Issue-based information system

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

detail of a Tree of Knowledge after Diderot & d'Alembert's Encyclopédie, by Chrétien Frédéric Guillaume Roth
Information mapping
Topics and fields
Node–link approaches
See also

The issue-based information system (IBIS) is an

Diagrammatic visualization using IBIS notation is often called issue mapping.[2]
: ix 

IBIS was invented by Werner Kunz and Horst Rittel in the 1960s. According to Kunz and Rittel, "Issue-Based Information Systems (IBIS) are meant to support coordination and planning of political decision processes. IBIS guides the identification, structuring, and settling of issues raised by problem-solving groups, and provides information pertinent to the discourse."[1]

Subsequently, the understanding of planning and design as a process of argumentation (of the designer with himself or with others) has led to the use of IBIS in design rationale,[3][4] where IBIS notation is one of a number of different kinds of rationale notation.[5] The simplicity of IBIS notation, and its focus on questions, makes it especially suited for representing conversations during the early exploratory phase of problem solving, when a problem is relatively ill-defined.[6]: 204 

The basic structure of IBIS is a graph. It is therefore quite suitable to be manipulated by computer, as in a graph database.[7]

Overview

The elements of IBIS are: issues (questions that need to be answered), each of which are associated with (answered by) alternative positions (possible answers or ideas), which are associated with arguments which support or object to a given position; arguments that support a position are called "pros", and arguments that object to a position are called "cons".[1][8] In the course of the treatment of issues, new issues come up which are treated likewise.[9][10]

IBIS elements are usually represented as

directed edges (arrows).[11]

Issue-based information system (IBIS) rhetorical rules diagram that has three nodes (circles labeled "issue", "position", "argument") connected by directed edges (arrows) that show which nodes are permitted to lead to other nodes in IBIS notation
IBIS as typically used has three basic elements (or kinds of nodes, labeled "issue", "position", "argument") and a limited set of ways that the nodes may be connected.[7]: 305  Issues (questions) can be associated with any node. Positions (answers) can be associated only with issues. Arguments can be associated with positions but not with questions.

In 1988,

another higher-level problem, the argumentative approach also increases the likelihood that someone will attempt to attack the problem from this point of view. Another desirable characteristic of the Issue-Based Information System is that it helps to make the design process 'transparent'. Transparency here refers to the ability of observers as well as participants to trace back the process of decision-making.[3]

IBIS notation has been used, along with function analysis diagram (FAD) notation, as an aid for root cause analysis.[12][13]

Issue mapping

IBIS notation is used in issue mapping,[2]: ix  an argument visualization technique closely related to argument mapping.[6] An issue map aims to comprehensively diagram the rhetorical structure of a conversation (or a series of conversations) as seen by the participants in the conversation, as opposed to an ideal conceptual structure such as, for example, a causal loop diagram, flowchart, or structure chart.[2]: 264 

Simple issue-mapping example using issue-based information system (IBIS) notation that forms a directed acyclic graph of 13 IBIS nodes (circles labeled "issue", "position", "argument") and directed edges (arrows)
This graph shows a simple issue-mapping example using IBIS notation with icons. Many other configurations are possible within the restrictions of IBIS rhetorical rules, and issue maps can expand indefinitely.

Dialogue mapping

Issue mapping is the basis of a meeting

facilitation technique called dialogue mapping.[14][15][16] In dialogue mapping, a person called a facilitator uses IBIS notation to record a group conversation, while it is happening, on a "shared display" (usually a video projector). The facilitator listens to the conversation, and summarizes the ideas mentioned in the conversation on the shared display using IBIS notation, and if possible "validates" the map often by checking with the group to make sure each recorded element accurately represents the group's thinking.[16] Dialogue mapping, like a few other facilitation methods, has been called "nondirective" because it does not require participants or leaders to agree on an agenda or a problem definition.[17] Users of dialogue mapping have reported that dialogue mapping, under certain conditions, can improve the efficiency of meetings by reducing unnecessary redundancy and digressions in conversations, among other benefits.[16][18]

A dialogue map does not aim to be as formal as, for example, a

multi-criteria decision making.[20][21][22][23]

History

Graphical IBIS in Compendium (software)

Rittel's interest lay in the area of public policy and planning, which is also the context in which he and his colleagues defined wicked problems.[24] So it is no surprise that Kunz and Rittel envisaged IBIS as the "type of information system meant to support the work of cooperatives like governmental or administrative agencies or committees, planning groups, etc., that are confronted with a problem complex in order to arrive at a plan for decision".[1]

When Kunz and Rittel's paper was written, there were three manual, paper-based IBIS-type systems in use—two in government agencies and one in a university.[1][25]

A renewed interest in IBIS-type systems came about in the following decade, when advances in technology made it possible to design relatively inexpensive, computer-based IBIS-type systems.

Toulmin model of argumentation in "a hypertext-based authoring tool for argumentative texts".[30] In the 1990s, architecture researchers experimented with enhancing IBIS with a fuzzy reasoning system.[31][32]

Several other graphical IBIS-type systems were developed once it was realised that such systems facilitated collaborative design and

Microsoft SharePoint is called Glyma.[2]: 290  Similar tools which do not rely on a database for storage include DRed (Design Rationale editor)[35] and designVUE.[36]

Since the mid-2000s, there has been a renewed interest in IBIS-type systems, particularly in the context of sensemaking and collaborative problem solving in a variety of social and technical contexts.[2][37][6][38][39] Of particular note is the facilitation method called dialogue mapping which uses the IBIS notation to map out a design (or any other) dialogue as it evolves.[15][16]

In 2021, researchers reported that IBIS notation is used in D-Agree, a discussion support platform with artificial intelligence–based facilitation.[40] The discussion trees in D-Agree, inspired by IBIS, contain a combination of four types of elements: issues, ideas, pros, and cons.[40][41] The software extracts a discussion's structure in real time based on IBIS, automatically classifying all the sentences.[40][41]

See also

References

  1. ^
    OCLC 5065959
    . 131.
  2. ^
    S2CID 28008938
    . Retrieved 24 February 2016.
  3. ^
    Association for Computer Aided Design in Architecture, University of Michigan
    , October 1988.
  4. ^
    OCLC 68629169
    . Retrieved 24 February 2016.
  5. OCLC 24871337. Also available as: Technical Report EPC-91-114, Rank Xerox EuroPARC
    .
  6. ^
    OCLC 767703320
    .
  7. ^
    S2CID 2609461
    . Retrieved 26 May 2017.
  8. ^ Awati, Kailash (8 July 2009). "The what and whence of issue-based information systems". eight2late.wordpress.com. Retrieved 24 February 2016.
  9. ^ Awati, Kailash (7 April 2009). "Issues, Ideas and Arguments: a communication-centric approach to tackling project complexity". eight2late.wordpress.com. Retrieved 24 February 2016.
  10. ^ "The IBIS field guide: exploring complexity" (PDF). cognexus.org. CogNexus Institute. December 2010. Retrieved 15 August 2018.
  11. hdl:10852/51629
    .
  12. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2015.12.022
    .
  13. doi:10.1016/j.engfailanal.2017.08.024
    .
  14. ^ Kim, Eugene Eric (27 September 2001). "Dialog mapping: solving wicked problems". Dr. Dobb's Journal. Archived from the original on 9 December 2006. Retrieved 21 February 2023.
  15. ^
    S2CID 46267938
    . Retrieved 24 February 2016.
  16. ^
    OCLC 60491946
    . Retrieved 24 February 2016.
  17. OCLC 70659897
    .
  18. ^ "Compendium Community". compendium.open.ac.uk. Retrieved 15 August 2018.
  19. OCLC 950884495
    .
  20. OCLC 495781251
    .
  21. doi:10.1142/S0219649212500165
    .
  22. S2CID 26992976
    .
  23. medium.com
    . Retrieved 18 October 2017.
  24. S2CID 18634229
    . Retrieved 24 February 2016.
  25. OCLC 7947896
    .
  26. ^
    doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(198905)40:3<200::AID-ASI11>3.0.CO;2-U
    . Retrieved 24 February 2016.
  27. OCLC 9828460
    .
  28. OCLC 963804471
    .
  29. OCLC 26256854
    .
  30. OCLC 24908133
    .
  31. OCLC 37844085
    .
  32. doi:10.1016/S0142-694X(98)00042-8
    .
  33. ^ Davies, Stephen; Velez-Morales, Javier; King, Roger (August 2005). Building the memex sixty years later: trends and directions in personal knowledge bases (Technical report). Boulder, Colorado: Department of Computer Science, University of Colorado Boulder. CU-CS-997-05.
  34. S2CID 62679835
    .
  35. OCLC 55887578
    .
  36. OCLC 861569813
    .
  37. ^ Conklin, E. Jeffrey (June 2008). "Growing a global issue base: an issue-based approach to policy deliberation" (PDF). Paper presented to the Directions and Implications of Advanced Computing & Conference on Online Deliberation (DIAC-2008/OD-2008), June 26–29, 2008, University of California, Berkeley. Retrieved 17 October 2017.
  38. OCLC 847741769
    .
  39. S2CID 20075176
    .
  40. ^
    PMID 34054250
    .
  41. ^
    hdl:2433/277567
    .
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Issue-based_information_system&oldid=1219082956"