The idea for an Initiative on Collaborative Spatial Decision-Making (CSDM)
first arose from discussions between Armstrong and Densham. They had worked
together on various elements of the research agenda for Initiative 6 (Spatial
Decision Support Systems) and saw the need to move the focus of decision
support research from individuals to groups as a natural outgrowth from
Initiative 6.
The general objective of a specialist meeting is to develop and refine a
research agenda by:
- refining the dimensions of the research area, the state of current
knowledge, and the important research issues within it;
- identifying and prioritizing those research issues which should be
addressed by the NCGIA within the time-frame of the initiative; and
- identifying ways in which the NCGIA's efforts can be integrated with other
work in the field, including joint research, exchange of personnel, and
mechanisms for the dissemination of findings.
Five major objectives for
Initiative 17 were stated in Densham and Armstrong's proposal to the NCGIA's
Board of Directors (Appendix C):
- examine the body of theory on the design, implementation and use of
computer supported cooperative work (CSCW) environments and evaluate its
utility for GIS/GIA;
- identify impediments to the development of highly interactive,
group-based spatial modeling and decision-making environments;
- develop methods for eliciting, capturing and manipulating knowledge
bases that support individual and collective development of alternative
solutions to spatial problems;
- develop methods for supporting collaborative spatial
decision-making (CSDM), including methods for managing spatial models; and
- extend capabilities for supporting multicriteria decision-making in
interactive, CSDM environments.
During preparations for the Specialist
Meeting, Armstrong and Densham have published papers on various aspects of CSDM
(see Section 5) and they both participated in a NATO Advanced Research
Workshop, entitled Cognitive Aspects of Human-Computer Interaction for
Geographic Information Systems, that addressed some research issues for
CSDM. Held in Palma de Mallorca, Spain, during March of 1994, this meeting was
organized by Timothy Nyerges - a member of Initiative 17's Steering Committee.
In consultation with the Steering Committee, the initiative leaders refined
their initial objectives and five cross-cutting research topics were identified
as potential topics for discussion during the Specialist Meeting:
- The development of a metaplanning capability: methods to elicit, capture
and manipulate knowledge bases that support individual and collective
development of alternative solutions to spatial problems.
- The design and implementation of methods to improve decision-makers'
interaction with spatial analysis tools, including modelbase management
systems, visualization and display tools, and group-based user interfaces.
- The provision of mechanisms that enable decision-makers to evaluate
alternative solutions to a problem.
- The identification, selection and incorporation of methods for resolving
spatial conflicts in interactive, CSDM environments, including multicriteria
decision-making.
- The characterization of CSDM processes, including but not limited to the
specification of task models in various domains such as environmental,
transportation, natural resource, economic development, emergency management,
and other high priority subject domains; and investigations which elucidate the
use of CSDM technology in various CSDM subject domains.
These themes were
made public when an open call for participation was issued during March of 1995
(Appendix D).
The organizers sought to bring together a wide range of researchers from
academia as well as from the public and private sectors. In particular, the
organizers encouraged the participation of researchers with interests in
linkages between GIS and group-based decision-making, researchers with
international links and researchers who could provide specific examples of the
strengths and weaknesses of GIS in CSDM research.
Fifteen of the external participants were affiliated with universities in 5
countries (US, Canada, UK, Germany and Switzerland). Two of the participants
work for US private corporations (one of these has recently moved to an
academic position, but retains a part-time relationship with his prior
employer). Three participants work for US public sector agencies. Two
additional international participants (David Grimshaw, UK, and Paul Hendriks,
the Netherlands) were not able to attend at the last minute, but as their
position papers were included in the set reviewed by others they are included
in Appendix E. Furthermore, Mike Batty, one of the Steering Committee, had
last minute demands that prevented him from attending the meeting.
A total of five NCGIA faculty, students and staff attended the meeting: one
member of faculty, one research staff member, and two graduate students from
UCSB, plus one research staff member from NCGIA Maine. NCGIA participants
represented departments of geography and spatial information engineering and
science; in addition, Professors Helen Couclelis and Waldo Tobler from NCGIA
Santa Barbara attended for portions of the meeting.
Formal preparation for the specialist meeting began in July of 1993 when Paul
Densham and Marc Armstrong made a proposal to the NCGIA Board, meeting in
Buffalo. A revised and expanded proposal for Approval in Principle was
submitted to the Board at their meeting in December, 1993, and Approval in
Detail was granted in July, 1994.
An open call for the meeting was distributed during April, 1995, to several
news-groups (comp.infosystems.gis, comp.groupware, bit.listserv.geograph,
news.announce.conferences). Potential attendees were asked to submit a three
to five-page position paper and a brief biographical sketch by June
1st, 1995. Each paper was reviewed by the Initiative leaders and
members of the steering committee. The position papers were posted on the
NCGIA WWW server (http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu) and participants were asked to
read the papers before arriving in Santa Barbara for the specialist meeting.
Participants were not asked to prepare a formal presentation for the meeting;
instead, they were asked to prepare for a mixture of plenary and small working
group sessions by reading the position papers submitted by the other
participants and considering these in light of their own particular areas of
expertise. Appendix B contains the meeting schedule. The small working groups
discussed issues identified in the plenary sessions. Each group focused on a
different issue, or set of issues, and participants chose the one they
attended. The self-selection process for these groups worked well, with most
of the groups having a balanced membership. Each group selected a spokesperson
to report their discussions and findings to the larger group. To help present
their results, participants had access to DOS and Macintosh word-processors,
laser printers, overhead transparencies, and other, more traditional display
media and materials. After the first morning, plenary sessions were devoted to
working groups' reports and discussion of them. Each plenary session was
chaired by a meeting participant to help direct the form and content of the
session and to prevent the initiative leaders from unduly guiding the
discussion.
Go forward to Section 4
Go back to Table of Contents
Posted March 3, 1996
Comments to Karen Kemp