Declarative process models define the behaviour of business processes as a set of constraints. Declarative process discovery aims at inferring such constraints from event logs. Existing discovery techniques verify the satisfaction of candidate constraints over the log, but completely neglect their interactions. As a result, the inferred constraints can be mutually contradicting and their interplay may lead to an inconsistent process model that does not accept any trace. In such a case, the output turns out to be unusable for enactment, simulation or verification purposes. In addition, the discovered model contains, in general, redundancies that are due to complex interactions of several constraints and that cannot be cured using existing pruning approaches. We address these problems by proposing a technique that automatically resolves conflicts within the discovered models and is more powerful than existing pruning techniques to eliminate redundancies. First, we formally define the problems of constraint redundancy and conflict resolution. Second, we introduce techniques based on the notion of automata-product monoid, which guarantees the consistency of the discovered models and, at the same time, keeps the most interesting constraints in the pruned set. The level of interestingness is dictated by user-specified prioritisation criteria. We evaluate the devised techniques on a set of real-world event logs.

Social action and communication constitute the building blocks in the organizational structure and the agents of change, as well as shape the relationships among working parties, that can become inconsistent, due to the same desire of two or more people for a similar resource which is in scarcity, introducing the issue of human relations in an organizational context and especially the issue of conflict prevention. In this study we investigate conflict in a group based on different parameters by providing some insights on what is the impact between these different factors when interrelated. The research is carried out by adopting the survey path and performing multivariate statistical analysis techniques where we simultaneously examine the relationship between latent factors in an organizational conflict environment.

Interpersonal conflict in organizations has been recognized as a leading social stressor across occupations with detrimental effects on employee well-being and organizational outcomes. However, reliable and valid measures of conflict are scarce and even the most widely used scales are limited by weaknesses in construct definition. In order to address the need for an improved measurement tool, the 63-item Interpersonal Conflict in Organizations Scale (ICOS) was developed. The ICOS was based on a comprehensive conceptualization of conflict that defines the construct on the basis of three definitional components: disagreement, interference, and negative emotion (Barki & Hartwick, 2004). In addition, the ICOS reliably measures four conflict types, including task outcome, task process, relationship, and non-task organizational conflict. Data were collected in two phases. The phase I sample included 126 participants from a variety of occupations whose data were used for the purpose of refining the scale. The scale validation (phase II) sample consisted of 260 full-time employees, who were also representative of various occupations. Initial validity results supported significant relationships with various organizational and personal outcome variables, including depression, job satisfaction, somatic symptoms, negative emotions, turnover intentions, counterproductive work behaviors, and cardiovascular disease risk factors. Factor analytic results for the four subscales, as well as, evidence for convergent validity are reported. Overall, the ICOS is a promising new measure of conflict that offers researchers the flexibility of assessing various types of conflict while addressing the conceptual limitations of existing scales.

Interpersonal conflict in organizations has been recognized as a leading social stressor across occupations with detrimental effects on employee well-being and organizational outcomes. However, reliable and valid measures of conflict are scarce and even the most widely used scales are limited by weaknesses in construct definition. In order to address the need for an improved measurement tool, the 63-item Interpersonal Conflict in Organizations Scale (ICOS) was developed. The ICOS was based on a comprehensive conceptualization of conflict that defines the construct on the basis of three definitional components: disagreement, interference, and negative emotion (Barki & Hartwick, 2004). In addition, the ICOS reliably measures four conflict types, including task outcome, task process, relationship, and non-task organizational conflict. Data were collected in two phases. The phase I sample included 126 participants from a variety of occupations whose data were used for the purpose of refining the scale. The scale validation (phase II) sample consisted of 260 full-time employees, who were also representative of various occupations. Initial validity results supported significant relationships with various organizational and personal outcome variables, including depression, job satisfaction, somatic symptoms, negative emotions, turnover intentions, counterproductive work behaviors, and cardiovascular disease risk factors. Factor analytic results for the four subscales, as well as, evidence for convergent validity are reported. Overall, the ICOS is a promising new measure of conflict that offers researchers the flexibility of assessing various types of conflict while addressing the conceptual limitations of existing scales.