Tools
Sorted by:
Try your query at:
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Results 1 - 10
of
110,840
Table 5: Positive and negative effects influencing group outcome quality
"... In PAGE 21: ... Moreover, some effects can be positive relative to group productivity and negative towards group outcome quality. The effects of groupware support related to group outcome quality are summarised in Table5 . A comparison between Table 4 and Table 5 shows, for example, that lower member participation control leads to higher member response time and group duration and, in consequence, to lower group productivity.... ..."
Table 4: Positive and negative effects influencing group productivity
"... In PAGE 21: ... The effects of groupware support related to group outcome quality are summarised in Table 5. A comparison between Table4 and Table 5 shows, for example, that lower member participation control leads to higher member response time and group duration and, in consequence, to lower group productivity. The same effect, though, leads to lower member stress and lower member participation, which are, respectively, positive and negative factors influencing group outcome quality.... ..."
Table 7. EC support effect on PI group outcome quality
"... In PAGE 16: ... A slight trend towards a perceived group outcome quality increase could be noticed, but the statistical strength of this trend was relatively low, particularly at MQM. As shown in Table7 , the Chi-square analysis of the distribution of perception frequencies at Waikato or MQM do not allow for the rejection of the null hypothesis (i.e.... In PAGE 16: ... The reason is because its consideration could have overstated the Ps by introducing a degree of freedom related to a perception that would typically be low in frequency. On the other hand, it can be inferred from Table7 that there was a general and statistically strong trend towards perceiving EC support as not having impacted group outcome quality negatively. At Waikato, about 72 per cent of the respondents viewed EC support as having increased or not having affected group outcome quality; at MQM, this proportion was about 66 per cent.... ..."
Table 5: Variable groups and variables for a decision support system
"... In PAGE 14: ... And we propose to include some additional variables to the conceptualisation of a health informatics decision support system. These additional variables are presented in Table5 and they are discussed in this subsection. From the variables of the Ives, Hamilton and Davis model we have left out the operation environment and operation process variables which are not today as essential to information systems.... ..."
Table 1. The key process support capabilities for asynchronous pre-meetings Selective broadcast is the capability of group support systems to distribute information to specified members of the group. In face-to-face meetings, information is broadcasted to all participants. However, in the pre-meeting stage subsets of the participants may need to communicate among themselves and may also involve people outside the core group of meeting participants (Abdat and Pervan, 1999). Selective broadcast, therefore, is one of the most significant GSS requirements in the Indonesian culture at the pre-meeting stage of strategy formulation. In certain situations it can be used to overcome the negative impacts in high power distance culture during asynchronous pre-meetings and so obviate the need for anonymity. This is the situation in which individuals want to initiate a new idea but they do not want to reveal to all participants until the idea is mature enough to be broadcasted and then become a group memory.
"... In PAGE 5: ... Abdat and Pervan, (1999) suggest that this is also likely to be the case in a dispersed and asynchronous setting. The key process support capabilities are summarised in Table1 below, along with the corresponding needs in... ..."
Table 4: The Location of the WVS-Nations within Cultural Zones
2001
"... In PAGE 16: ... For a detailed description of scale construction and data sources, see Vanhanen (1997: 42-63). 5 Factor scores for the modern libertarian value dimension which summarizes postmaterialism, tolerance toward homosexuals, signing petitions, generalized trust, and life satisfaction (all from WVS; see Table4 for a description). 6 Index developed by Klingemann (1999) from WVS.... In PAGE 20: ... Lipset, Seong, and Torres 1993). Table4 shows how we grouped the WVS-nations to cultural zones (nations with imputed data for liberty aspirations appear in bold letters). The first criterion is religious tradition, which we differentiated in a way that produces at least 8 cases in each category.... ..."
Table 2. Influences on planting behaviour and recommended support strategy (based on Herbohn et al 2005). Group Influences on planting behaviour Recommended support
in Can the lessons from the Community Rainforest Reforestation Program in eastern Australia be learned?
Table VI shows that all groups consider the understanding of national and international history and culture of low or middle importance in the formation of an actual engineer.
Table 2: Equilibrium Outcomes in the Presence of Peer-Group Effects
2002
"... In PAGE 27: ...(Insert Table2 about here.) We note that the effects of peer influence are in some ways similar to what is observed in terms of the addiction effect.... ..."
Table 1. Multiattribute Utility Analysis for Several Outcomes for Strategies 1 and 2 for a Particular Sub-Group
"... In PAGE 15: ... could also be used, depending on the situation (Morgan and Henrion, 1990). To illustrate the MUA process, Table1 shows an example multiattribute utility analysis (MUA) for a few outcomes for the two strategies from Figure 4, MeHg Potential mitigation focus (Strategy 1) and mine site Hg load reduction focus (Strategy 2), as evaluated by a hypothetical decision maker sub-group. Other sub-groups could be expected to have different results.... In PAGE 22: ...ecision tree. There are many possibilities (see, e.g., Morgan and Henrion, 1990 and Clemen, 1996) and a lot can be learned about the decision problem using relatively simple methods. Optimal Decisions and Sensitivity Analysis Using Influence Diagrams With a Multiattribute Utility Value Model Figure 8 shows an influence diagram model with a multiattribute utility function used to determine optimal decisions, using utility values similar to those in Table1 for some hypothetical sub-group. For this simple example, a strategy with a high reduction for the mine site Hg load, a medium reduction for creek Hg load, and a medium reduction for mercury methylation potential is optimal in terms of maximizing expected utility.... ..."
Results 1 - 10
of
110,840
