IBIS--a convincing concept...but a lousy instrument

{{Summary
 * title=IBIS--a convincing concept...but a lousy instrument?
 * authors=Severin Isenmann, Wolf D. Reuter
 * tags=IBIS, HyperIBIS, argumentation, CSCW,
 * summary=The main point of this paper is that there "seem to be few real world applications" of IBIS-like systems, even though such systems have proven useful in several domains for cooperative problem solving. The paper explores difficulties in using IBIS that may account for this situation.

This paper first describes IBIS and its theoretical basis in Habermas' theory of social action and Rittel's argumentative model of planning and design [17] (see citation below). Next further details about IBIS' structure and intended users are given. The authors point out that:
 * IBIS promotes "contradiction, thinking ahead, argumentation, and communication".
 * giving voice to "potentially affected people" is assumed to increase the acceptance of the decision
 * IBIS is appropriate for early design phases: "In these phases, a highly controversial debate is both useful and efficient."

Tasks IBIS is intended to support

 * communication about planning
 * "relationships and connections between classifications that are traditionally regarded as being separate"
 * focusing distributed knowledge to the problem at hand, and according to its relevance to the solution
 * discovering undesired effects of potential solutions and approaches to a problem
 * documenting the basis of decisions, while helping to make them (thus making the decision process more transparent)
 * structuring "knowledge-based forms of computer-supported cooperative work in the field of design and planning"

They next classify the aims and conditions of typical applications, pulling in examples from the literature of gIBIS, JANUS, QOC, and PHIDIAS, as well as citing without description applications in politics and administration. They observe that the given applications were about techinical aspects of particular problems being discussed by techinical specialists with similar backgrounds, in the course of doing their jobs. Another delineation made is whether participants use everyday language or formalisms.

HyperIBIS
The remainder of the paper describes HyperIBIS, a hypertext-based information system originating from IBIS.

They describe several applications:
 * 1) documentation of a completed debate
 * 2) simultaneous documentation of an ongoing debate
 * 3) supporting ongoing conversations of planning experts

Difficulties
There are four main types of difficulties, related to the underlying concepts, potential users' expectations, the method itself, and the computer setting:
 * 1) Conceptual difficulties with argumentation and discourse as a way of solving planning and design problems
 * 2) Difficulties due to incorrect expectations
 * IBIS is not a problem-solving or decision mechanism, a way to produce consent, or a retrieval system.
 * IBIS is not objective: "the majority of items in IBIS represent to a large amount opinions, suggestions, proposals for explanations, measures, products of creative acts, judgments, doubts and corroborations." However, the process of discourse is useful since positions are shared, thus becoming somewhat less subjective.
 * 1) Difficulties with the method itself
 * Some training is necessary -- entering information is harder than understanding the representations. Two difficulties were atomizing knowledge and formulating appropriate questions as "factual, instrumental, normative, and explanatory issues."
 * Representing context is difficult and a typical response is to take baby-steps: making the chain of reasoning abundandly clear. (This is a problem due to "pedantry".)
 * Subproblems are often related to one another, but IBIS is very hierarchical. Representing the consequences in several contexts is challenging.
 * How to know when the problem under consideration is solved, or when the saturation point is reached. A problem because the problem may grow in scope while under discussion.
 * 1) Computer-based problems
 * "Similar difficultim occur whenever intellectual tasks are supported by computer-based tools. For instance, they include lack of training, probl?ms of “handsomeness” of the tool, adequacy of features, limited dimension of computer screen, etc."
 * The tool and the method may be mistaken for one another, making more work later.

[17] Rittel, H. W. J. (1988). The reasoning of designers. Working Paper A-88-4, Institut fiir Grundlagen der Phmung, Stuttgart. }}
 * relevance=They highlight several distinctions which could be useful elsewhere in classifying a debate, namely:
 * degree of controversy
 * participants' commitment
 * degree of delimitation (i.e. can the purpose/objectives be discussed?)
 * degree of collective agreement
 * degree of inherent formalism (which they call the modality)
 * journal=Proceedings of the 2nd conference on Designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques
 * pub_date=1997
 * doi=10.1145/263552.263602
 * subject=Computer Science
 * pub_open_access=