Difference between revisions of "Talk:Assessment structure"
(New page: {{discussion |Dispute= Add causal diagram to the attributes of an assessment |Outcome= Not accepted. |Argumentation = {{defend_invalid|#1: |Although the causal diagram can be derived from ...) |
(Parameters corrected) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{discussion | {{discussion | ||
| − | | | + | |Statements= Add causal diagram to the attributes of an assessment |
| − | | | + | |Resolutiion= Not accepted. |
|Argumentation = | |Argumentation = | ||
| − | {{defend_invalid| | + | {{defend_invalid|1|Although the causal diagram can be derived from the variables themselves and as such does not add any new content, it should nevertheless be listed here. Because it depicts the assessment and many people understand a graphic better than a set of abstract descriptions. Also, one sees if the variables one is creating fit together. I would even say, the normal way to scope an assessment is starting with the causal diagram (after the purpose and boundaries).|--[[User:Alexandra Kuhn|Alexandra Kuhn]] 11:18, 29 March 2008 (EET)}} |
| − | :{{attack| | + | :{{attack|2|Given its variables, the causal diagram itself does not contain additional information. Therefore, the diagram should not be an attribute or subattribute. However, it can be used as a subtitle so that the Definition divides into the ''Causal diagram'' which contains decision variables, indicators, and other variables; and then the other parts of the definition are ''Analyses'' and ''Indices''. In addition, it is recommended that the definition does contain the causal diagram used in the assessment. It is still not a sub-attribute, but rather a narrative description. |--[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] 22:42, 31 March 2008 (EEST)}} |
| − | {{comment| | + | {{comment|3|Indeed, the causal diagram is only an alternative way of representing the contents of an assessment.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 14:42, 15 May 2008 (EEST)}} |
| − | {{comment| | + | {{comment|4|I did not say that it has new infiormation. I SAID it does not contain additional information. BUT still I think it is useful to have it there.|--[[User:Alexandra Kuhn|Alexandra Kuhn]] 17:27, 9 June 2008 (EEST)}} |
}} | }} | ||
{{discussion | {{discussion | ||
| − | | | + | |Statements= Rename risk assessment |
| − | | | + | |Resolution= Accepted. |
|Argumentation = | |Argumentation = | ||
| − | {{defend| | + | {{defend|1|The assessment structure is more general than only for risk assessment. Rename it therefore in assessment (or maybe open assessment).|--[[User:Alexandra Kuhn|Alexandra Kuhn]] 11:18, 29 March 2008 (EET), --[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] 22:42, 31 March 2008 (EEST)}} |
}} | }} | ||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
{{discussion | {{discussion | ||
| − | | | + | |Statements''Appraisal'' should be added as one sub-attribute of definition |
| − | | | + | |Resolution= |
|Argumentation = | |Argumentation = | ||
| − | {{defend| | + | {{defend|1|If we consider ''appraisal'' as incorporation of value judgments within the assessment, the means by which this is done should be explicated in the definition. |--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 13:41, 9 February 2009 (EET)}} |
}} | }} | ||
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
{{discussion | {{discussion | ||
| − | | | + | |Statements= Scenarios should belong under definition/analyses |
| − | | | + | |Resolution= |
|Argumentation = | |Argumentation = | ||
| − | {{defend| | + | {{defend|1|Scenarios, meaning intentional deviations from the best estimate for a variable or a set of variables, are a means of analyzing the information within an assessment. Therefore scenarios should belong under definition, most nicely under analyses, instead of scope. A description of the base-case, i.e. the best estimate should belong to scope instead.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 09:14, 10 February 2009 (EET)}} |
| − | {{comment| | + | {{comment|2|The question still remains: is there some conceptual difference between conditioning and scenarios?|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 09:14, 10 February 2009 (EET)}} |
}} | }} | ||
| Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
{{discussion | {{discussion | ||
| − | | | + | |Statements= Participants should belong under definition |
| − | | | + | |Resolution= |
|Argumentation = | |Argumentation = | ||
| − | {{defend| | + | {{defend|1|Arranging, organizing, inviting participation to the assessment is actually a means of attempting to adequately answer the assessment question(s) defined in the scope. Purpose, boundaries and users (which aggregately could be called e.g. the assessment ''problem'') reflect the assessment external needs that are addressed. Participants (and scenarios as well) are more of means of getting about in making the assessment in trying to adequately reflect the ''problem''. If scope is intended to be the ''problem'', definition the ''hypothetical suggested solution to the problem'', and result the ''outcome of the solution attempt'', I would say that participants (and scenarios as well) belong to the definition.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 08:46, 12 February 2009 (EET)}} |
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 11:34, 16 November 2009
| Statements: Add causal diagram to the attributes of an assessment
Resolution: Resolution not yet found. (A stable resolution, when found, should be updated to the main page.) |
| Argumentation:
←1 Although the causal diagram can be derived from the variables themselves and as such does not add any new content, it should nevertheless be listed here. Because it depicts the assessment and many people understand a graphic better than a set of abstract descriptions. Also, one sees if the variables one is creating fit together. I would even say, the normal way to scope an assessment is starting with the causal diagram (after the purpose and boundaries). --Alexandra Kuhn 11:18, 29 March 2008 (EET)
--3: Indeed, the causal diagram is only an alternative way of representing the contents of an assessment. --Mikko Pohjola 14:42, 15 May 2008 (EEST) --4: I did not say that it has new infiormation. I SAID it does not contain additional information. BUT still I think it is useful to have it there. --Alexandra Kuhn 17:27, 9 June 2008 (EEST) |
| Statements: Rename risk assessment
Resolution: Accepted. (A stable resolution, when found, should be updated to the main page.) |
| Argumentation:
←1: The assessment structure is more general than only for risk assessment. Rename it therefore in assessment (or maybe open assessment). --Alexandra Kuhn 11:18, 29 March 2008 (EET), --Jouni 22:42, 31 March 2008 (EEST) |
Appraisal
| Statements:
Resolution: Resolution not yet found. (A stable resolution, when found, should be updated to the main page.) |
| Argumentation:
←1: If we consider appraisal as incorporation of value judgments within the assessment, the means by which this is done should be explicated in the definition. --Mikko Pohjola 13:41, 9 February 2009 (EET) |
Scenarios
| Statements: Scenarios should belong under definition/analyses
Resolution: Resolution not yet found. (A stable resolution, when found, should be updated to the main page.) |
| Argumentation:
←1: Scenarios, meaning intentional deviations from the best estimate for a variable or a set of variables, are a means of analyzing the information within an assessment. Therefore scenarios should belong under definition, most nicely under analyses, instead of scope. A description of the base-case, i.e. the best estimate should belong to scope instead. --Mikko Pohjola 09:14, 10 February 2009 (EET) --2: The question still remains: is there some conceptual difference between conditioning and scenarios? --Mikko Pohjola 09:14, 10 February 2009 (EET) |
Participants
| Statements: Participants should belong under definition
Resolution: Resolution not yet found. (A stable resolution, when found, should be updated to the main page.) |
| Argumentation:
←1: Arranging, organizing, inviting participation to the assessment is actually a means of attempting to adequately answer the assessment question(s) defined in the scope. Purpose, boundaries and users (which aggregately could be called e.g. the assessment problem) reflect the assessment external needs that are addressed. Participants (and scenarios as well) are more of means of getting about in making the assessment in trying to adequately reflect the problem. If scope is intended to be the problem, definition the hypothetical suggested solution to the problem, and result the outcome of the solution attempt, I would say that participants (and scenarios as well) belong to the definition. --Mikko Pohjola 08:46, 12 February 2009 (EET) |
