be actions which would lower the impedance score. Only
indicating one time, or a time that has no availability for the
rest of the group, would increase the impedance score of a
participant. Each member could see how the group was doing, how
their actions were helping (or not) and ultimately either reach a
decision, or have the system or selection engine finalize the
decision for the group.
[0048] In accordance with another example for choosing a web color
palette, the system or method described above could be applied to a
"media gallery" or "files" application. The participants in the
decision making process are shown the color palette options and can
submit new options or variations to existing options. Given the
range of possible color palettes, each participant may indicate n
number of palettes (n could be a system configuration), and
preferences could be ranked or unranked (another system
configuration). For the purposes of this example, each participant
may indicate three preferred palettes, which may be ranked from
most preferred to least preferred. As participants begin indicating
preferences (or subsequently change preferences), all participants
may see which palettes are common (picked by others), the size of
commonality (the number of participants who prefer the same
palette), and the degree of commonality (the merged preference
level). Participants may easily see where "blocker(s)" might exist,
i.e., a single person who has a strong preference for one
particular palette and adjust accordingly. Either the blocker may
modify their choice or others could modify theirs to converge with
the blocker. Picking palettes most common to the group, removing
obstacles (i.e. non-common choices), etc. would all be actions
which would lower the impedance score. Only indicating one palette
choice, or a palette choice that has no commonality with the rest
of the group, would increase the impedance score. Each member could
see how the group was doing, how their actions were helping (or
not) and ultimately either reach a decision, or have the system
finalize the decision for the group.
[0049] In accordance with another example for finalizing a tag line
for a product, the group decision making method or system or be
applied to a "survey system." The participants in the decision
making process are shown the tag line options (the options may be a
final list culled down from numerous previous meetings). Given the
range of possible tag lines, each participant may indicate n number
of tag lines (n could be a system configuration), and preferences
could be ranked or unranked (another system configuration). For the
purposes of this example, each participant can indicate three
preferred tag lines, which may be ranked from most preferred to
least preferred. As participants begin indicating preferences (or
subsequently change preferences), all participants may see which
tag lines are common (picked by others), the size of commonality
(the number of participants who prefer the same tag line), and the
degree of commonality (the merged preference level). Participants
may easily see where "blocker(s)" might exist, that is, a single
person who has a strong preference for one particular tag line.
Adjustments may be made to reach convergence on a single tag line
option. Either the blocker could modify their choice or others
could modify theirs to converge with the blocker. Picking tag lines
most common to the group, removing obstacles (i.e. non-common
choices), etc. would all be actions which would lower the impedance
score. Only indicating one tag line choice, or a tag line choice
that has no commonality with the rest of the group, would increase
impedance score. Each member could see how the group was doing, how
their actions were helping (or not) and ultimately either reach a
decision, or have the system (selection engine) finalize the
decision for the group.
[0050] FIG. 3 is a block schematic diagram of an example of a
system 300 for autonomic group decision making in accordance with
an embodiment of the present invention. The method 100 of FIGS.
1A-IC may be embodied in and performed by the system 300. The
system 300 may include a processing device 302. The processing
device 302 may be a server or similar processing device. The
processing device 302 may include a processor 304 for controlling
operation of the processing device 302 and for performing
functions, such as those described herein with respect to autonomic
group decision making. The processing device 302 may also include a
file system 306 or memory. An operating system 308, applications
and other programs may be stored on the file system 306 for running
or operating on the processor 304. A group decision making module
310 or system may also be stored on the file system 306 and may be
compiled and run on the processor 304 to perform the functions for
group decision making similar to that described herein. The method
100 of FIGS. 1A-C may be embodied in the group decision making
module 310 and performed by the processor 304 when the group
decision making module 310 is compiled and run on the processor
304.
[0051] The group decision making module 310 may include an
impedance engine 311. The impedance engine 311 may be configured to
determine or calculate impedance scores similar to that described
herein. For example, the impedance engine 311 may perform functions
similar to that described with respect to block 110 in FIG. 1A. The
impedance engine 311 may present a revised impedance score to at
least the decision maker in response to the decision maker
submitting a revised decision option selection. The impedance
engine 311 may also present a revised impedance score to a decision
maker in response to the decision maker selecting a proposed
different decision option or options before the proposed decision
option is actually accepted or submitted in the group decision
making process. This allows the decision maker to realize the
impact of his proposed new decision option and whether he might
want to make a different selection.
[0052] The group decision making module 310 may also include a
selection engine 312. Similar to that previously described, the
selection engine 312 may be configured to perform a selection of
the single decision option in response to the decision makers being
unable to converge on the single decision option or in the event a
preset time limit expires without the decision makers having
converged on the single decision option similar to that described
with reference to blocks 124-134 of FIG. 1C. The impedance engine
311 and selection engine 312 may be part of the group decision
module 310 as shown in the exemplary embodiment in FIG. 3, or in
another embodiment may the impedance engine 311 and selection
engine 312 may each be a separate component from the group decision
making module 310.
[0053] The processing device 302 may also include one or more input
devices, output devices or combination input/output devices,
collectively I/O devices 314 in FIG. 3. The I/O devices 314 may
include, but are not necessarily limited to, a keyboard or keypad,
pointing device, such as a mouse, disk drive and any other devices
to permit a user to interface with and control operation of the
processing device 302 and to access the group decision making
module 310 or system. At least one of the I/O devices 314 may be a
device to read a computer program product, such as computer program
product 316. The computer program product 316 may be similar to
that described in more detail herein. The group decision making
module 310 may be loaded on the file system 306 from a computer
program product, such as computer program product 316.
[0054] A user 322 or decision maker of the system 300 for group
decision making may use a computer system 324 or communications
device to access the processing device 302 or server and group
decision making module 310 or system for group decision making. The
computer system 324 or communications device may be any sort of
communications device including a mobile or handheld computer or
communications device. The computer system 324 may include a
processor 326 to control operation of the computer system 324 and a
file system 328, memory or similar data storage device. An
operating system 330, applications 332 and other programs may be
stored on the file system 328 for running or operating on the
processor 326. A web or Internet browser 334 may also be stored on
the file system 328 for accessing the processing device 302 or
server via a network 336. The network 336 may be the internet, an
intranet or other private or proprietary network.
[0055] In accordance with an embodiment, a group decision making
application 338, feature or module may also be stored on the file
system 328 and operate on the processor the 326 of the user's
computer system 324. The group decision making application 338
operating on the computer system 326 may interface with or operate
in conjunction with the group decision making module or system 310
on the processing device 302 or server to perform the functions and
operations described herein for group decision making. Accordingly,
group decision making application 338 operating on the computer
system 324 may perform some of the functions and operations of the
method 100 and group decision making module 310 operating on the
server 302 may perform other functions of the method 100.
[0056] The computer system 324 may also include a display 342, a
speaker system 344, and a microphone 346 for voice communications.
One or more user interfaces may be presented on the display 342 for
controlling operating the group decision making application 338 and
group decision making module 310 and for performing the operations
and functions described herein. For example, the graphical user
interface 200 described with reference to FIG. 2.
[0057] The computer system 324 may also include one or more input
devices, output devices or combination input/output devices,
collectively I/O devices 348. The I/O devices 348 may include a
keyboard or keypad, pointing device, such as a mouse, disk drives
and any other devices to permit a user, such as user 322, to
interface with and control operation of the computer system 324 and
to access the group decision making application 338 and group
decision making system 310 on server 302. The I/O devices 348 may
also include at least one device configured to read computer code
from a computer program product, such as computer program product
316.
[0058] The flowchart and block diagrams in the Figures illustrate
the architecture, functionality, and operation of possible
implementations of systems, methods, and computer program products
according to various embodiments of the present invention. In this
regard, each block in the flowchart or block diagrams may represent
a module, segment, or portion of instructions, which comprises one
or more executable instructions for implementing the specified
logical function(s). In some alternative implementations, the
functions noted in the block may occur out of the order noted in
the figures. For example, two blocks shown in succession may, in
fact, be executed substantially concurrently, or the blocks may
sometimes be executed in the reverse order, depending upon the
functionality involved. It will also be noted that each block of
the block diagrams and/or flowchart illustration, and combinations
of blocks in the block diagrams and/or flowchart illustration, can
be implemented by special purpose hardware-based systems that
perform the specified functions or acts or carry out combinations
of special purpose hardware and computer instructions.
[0059] The terminology used herein is for the purpose of describing
particular embodiments only and is not intended to be limiting of
embodiments of the invention. As used herein, the singular forms
"a", "an" and "the" are intended to include the plural forms as
well, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise. It will be
further understood that the terms "comprises" and/or "comprising,"
when used in this specification, specify the presence of stated
features, integers, steps, operations, elements, and/or components,
but do not preclude the presence or addition of one or more other
features, integers, steps, operations, elements, components, and/or
groups thereof.
[0060] The corresponding structures, materials, acts, and
equivalents of all means or step plus function elements in the
claims below are intended to include any structure, material, or
act for performing the function in combination with other claimed
elements as specifically claimed. The description of the present
invention has been presented for purposes of illustration and
description, but is not intended to be exhaustive or limited to
embodiments of the invention in the form disclosed. Many
modifications and variations will be apparent to those of ordinary
skill in the art without departing from the scope and spirit of
embodiments of the invention. The embodiment was chosen and
described in order to best explain the principles of embodiments of
the invention and the practical application, and to enable others
of ordinary skill in the art to understand embodiments of the
invention for various embodiments with various modifications as are
suited to the particular use contemplated.
[0061] Although specific embodiments have been illustrated and
described herein, those of ordinary skill in the art appreciate
that any arrangement which is calculated to achieve the same
purpose may be substituted for the specific embodiments shown and
that embodiments of the invention have other applications in other
environments. This application is intended to cover any adaptations
or variations of the present invention. The following claims are in
no way intended to limit the scope of embodiments of the invention
to the specific embodiments described herein.
* * * * *