Group Decision Making and Recommender Systems Sample Clauses

Group Decision Making and Recommender Systems. Requirements engineering is considered as one of the most critical phases in a software development process and poorly implemented requirements and related decisions both constitute a major source of project failure [Xxxxxxx and Xxxxxx 2001]. Requirements can be considered as a verbalization of different decision alternatives related to the functionality of a software system. Basic types of decisions to be taken within the scope of a software project are the following [Xxxxxxx et al. 2001]: ● Quality decisions, e.g., is the requirement understandable? ● Preference decisions, e.g., which requirements should be assigned to which release? [Xxxx 2005] ● Classification decisions, e.g., which stakeholders should be responsible for the quality assurance of a specific requirement? ● Property decisions, e.g., what is a realistic estimate of the implementation effort related to a specific requirement? Decision making tasks in software projects become increasingly difficult due to the increasing size and complexity of the underlying processes and artefacts. As a consequence, recommendation and decision technologies are needed that help to ensure high-quality decisions which are a major precondition for successful businesses [Felfernig et al. 2010]. Since many requirements-related decisions are taken in groups, this aspect has also to be taken into account on the level of decision support tools. Existing group decision support in requirements engineering focuses on different types of discussion forums and decision support based on static preferences of individual group members [Xxxxxx et al. 2014]. Basic preference aggregation mechanisms help to somehow summarize the current preference levels of group members but in now way take into account the current status of a group decision process in a holistic fashion. For example some group members could be extremely disappointed with the current prioritization since they know that crucial business processes are not taken into account and - as a direct consequence - potential profits are lost. It could also be the case that risky decisions are taken which significantly increase the probability of project failure. Summarizing, the major challenges in the context of group decision making are to take into account in an adequate fashion the preferences of individual group members (stakeholders), to be able to determine preferences of stakeholders in an intelligent fashion (e.g., on the basis of analyzing discussion forums and exp...
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to Group Decision Making and Recommender Systems

  • CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION This agreement formalizes the mechanism that may be used by the City to transfer civil rights complaints to the Iowa Civil Rights Commission for investigation. ICRC will compensate the City for acting as the intake agent under this agreement. The City and ICRC have maintained this arrangement for several years. Transferring this time- consuming investigation responsibility to the ICRC will allow the Ames Human Relations Commission more time to devote to proactive educational projects in the community. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt Alternative No. 1, as described above.

  • Shared Decision Making 33-1 Purpose The purpose of a shared decision making program is to create an atmosphere in which decision making is a collegial, shared, process that fosters an exchange of ideas and information necessary for effective professional practice and for improved student performance. The Association and District agree to continue pursuing jointly the implementation of legitimately recognized school councils as a foundation of a shared decision-making program. All provisions of this Agreement shall continue to be in full force and effect throughout the process.

  • Conclusion and Recommendations D. Evaluations for Offenders without a sex offense conviction shall answer the following additional referral questions in the evaluations:

  • Manufacturer's Recommendations All work or materials shall be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations and requirements. The Contractor shall obtain the manufacturer’s recommendations and requirements, for its use at the Site in executing the Work, copies of bulletins, circulars, catalogues, or other publications bearing the manufacturer’s titles, numbers, editions, dates, etc. If the manufacturer’s recommendations and requirements are not available, the Contractor shall request installation instructions from the Design Professional.

  • Hiring Decisions Contractor shall make the final determination of whether an Economically Disadvantaged Individual referred by the System is "qualified" for the position.

  • Conclusions and Recommendations The demonstration and evaluation process provided an opportunity to test community specific tools with a range of end users from the memory institution domain and to gain greater insight into both the current and future evolution of the SHAMAN prototypes for preservation, access and re-use. Xxxx et al. (2000) in their user evaluation study of the Alexandria Digital Library which incorporated the evaluation of a Web prototype by earth scientists, information specialists and educators raised four key questions in relation to their findings that SHAMAN may be well advised to consider, they are paraphrased here with our conclusions from the investigations. What have we learned about our target organizations and potential users?  Memory institutions are most definitely not a homogenised group; their needs and requirements differ greatly across the domain.  Representatives of the archives community are agreed on the benefits of SHAMAN‟s authenticity validation function.  The representatives of government information services remained unconvinced as to the need or benefit of grid technologies or distributed ingest while librarians saw the value of grid access as an asset of the framework. What have we learned about the evaluation approach for digital preservation?  Within the limits of the exercise, in terms of time-frame and resources, the approach adopted has generated useful information for the further development of demonstrators and for the development of the SHAMAN framework overall. What have we learned about the SHAMAN ISP1 demonstrator?  Respondents to the evaluation questionnaires and the focus groups indicate that, overall, the presentation of the demonstrator worked effectively and that, in general, participants in the demonstration and evaluation events were able to understand the intentions of the demonstration and to apply the ideas presented to their own context. What have we learned about the applicability of the SHAMAN framework to memory institutions?  Respondents to the questionnaires and participants in the focus groups readily identified the value of the SHAMAN framework to their own operations. The majority had not yet established a long-term digital preservation policy, but recognized the need. Generally, the concepts of distributed ingest and grid operations found favour.  Virtually all practitioners in the focus groups, however, drew attention to need of a lower level demonstration that would be closer to their everyday preservation troubles, especially for digital preservation to be applied to non-textual materials, such as film, photographs and sound archives. In addition to the criteria suggested by Xxxx et al., we can add a further project-related question: What have we learned that has implications for the training and dissemination phase of the Project?  It was not part of the remit of the demonstration and evaluation specifically to discover information of relevance to the training and dissemination function. However, a number of factors will affect the efficacy of any training programme in particular. o First, no common understanding of digital preservation can be assumed of the potential target audiences for training. Consequently, it is likely that self-paced learning materials will be most effective in presenting the SHAMAN framework. o Secondly, the aims of SHAMAN as a project must be conveyed clearly: specifically, that it is a kind of „proof-of-concept‟ project and is not intended to deliver a package of programs capable of being implemented by institutions. o Thirdly, it needs to be emphasised that the SHAMAN framework is not limited to text documents; it can be applied to materials of all kinds. However, the demonstrations relate to bodies of material that were actually available for use. o Fourthly, the existing presentation materials are capable of being adapted for use in training activities. o Finally, the target audiences will appreciate the possibility of online access to the demonstrator, which will need to have very great ease of access in order that people with diverse backgrounds are able to use it with equal facility. We believe that, overall, WP14 has met its aims and objectives in this demonstration and evaluation of ISP1. Valuable lessons have been learnt by all parties involved, which will be transferred to the evaluation of ISP2 in the coming months.

  • Initial Decision Maker The Architect will serve as the Initial Decision Maker pursuant to Article 15 of AIA Document A201–2017, unless the parties appoint below another individual, not a party to this Agreement, to serve as the Initial Decision Maker. (If the parties mutually agree, insert the name, address and other contact information of the Initial Decision Maker, if other than the Architect.) « » « » « » « »

  • PURPOSE/JUSTIFICATION OF RECOMMENDED ACTION The purpose of the Agreement is to provide the City with the services for one full-time equivalent senior criminalist from the Department to perform DNA testing, analysis, and forensic-related consulting as requested by the City, effective July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2021. The City’s current agreement with the County for this position expires on June 30, 2016. This Agreement will not result in the creation of an additional senior criminalist position, as the position was created during the previous agreement.

  • Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) Capability The wind plant shall provide SCADA capability to transmit data and receive instructions from the ISO and/or the Connecting Transmission Owner for the Transmission District to which the wind generating plant will be interconnected, as applicable, to protect system reliability. The Connecting Transmission Owner for the Transmission District to which the wind generating plant will be interconnected and the wind plant Developer shall determine what SCADA information is essential for the proposed wind plant, taking into account the size of the plant and its characteristics, location, and importance in maintaining generation resource adequacy and transmission system reliability in its area.

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.