research-article

Procid: Bridging Consensus Building Theory with the Practice of Distributed Design Discussions

Authors:

Roshanak Zilouchian Moghaddam,

Zane Nicholson,

Brian P. BaileyAuthors Info & Claims

CSCW '15: Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing

Pages 686 - 699

https://doi.org/10.1145/2675133.2675272

Published: 28 February 2015 Publication History

Abstract

Consensus is a desired but elusive goal in many distributed discussions. A critical problem is that discussion platforms lack mechanisms for realizing consensus strategies and realizing these strategies without tool support can be hard. This paper introduces Procid, a novel browser plugin that provides interaction and visualization features for bringing consensus strategies to distributed design discussions. Key features include the ability to organize discussions around ideas, to register and visualize support for or against ideas, and to define criteria for evaluating ideas. It also applies interaction constraints fostering best practices of consensus building. Procid extends the discussion platform of one open source software community. Two evaluations were conducted. The first collected perceptions of the tool from members of the community for their own discussions. The second compared how Procid affects a distributed design discussion relative to the current discussion platform in the community. Results of both studies showed that users found the features of our tool beneficial and perceived it as more effective for consensus building than the existing platform.

References

[1]

AlchemyAPI Sentiment Analysis http://www.alchemyapi.com.

[2]

Alonso, S., et al. Using Visualization Tools to Guide Consensus in Group Decision Making. WILF, 2007, 77 - 85.

Digital Library

[3]

Angwin, J. and Fowler, G. A. Volunteers Log Off As Wikipedia Ages. The Wall Street Journal (Nov. 23, 2009), pages A.1.

[4]

Applegate, L. M., et al. A group decision support system for idea generation and issue analysis in organization planning. CSCW, 1986, 16--34.

Digital Library

[5]

Avery, M., et al. Building united judgment: a handbook for consensus decision making. The Center for Conflict Resolution, Madision, Wis., 1981.

[6]

Baccianella, S., et al. SentiWordNet 3.0: An enhanced lexical resource for sentiment analysis and opinion mining. LREC, 2010, 2200--2204.

[7]

Balakrishnan, A. D., et al. Do Visualizations Improve Synchronous Remote Collaboration? CHI, 2008, 1227--1236.

Digital Library

[8]

Biehl, J. T., et al. Impromptu: a new interaction framework for supporting collaboration in multiple display environments and its field evaluation for co-located software development. CHI, 2008, 939--948.

Digital Library

[9]

Birnholtz, J. P., et al. An exploratory study of input configuration and group process in a negotiation task using a large display. CHI, 2007, 91--100.

Digital Library

[10]

Briggs, R. O., et al. Toward a Theoretical Model of Consensus Building. Americas Conference on Information Systems, 2005.

[11]

Choi, B., et al. Socialization tactics in wikipedia and their effects. CSCW, 2010.

Digital Library

[12]

Conklin, J. and Begeman, M. L. glBIS : A Hypertext Tool for Exploratory Policy Discussion. ACM Transactions of Office Information Systems, 6, 4 (1988), 303--331.

Digital Library

[13]

DeSanctis, G. and Gallupe, R. B. A Foundation for the Study of Group Decision Support Systems. Management Science, 33, 5 (1987), 589 - 609.

Digital Library

[14]

El-Gayar, O. F. and Fritz., B. D. A web-based multiperspective decision support system for information security planning. Decis. Support Syst., 50, 1 (2010), 43--54.

Digital Library

[15]

Faridani, S., et al. Opinion space: a scalable tool for browsing online comments. CHI, 2010, 1175--1184

Digital Library

[16]

Friedman, R., et al. The Positive and Negative Effects of Anger on Dispute Resolution: Evidence From Electronically Mediated Disputes. Applied Psychology, 89, 2 (2004), 369--376.

[17]

Grudin, J. Groupware and social dynamics: Eight challenges for developers. Communications of the ACM, 37, 1 (1994), 92105.

Digital Library

[18]

Horowitz, D. and Kamvar, S. D. The anatomy of a large-scale social search engine. WWW, 2010, 431--440.

Digital Library

[19]

Kelley, T. and Littman, J. The Art of Innovation: Lessons in creativity From IDEO, America's Leading Design Firm. Doubleday, New York, NY, 2001.

[20]

Ko, A. J. and Chilana, P. K. Design, Discussion, and Dissent in Open Bug Reports. iConference, 2011, 106--113.

Digital Library

[21]

Kriplean, T., et al. Community, consensus, coercion, control: cs*w or how policy mediates mass participation. GROUP, 2007, 167--176.

Digital Library

[22]

Kriplean, T., et al. Supporting reflective public thought with considerit. CSCW, 2012, 265--274.

Digital Library

[23]

Kriplean, T., et al. Is this what you meant?: promoting listening on the web with reflect. . CHI, 2012, 1559--1568.

Digital Library

[24]

LLWC Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count. http://www.liwc.net.

[25]

Luther, K., et al. Pathfinder: an online collaboration environment for citizen scientists. CHI, 2009, 239--248.

Digital Library

[26]

Matthews, T., et al. Community insights: helping community leaders enhance the value of enterprise online communities. 2013.

Digital Library

[27]

Oehlberg, L., et al. Showing is sharing: building shared understanding in human-centered design teams with Dazzle. DIS, 2012, 669--678.

Digital Library

[28]

Pioch, N. J. and Everett., J. O. Polestar: collaborative knowledge management and sensemaking tools for intelligence analysts. CIKM, 2006, 513--521.

Digital Library

[29]

Shum, S. J. B., et al. Hypermedia Support for ArgumentationBased Rationale. 2006.

[30]

Sidaway, R. Consensus Building. Scottish National Rural Partnership, Edinburgh, 1998.

[31]

Susskind, L., et al. The Consensus Building Handbook. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, 1999.

[32]

Tegarden, D. P. Business information visualization. Communications of the AIS, 1, 4 (1999).

Digital Library

[33]

Willett, W., et al. CommentSpace: Structured Support for Collaborative Visual Analysis. CHI, 2011, 3131--3140.

Digital Library

[34]

Yasuda, M., et al. Color and facial expressions. Journal of Vision, 7, 9 (2007), 946.

[35]

Zilouchian Moghaddam, R., et al. Consensus building in open source user interface design discussions. CHI, 2012, 1491--1500.

Digital Library

[36]

Zilouchian Moghaddam, R., et al. Ideatracker: an interactive visualization supporting collaboration and consensus building in online interface design discussions. INTERACT, 2011, 259--276.

Digital Library

Cited By

Berkel NPohl H(2024)Collaborating with Bots and Automation on OpenStreetMapACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction10.1145/366532631:3(1-30)Online publication date: 17-May-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3665326
Zhang QPark SMuller MKarger D(2024)"How fancy you are to make us use your fancy tool": Coordinating Individuals' Tool Preference over Group BoundariesProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36330698:GROUP(1-31)Online publication date: 16-Feb-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3633069
Son KChoi DKim TKim J(2024)Demystifying Tacit Knowledge in Graphic Design: Characteristics, Instances, Approaches, and GuidelinesProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3613904.3642886(1-18)Online publication date: 11-May-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3613904.3642886
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Procid: Bridging Consensus Building Theory with the Practice of Distributed Design Discussions
1. Human-centered computing
  1. Human computer interaction (HCI)

Recommendations

ConsensUs: Supporting Multi-Criteria Group Decisions by Visualizing Points of Disagreement

Groups often face difficulty reaching consensus. For complex decisions with multiple criteria, verbal and written discourse alone may impede groups from pinpointing and moving past fundamental disagreements. To help support consensus building, we ...
ConsesnsUs: Visualizing Points of Disagreement for Multi-Criteria Collaborative Decision Making
CSCW '17 Companion: Companion of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing

Groups often face difficulty reaching consensus. For complex decisions with multiple latent criteria, discourse alone may impede groups from pinpointing fundamental disagreements. To help support a consensus building process, we introduce ConsensUs, a ...
A Study on Consensus Building Mechanism Based on Kansei ~Consideration of Experimental Tasks that Cause Conflicts~
Human-Computer Interaction. Theoretical Approaches and Design Methods
Abstract
We are engaged in a variety of consensus-building activities in our daily lives. In order to build consensus, it is necessary to reach a single conclusion unanimously. Therefore, if there are conflicting opinions, they need to be resolved. To deal ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences

CSCW '15: Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing

February 2015

1956 pages

ISBN:9781450329224

DOI:10.1145/2675133

General Chairs:
Dan Cosley
Cornell University, USA
,
Andrea Forte
Drexel University, USA
,
Program Chairs:
Luigina Ciolfi
Sheffield Hallam University, UK
,
David McDonald
University of Washington, USA

Copyright © 2015 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

Sponsors

SIGCHI: ACM Special Interest Group on Computer-Human Interaction

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 28 February 2015

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Conference

CSCW '15

Sponsor:

SIGCHI

CSCW '15: Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing

March 14 - 18, 2015

BC, Vancouver, Canada

Acceptance Rates

CSCW '15 Paper Acceptance Rate 161 of 575 submissions, 28%;

Overall Acceptance Rate 2,235 of 8,521 submissions, 26%

Upcoming Conference

CSCW '25

Sponsor:
sigchi

Computer-Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing

October 18 - 22, 2025

Bergen , Norway

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

33
Total Citations
View Citations
459
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)56
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)5

Reflects downloads up to 24 Dec 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Berkel NPohl H(2024)Collaborating with Bots and Automation on OpenStreetMapACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction10.1145/366532631:3(1-30)Online publication date: 17-May-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3665326
Zhang QPark SMuller MKarger D(2024)"How fancy you are to make us use your fancy tool": Coordinating Individuals' Tool Preference over Group BoundariesProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36330698:GROUP(1-31)Online publication date: 16-Feb-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3633069
Son KChoi DKim TKim J(2024)Demystifying Tacit Knowledge in Graphic Design: Characteristics, Instances, Approaches, and GuidelinesProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3613904.3642886(1-18)Online publication date: 11-May-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3613904.3642886
Khadpe PLe LNowak KIqbal SSuh J(2024)DISCERN: Designing Decision Support Interfaces to Investigate the Complexities of Workplace Social Decision-Making With Line ManagersProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3613904.3642685(1-18)Online publication date: 11-May-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3613904.3642685
Kale ALiu DAyala MSchwab HMcNutt A(2024)What Can Interactive Visualization Do for Participatory Budgeting in Chicago?IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics10.1109/TVCG.2024.345634331:1(415-425)Online publication date: 9-Sep-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1109/TVCG.2024.3456343
Baumer EJasim MSarvghad AMahyar N(2022)Of Course it's Political! A Critical Inquiry into Underemphasized Dimensions in Civic Text VisualizationComputer Graphics Forum10.1111/cgf.1451841:3(1-14)Online publication date: 12-Aug-2022
https://doi.org/10.1111/cgf.14518
Arnould MEnjolras MCamargo M(2022)Designing a group decision-making tool under Living Lab project mode: The case of ConsensUs2022 IEEE 28th International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation (ICE/ITMC) & 31st International Association For Management of Technology (IAMOT) Joint Conference10.1109/ICE/ITMC-IAMOT55089.2022.10033130(1-10)Online publication date: 19-Jun-2022
https://doi.org/10.1109/ICE/ITMC-IAMOT55089.2022.10033130
Jasim MHoque ESarvghad AMahyar N(2021)CommunityPulse: Facilitating Community Input Analysis by Surfacing Hidden Insights, Reflections, and PrioritiesProceedings of the 2021 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference10.1145/3461778.3462132(846-863)Online publication date: 28-Jun-2021
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3461778.3462132
Kim TGoyal NKim JKim JHong S(2021)Supporting Collaborative Sequencing of Small Groups through Visual AwarenessProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/34492505:CSCW1(1-29)Online publication date: 22-Apr-2021
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3449250
Horváth IScully ZVan Houdt B(2019)Mean Field Analysis of Join-Below-Threshold Load Balancing for Resource Sharing ServersProceedings of the ACM on Measurement and Analysis of Computing Systems10.1145/33667053:3(1-21)Online publication date: 17-Dec-2019
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3366705
Show More Cited By

View Options

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents