IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ids/ijmdma/v1y2000i1p2-13.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The logic of a command methodology: decision conferencing reconceptualised

Author

Listed:
  • John de Reuck
  • Olive Schmidenberg
  • Des Klass

Abstract

This paper seeks to develop the theory of Decision Conferencing and thus to enhance the capability of this group decision support system. Identified as under-theorised are: (a) the idea of instrumental rationality underpinning the modelling process, (b) the role of power in groups, (c) the definition of "the group" and (d) the goals of the process. The authors discuss the problems experienced in their practice of Decision Conferencing which led to the development of their "Command Methodology", founded on the Habermasian concept of communicative rationality and a methodologically individual view of the group. This reformulation allows the issue of power to be explicitly theorised and the goals of Decision Conferencing to be redefined. The authors discuss the implications of the Command Methodology for the conduct and facilitation of Decision Conference workshops, and describe the conditions and procedures for its application.

Suggested Citation

  • John de Reuck & Olive Schmidenberg & Des Klass, 2000. "The logic of a command methodology: decision conferencing reconceptualised," International Journal of Management and Decision Making, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 1(1), pages 2-13.
    • Handle: RePEc:ids:ijmdma:v:1:y:2000:i:1:p:2-13
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.inderscience.com/link.php?id=1215
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. John De Reuck & Des Klass & Olive Schmidenberg, 2004. "Arbitrage Possibilities in Conflict Situations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 13(5), pages 437-448, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ids:ijmdma:v:1:y:2000:i:1:p:2-13. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sarah Parker (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.inderscience.com/browse/index.php?journalID=19 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.