XIJIN TANG
Academy of Mathematics and Systems Science, Chinese Academy of Science
Beijing 100190, PRChina
†E-mail:xjtang@iss.ac.cn, xjtang@amss.ac.cn
This paper reviews some typical frameworks or models proposed for complex problem solving or the relevant computerized support development. Those include two decision-making models for decision support systems development (Simon’s 3-phase model and Courtney’s framework), two problem structuring approaches in strategic decision-making (strategic assumption surfacing and testing (SAST) and Wisdom process) and one model of creativity and relevant tasks for creativity software development. Such an analysis aims to explain the working philosophy of meta-synthesis approach and provide help to the construction of the practicing platform, i.e. Hall for Workshop of Meta-synthetic Engineering (HWMSE) by adopting the available technologies or developing new technologies. Finally two technologies, CorMap and iView for qualitative meta-synthesis for idea or assumptions generation for further verification and validation, are briefly addressed.
1. Introduction
Proposed by Chinese system scientist Qian, Yu and Dai (1990), the meta-synthesis system approach (MSA) is a system methodology to deal with open complex giant system (OCGS) problems with which reductionism methods have difficulties to tackle. A working philosophy of MSA can be simplified as from confident qualitative hypothesis to rigorous quantitative validation. In 1992 Qian proposed a concept - Hall of Workshop for Meta-Synthetic Engineering (HWMSE) as a platform to apply MSA (Wang, et al., 1992). The concept of HWMSE reflects the emphasis of utilization of the breaking advances in information technologies to harness the collective knowledge and creativity of diverse technical groups of experts by synthesizing data, information, quantitative models, knowledge and experiences into an interdisciplinary problem-solving process from proposing hypothesis to quantitative validating. At that time, email, newsgroup, or those Web 1.0 technologies just started to spread worldwide.
Seemingly an advanced systemic thinking, some initial demonstrations toward the power of MSA over other methods in complex system problems had been tried, where information technologies were heavily discussed and even there was saying that adoption of virtual reality was enough for a HWMSE. Those sayings really led to doubtful impressions toward HWMSE in practice, especially to those people who were expecting a breakthrough in system studies as system engineering had been adopted into China as a discipline for only 20 years. Besides, international peers paid little attention.
Changes happen after continuous MSA studies in recent 15 years in mainland China (Gu & Tang, 2003) with more concerns in complexity research in the 21st century. On the other hand, new understandings achieved in many domains are catalysts. International scholars started to pay attention to MSA. In this paper, several typical approaches or frameworks for complex problem solving from different disciplines are briefly reviewed to explain the working philosophy of MSA. Such an endeavor infers to integrate those relevant technologies into a HWMSE to show the power of MSA. Two qualitative meta-synthesis technologies, CorMap and iView for idea or assumptions generation for further validation, are addressed to illustrate the integration of multiple technologies.
2. Diverse Frameworks or Approaches for unstructured or Complex Problem Solving from Decision-making Perspective
In this section, some typical frameworks or approaches proposed for different objectives are briefly addressed to show their relevance to MSA and its practicing platform. Those include two decision-making models for decision support systems development (Simon’s 3-phase model and Courtney’s framework), two problem structuring approaches for strategic decision-making (strategic assumption surfacing and testing (SAST) and Wisdom process proposed by UK researchers) and one for creativity support software development A simple summary is given to show their attributions to MSA.
2.1. Simon’s Decision-Making Model and Decision Support Systems
Simon (1977) has distinguished 2 extreme situations regarding structuredness of decision problems the programmed and the nonprogrammed. The nonprogrammed problems are novel and noncurrent which are of such poor structures and then difficult to be solved directly using a simple computer program without human’s intervention. In late 1960s DSS was proposed initially as a computer system to support semi-structured or unstructured problems during a decision making process defined by Simon as the intelligence-design-choice 3-phase process. Later implementation was added as the 4th phase. Till now, DSS is regarded as a big umbrella to include many computerized tools or systems to support different tasks during diverse decision making processes. The trend of DSS is sensed based on the advances achieved about those fundamental components of a DSS, i.e. data, model, knowledge and interface, as shown in Table 1 by Tang (2003).
Table 1.A glimpse of DSS development (Tang, 2003)
DSS Components Development Highlight
Data System Data warehouses, OLAP, data mining, web-based DSS
Model System Optimization-based; Modeling paradigms
Interface / Technology Visualization, Personalized/Customized Application, Intelligent Agents
Knowledge System Intelligent Systems; knowledge management; knowledge creation
Decision-making models Simon’s Model; Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis; Problem structuring methods, System approaches
In comparison with those big progress achieved toward the four fundamental components of DSS, the achievements of decision making model are unparalleled with the digital revolution. Actually among those problems faced along DSS development, “people problems”, which may refer to human’s limited capacity in cognition, subjective prejudice and world views, and belief in experts, are key problems instead of those technology-related problems (Carlsson & Turban, 2001). The diversity of those human problems brings or increases uncertainties to decision making process. Even those uncertainties may enable a structured problem into ill or unstructured problem.
A large category of DSS for group work is not listed in Table 1. Groupware, group DSS, CSCW, computer mediated communication (CMC) system and even some knowledge management tools belong to this category. These tools mainly support group activities for communication, collaboration and consensus building. So does the collaborationware. The spectacular emergence of the Internet enables unprecedented opportunities for such kind of group work. Emails, instant messaging, chat rooms, blogs, wikis, etc. bring more information, while also lead to information overload. Simon differentiated rationality as substantive rationality and procedural rationality, and "opposed procedural rationality - the rationality that takes into account the limitations of the decision maker in terms of information, cognitive capacity and attention – to substantive rationality, which is not limited to satisfying, but rather aims at fully optimized solutions" (Pomerrol & Adam, 2006). Since the mid of 1990s, GSS has become popular than GDSS as more foci go to the group working process instead of only the final results of group decision-making, a reflection of emphasis of the procedural rationality, or support for argumentation and sense-making during problem structuring. Those support tools are based on different problem structuring methods.
2.2. Frameworks for Strategic Problem Solving
Here two frameworks are reviewed, one is proposed by US scholars, another from UK.
2.2.1. Strategic Assumption Surfacing& Testing (SAST)
Developed by Mason and Mitroff (1981), SAST is a process which reveals the underlying assumptions of a policy or plan and helps create a map for exploring them. SAST incorporates the following principles: adversarial, participative, integrative, and managerial mind supporting which are employed throughout the five phases of the SAST process, group formulation, assumption surfacing and rating, within-group dialectic debate, between-groups dialectic debate, and final synthesis. Then, some other system approaches, such as soft system methodology, critical systems heuristics, etc. could be applied to enable or facilitate assumptions surfacing and dialectic debates, and bring out a multi-perspective modeling together with relevant tools for comprehensive explorations (Fig.1).
Along the system rethinking tide, there have been a variety of soft system approaches, including soft OR methods to deal with unstructured problems, especially those complex societal problems since 1980s (Flood & Jackson, 1991; Rosenhead & Mingers, 2001). Those approaches also provide rationales of decision support systems (Mackenzie, et al., 2006; Tang, 2007). Lots of relevant tools had already been explored, such as QuestMap (IbIS based, now as Compendium) for dialogue mapping approach to deal with social complexity (Conklin, et al. 2001), Decision Explorer and Group Explorer based on strategic options development and analysis (SODA) (Eden & Auckman, 2001), etc. There is a trend to apply multiple methods on strategic decision making and then bring new approaches. Wisdom is such a result.
2.2.2. Wisdom Process
Proposed by scholars at University of Lancaster, Wisdom process as shown in Fig. 2 facilitates session includes brainstorming, cognitive mapping and dialogue mapping along the strategic problem solving process (Mackenzie, et al., 2006). The cognitive mapping phase provides a macro view of the problem discussed by the group and the dialog mapping phase helps the group develop consistent micro views.
Those tools actually are based on specific cognitive or metal models about group thinking or decision making. Recently support to facilitate, expand, or enhance one's ability to work with one or more kinds of knowledge, from which to make some senses, distill insights or gain knowing, etc. has been drawn more attentions, especially as Web 2.0 becomes a popular term and is expected for better job of harnessing the vast collective intelligence potentially available. Klein and Iandol (2008) report a study using Collaboratorium, same as QuestMap. The researchers argue that current open-source/peer-production (OSPP) technology is not capable of collaborative deliberation, since the coverage of a topic is created bottom-up and then generally unsystematic. That kind of technology is more time-based, while collaborative deliberation requires logic-based postings. Such a study again tells the differences between two categories of support tools for group work addressed in Tang (2007). The practice of those tools based on soft OR methods or IBIS-methodology for collaborative work helps to gain structures of unstructured problems while sacrifice freedom of wild thinking and then may lead to loss of novel ideas, the typical disadvantages of consensus built top-down.
Obviously, the diversity of problem structuring methods can not explained well by Simon’s normal 3-phase model. Courtney (2001) proposed an improved one.
2.3. Courtney’s DSS Framework for wicked Problem Solving
In comparison to traditional decision-making models in a DSS context, the salient feature of the Courtney’s framework (Fig. 3) lies the step of developing multiple perspectives during problem formulation phases, where besides the technical (T), organizational (O) and personal (P) perspectives (Mitroff & Linstone, 1993), two other factors, ethical and aesthetic factors are required to be considered.
Before actions, the procedure on perspective development and synthesis may be understood as divergence and convergence of individual/group thinking. From problem recognition to the perspective development indicated as (1) in Fig. 3 is a divergent thinking process for idea generation and creative perspectives toward unstructured issues. The transfer to synthesis of perspectives as indicated as (2) is a convergent process for acquiring alternatives for choices or actions. The mental models may be regarded as problem structuring methods or cognitive models of decision making. If such a process is a collective problem solving process, then mental models may refer to collective mental models. The transition from divergent to convergent process is defined by the mental model(s). Here (1) and (2) together with mental models may be regarded as one kind of working process of MSA toward unstructured problem solving.
2.4. A brief Summary
Courtney (2001) adopted the term of “wicked” problems popular in social sciences (Rittel & Webber, 1973). Actually Rittel proposed IBIS to enable groups to decompose problems into questions, ideas and arguments to better deal with wicked problems. Such a term has also been referred by the Advanced Concept Group (ACG) founded at the Sandia National Lab after the 911 crisis. The mission of ACG is to “harness the collective knowledge and creativity of a diverse group to solve perceived future problems of importance to the national security”. From a report of a summer experiment on computer-mediated group brainstorming to show the collaborative problem solving (Sandia, 2007), we see those ACG scientists are undertaking serious experiments on the best way to solve wicked problems. Table 2 lists a brief summary of review. HWMSE is regarded as an advanced state of a DSS while humans are elements of HWMSE and play primary roles even machine systems (traditional DSS) provide intensive support.
Table 2. Problems, disciplines and paradigms for problem solving
Terms for problems Disciplines Problem solving frameworks/ methodologies Support tools
Unstructured problems Management sciences;
operation research Simon’s decision-making model; Soft OR methods or their synthesis, eg. Wisdom process DSS, GSS, etc.
Wicked problems Social sciences Courtney’s framework; IBIS, etc. DSS, GSS, etc.
Open complex giant systems Systems science Meta-synthesis system approach HWMSE
3. More about MSA and HWSME
As more in-depth research on MSA was carried out, explicit explanations of MSA, such as three types of meta-synthesis, using the case of policy making on macroeconomic problems were given for the 1st time (Yu & Tu, 2002).
3.1. A Working Process of MSA
The three types of meta-synthesis denote qualitative meta-synthesis, qualitative-quantitative meta-synthesis and meta-synthesis from qualitative understanding to quantitative validation, which actually indicates a working process of MSA to complex problem solving. Gu and Tang (2005) discussed how to achieve three types of meta-synthesis by a synchronous-asynchronous-synchronous process while each type of meta-synthesis can be achieved at the respective phase. Activities held in Synchronous Stage I denote to achieve qualitative meta-synthesis, i.e. perspective development or hypothesis generation for meta-synthetic modeling. Divergent group thinking is the main theme at that stage. Technologies oriented to acquire constructs or ideas toward the concerned problems are considered as qualitative meta-synthesis technologies. Then problem structuring methods can fulfill qualitative meta-synthesis. Those methods or the technologies such as IBIS define normative frameworks followed by the users. Then the output (such as ideas, options) are given directly by users; no further computational analysis is conducted toward those logic-based deliberation process.
The aforementioned problem structuring and relevant tools help to apply MSA and the construction of HWMSE. Next we try to understand HWMSE from creativity and its computerized support.
3.2. HWMSE - a Knowledge Creating Ba
Meta-synthetic engineering aims to take the advantages of both the human expert system in qualitative intelligence and the machine system in quantitative intelligence to generate more (new) validated knowledge stored in the knowledge system. It reflects the emphasis on human's role in problem solving process, where resolutions about unstructured problems are captured via a series of structured approximation. For unknown or new issues, we always need new ideas which may come from human's imaginary thinking, intuition and insight. Supported by creativity support tools, sparkling ideas may drop into one's mind. Creative solutions are often related with wisdom. Then HWMSE is expected to enable knowledge creation and wisdom emergence. Yu, Zhou and Feng (2005) studied the knowledge creation in macroeconomic problem solved in HWMSE.
Japanese Professor Ikujiro Nonaka proposed the theory about organizational knowledge creation where a right ba (a Japanese word) is emphasized (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). Ba is defined as a platform where knowledge is created, shared and exploited; the most important aspect of ba is interaction. The knowledge-creating process is also the process of creating ba (Nonaka, Konno & Toyama, 2001). Considering the basic ideas of HWMSE, we suppose HWMSE is a right ba for idea generation and wisdom emergence for creative solutions of the complex issues (Tang, 2007). Table 3 lists some functions of HWMSE which may be achieved via the 4 different ba’s.
Table 3. Activities in HWMSE based on knowledge-creating ba (Tang, 2007)
Activities Ba Methods and resources Supporting tools
Idea generation; confident hypothesizing; wisdom emergence Originating Ba Brainstorming, soft OR methods BBS, socialware, communityware, creativityware
Concept formulation, knowledge creating, scenario generation Dialoguing Ba Soft OR methods, problem structuring methods, KJ method, Delphi method, etc. Creativityware, groupware, collaborationware, community-ware, consensusware,
Rigorous validation (qualitative-quantitative meta-synthesis) Systematizing Ba Domain modeling methods, analytical methods Modelware, groupware
Meta-synthesis from qualitative knowledge to quantitative understanding Exercising Ba Consensus methods (nominal group technique, AHP, voting, etc.) Modelware, consensusware, collaborationware
The 1st column of Table 3 lists the activities related to different types of meta-synthesis; those activities may be carried out at different ba’s to enable knowledge conversion by using the methods or resources listed in Column 3. Possible supporting tools which can be elements of HWMSE are given in Column 4. Then to develop those supporting tools and enable their integration to fulfill those tasks or activities listed in Column 1 is a practical way to construct a HWMSE. Support for community or group work is a necessity. The technologies of HWMSE are a consensus of a variety of technologies for different tasks with different frameworks in the problem solving process.
A variety of explanations of human's creativity exist while creativityware is usually developed based on cognitive or social nature of creativity. Some extend their basis to knowledge creation model, such as SECI model, which actually indicates a qualitative meta-synthetic framework to develop the supporting tools. Shneiderman (2002) abstracted 4 activities, collect, relate, create and donate for a framework of creativity and proposed 8 specific tasks, searching, visualizing, consulting, thinking, exploring, composing, reviewing and disseminating expected to be fulfilled by creativity software to accomplish those 4 activities. Those tasks may also be applicable to Simon’s decision making process. Next two technologies CorMap and iView for qualitative meta-synthesis are briefly addressed. Each applies different computing mechanism to fulfill some of the tasks stated by Shneiderman toward the ideas created bottom-up.
4. CorMap and iView: Qualitative Meta-synthesis Technologies
Both CorMap analysis and iView analysis aim to implement qualitative meta-synthesis for confident hypothesizing. The meta-data for both technologies is of a structure as
4.1. Basic ideas of CorMap and iView Technologies
Figure 4 show the essential analytics of both technologies. Tang (2008) and Tang, Zhang and Wang (2008) present the details of mechanisms of both analytical technologies.
The CorMap analysis denotes a technology of exploratory analysis of textual data. By conducting a series of algorithms, CorMap analysis actually helps to expose the group thinking structure from one perspective. Such kind of analysis can be applied to any combination of the concerned participants and may help to “drill down” into those community thoughts to detect some existing or emerging micro community. If applied to an individual user, CorMap analysis may help to unravel personal thinking structure.
The iView analysis exposes the group or individual thinking structure from another perspective. The central concept is the iView network which denotes 3 kinds of networks, keyword network, human network and text network. Three types of text networks are built during the iView analysis. All are directed networks. The text network Type I denotes the directed link from text j to text i indicating a kind of citing the keyword which originally appears in text i. In the text network Type II, the link denotes to cite the closest text including the concerned keyword. In the text network Type III, the semantic meaning of link expands to a variety of attitudes, e.g. oppose, support, etc. instead of the citation of keywords in both Type I & II text networks. Text network may help to show how the ideas grow and spread. Different algorithms are applied to the text network Type III due to the different semantic meanings of the link, which is introduced separately.
4.2. Features of CorMap and iView for Qualitative Meta-synthesis
Either CorMap or iView analysis shows different perspectives toward the same set of data based on different mechanisms with the same aim to acquire constructs of the problems from those textual data for one topic. Both analytical technologies share common features:
• By a variety of transformations of original textural data to expose the hidden structure;
• Visualization of analyzing process to facilitate human’s understanding;
• Adoption of a series of algorithms or methods instead of application of individual one;
• Support for a problem structuring process: i) give a rough imagine of the issue; ii) draw a scenario of the issue using clustering analysis to detect the structure; meanwhile, an optimal of clusters is achieved; iii) extract concepts from clusters of ideas. Thus, a category of concepts instead of a mess of diverse ideas is acquired step by step;
• Facilitation of human-machine collaboration. Each step leaves rooms to facilitate analysts’ direct manipulations and results’ visualization.
Both technologies can be applied to qualitative meta-synthesis to wicked problems. Due to different mechanisms of each technology, one may be more effective to human’s understanding at one time. It is the human to make appropriate use of each technology during the discovery process.
4.3. Applications
Both technologies are under a gradual growth and abstraction as exploited to a variety of mining for complex problem solving.
Group thinking process mining. A group argumentation environment (GAE) has been developed to support sense-making and procedural rationality during group thinking process (Tang, Liu & Zhang, 2005; Tang & Liu, 2006; Tang, 2007).
Conference mining and on-line conferencing ba (OLCB). Results of conference mining may help to expose the main topics of the conferences, interest-sharing community and helpful for paper review assignment to overcome limited rationality. Tang & Zhang (2007) showed how to understand the topics of knowledge science based on KSS serial symposia. Tang, Liu and Zhang (2008) illustrated the mining to a scientific forum in mainland China. The results are helpful to the forum organizers to gain governmental support. Furthermore, to push such results to participants may stimulate more active participation, friends-making, etc. The concept of OLCB is then proposed and practiced at the international serial workshops on Meta-synthesis and Complex Systems since 2006 (Tang, Zhang & Wang, 2007). Tang (2009b) discussed that OLCB is a kind of HWMSE. Figure 5 shows the keyword network of iView analysis of MCS’2007.
Expert knowledge mining. A TCM Master Miner has been developed to expose the common grounds of diagnosis and treatment among the selected the traditional Chinese medicine experts to help find the schools of TCM people (Tang, Zhang & Wang, 2008).
Community mind mining. Tang (2009a) shows a successful application of both technologies, especially CorMap (Fig. 6), to social risk cognition before Beijing Olympic Games which exhibit the potentials of both technologies for social psychological study.
5. Concluding Remarks
Perplexed opinions toward MSA and HWMSE have been getting along with MSA studies since its existence, especially the focus of many initial demonstrations of HWMSE is software engineering oriented and lack of explaining how the relevant three component systems interact with each other clearly and logically. Too many details about machine system distort the understandings of the capabilities of HWMSE to show the power of collective intelligence to complex problem solving. In this paper, the meanings of MSA and HWMSE are explained by diverse paradigms relevant to unstructured or wicked problem solving and computerized creativity support. Moreover, the lengthy descriptions of those paradigms also exhibit the MSA practice itself for MSA research, which is an interdisciplinary job. From management science to systems thinking, from problem structuring to knowledge creation, from DSS to knowledge creating Ba, we try to show the fundamentals of MSA for better understanding by international peers. Technologies for HWMSE are a consensus of emergence of a variety of support for different tasks during problems-solving process based on different paradigms.
The digital revolution greatly decrease the distance between people. In recent years, technologies to facilitate group work, especially those open-source/peer-production technologies (e.g. chat rooms, wikis and blogs, etc.) enable an unprecedented explosion of information sharing which may also be regarded as one kind of information overload. The community brainstorming sessions are of eruption with vast amount of wide ideas or topics created bottom-up even unsystematic. Then problem structuring methods, such as soft OR or IBIS methodology serve as design rationale to develop technologies for logic-based collaborative deliberation. Such kind of technologies heavily rely on the defined framework which somewhat hinders wider application.
The qualitative meta-synthesis technologies CorMap and iView take another way. Both conduct exploratory analysis toward those topics or ideas created bottom-up by textual computing and enable facilitation of human-machine interaction by visualizing the analytical process in accord to human cognitive process, which reflect the thinking of those “people problems” instead of avoid of them in pursuit of advanced technologies. Four kinds of application are briefly addressed. Both technologies may be helpful to acquire useful information, such as options, which may be as the start point during a collaborative deliberation facilitated by the Web 2.0 tools.
References
Carlsson, C. and Turban, E. (2001) “Introduction of a special issue on DSS: directions for the next decade”, Decision Support Systems, 33(1): 105–110.
Conklin, J., et al. (2001) “Facilitated hypertext for collective sensemaking: 15 years on from IBIS”, in Proc. of the 12th ACM Conference on Hypertext & Hypermedia: 123-124, Arbus, Denmark, ACM.
Courtney, J. F. (2001) “Decision making and knowledge management in inquiring organization: towards a new decision-making paradigm for DSS”, Decision Support Systems, 31(1): 17-38.
Eden, C. and Ackermann, F. (2001) “SODA - the principles”, in Rosenhead, I. and Mingers, J. eds. Rational Analysis for a Problematic World Revisited (2nd ed.): 21-41. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Flood, R.L. and Jackson, M. C. (1991) Creative Problem Solving: total Systems Intervention. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Gu, J. F. and Tang, X. J. (2003) “Some developments in the studies of meta-synthesis system approach”, Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering, 12(2): 171-189.
Gu, J. F. and Tang, X. J. (2005) “Meta-synthetic approach to complex system modeling,” European Journal of Operational Research, 166:597-614.
Klein M. and Iandol, L. (2008) “Supporting collaborative deliberation using a large-scale argumentation system: the MIT Collaboratorium”, in the proceedings of the 11th Symposium on Directions and Implications of Advanced Computing (DIAC’2008): 5-12. http://www.publicsphereproject.org/events/diac08/
Mackenzie, A. et al., (2006) “Wisdom, decision support and paradigms of decision Making,” European Journal of Operational Research, 170(1): 156-171.
Mason, R. O. and Mitroff, I. I. (1981) Challenging Strategic Planning Assumptions: Theory, Cases and Techniques, New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Mitroff, I. I. and Linstone, H. A. (1993) The Unbounded Mind, New York: Oxford University Press.
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995) Knowledge Creating Company, New York: Oxford University Press.
Nonaka, I., Konno, N. and Toyama, R. (2001) “Emergence of ‘Ba’”, in Nonaka, I. and Nishiguchi T. eds. Knowledge Emergence: 13-29, New York: Oxford University Press.
Pomerrol, J.-C. and Adam, F. (2006) “On the legacy of Herbert Simon and his contribution to decision-making support systems and artificial intelligence”, in Gupta, J., Forgionnne, G. and Mora, M. eds. Intelligent Decision-Making Support Systems (i-DMSS): Foundations, Applications and Challenges: 25-44, London: Springer-Verlag.
Qian, X. S., Yu, J. Y. and Dai, R.W. (1990) “A new discipline of science - the study of open complex giant system and its methodology”, Nature Magazine, 13(1):3-10 (in Chinese, the English translation was published in Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics, 4(2): 2-12, 1993)
Rittel, H. and Webber, M. (1973) “Dilemmas in a general theory of planning”, Policy Sciences, 4:155-169.
Rosenhead, I. and Mingers, J. eds. (2001), Rational Analysis for a Problematic World Revisited, 2nd ed. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Sandia, “Sandia research team studies best way to solve wicked problems”, November 27, 2007. http://www.sandia.gov/news/resources/releases/2007/wickedproblems.html
Shneiderman, B. (2002) “Creativity Support Tools”, Communications of the ACM, 45(10): 116-120.
Simon, H. (1977) The New Science of Management Decisions Rev. ed., Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Tang, X. J. (2003) “Towards meta-synthetic support to unstructured problem solving”, in Chen, G.Y., et al. (eds.), Proc. of the 4th International Conference on Systems Science and Systems Engineering: 203-209, Hong Kong: Global-Link.
Tang, X. J. (2007) “Towards meta-synthetic support to unstructured problem solving”, International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 6(3): 491-508.
Tang, X. J. (2008) “Approach to detection of community's consensus and interest”, in: Ishikawa, Y., et al. (eds.) APWeb’2008 Workshops. LNCS 4977: 17-29, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
Tang, X. J. (2009a) “Qualitative meta-synthesis techniques for analysis of public opinions for in-depth study”, in: Zhou, J. (ed.): the proceedings of 1st International ICST Conference on Complex Sciences: Theory and Applications (Complex’2009), Part II, LNICST 5:2338-2353, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
Tang, X. J. (2009b) “Cases of HWMSE”, in Shi. Y. et al. (eds.) Cutting-Edge Research Topics on Multiple Criteria Decision Making (proceedings of MCDM 2009) CCIS 35: 228-235, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
Tang, X. J. and Liu, Y. J. (2006) “Computerized support for qualitative meta-synthesis as perspective development for complex problem solving”, in: Adam, F., et al. (eds.) proceedings of IFIP WG 8.3 International Conference on Creativity and Innovation in Decision Making and Decision Support: 432-448, London: Decision Support Press, 2006.
Tang, X. J. and Zhang, Z. W. (2007) “How knowledge science is studied - a vision from conference mining of the relevant knowledge science symposia”, International Journal of Knowledge and Systems Sciences, 4(4): 51-60.
Tang, X. J., Liu, Y. J. and Zhang, W. (2005) “Computerized support for idea generation during knowledge creating process”, in: Khosla, R., Howlett, R.J. and Jain, L.C. (eds.) Knowledge-Based Intelligent Information & Engineering Systems (proceedings of KES’2005, Part IV), LNAI 3684: 437-443, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
Tang, X. J., Liu, Y. J. and Zhang, W. (2008) “Augmented analytical exploitation of a scientific forum”, in: Iwata, S., et al. (eds.) Communications and Discoveries from Multidisciplinary Data, Studies in Computational Intelligence 123: 65-79, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
Tang, X. J., Zhang, N. and Wang, Z. (2007) “Augmented support for knowledge sharing by academic conferences - on-line conferencing Ba,” in the proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Wireless Communications, Networking and Mobile Computing (WiCOM’2007): 6400-6403.
Tang, X. J., Zhang, N. and Wang, Z. (2008) “Exploration of TCM masters knowledge mining,” Journal of Systems Science and Complexity, 21(1):34-45.
Wang, S. Y., et al. (1996) Open Complex Giant System. Hangzhou: Zhejiang Science and Technology Press. (in Chinese)
Yu, J. Y. and Tu, Y. J. (2002) “Meta-synthesis - study of case”, Systems Engineering - Theory and Practice, 22(5):1-7. (in Chinese)
Yu, J.Y., Zhou, X. J. and Feng, S. (2005) “Man-machine collaborated knowledge creation in HWMSE”, Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering, 14(4): 462-475.
沒有留言:
張貼留言