The Impact of a Structured‐Argument Approach on Group Problem Formulation*
通过实验室实验对比了结构化论证方法与群体过程方法在问题构建中的效果，发现前者虽耗时更多且未促进信息搜索，但能更好地覆盖关键问题并达成共识，提高满意度和承诺度。
Despite advances in decision analysis and decision support systems, few formulaic procedures exist for undertaking problem formulation, particularly in group settings. This leaves managers with little procedural support for the important task of carefully structuring problems. In a laboratory experiment of 29 intact student teams, we contrasted two problem formulation methodologies: a structured argument approach (based on application of formal reasoning) and a group process approach (based on private idea generation prior to public sharing and evaluation of ideas). The structured argument approach took more time to use and failed to bring about more information search and equivocality reduction in group discussions. On the positive side, however, the structured argument approach led to a greater combination of both coverage of critical issues and consensus on those issues. Use of the structured argument approach also resulted in higher satisfaction with the problem definition and commitment to implementing results of the group meeting. Overall, the results reveal cost/benefit tradeoffs associated with developing argumentation‐based procedures for problem formulation.