S. Gregor et I. Benbasat, Explanations from intelligent systems: Theoretical foundations and implications for practice, MIS QUART, 23(4), 1999, pp. 497-530
Information systems with an "intelligent" or "knowledge" component are now
prevalent and include knowledge-based systems, decision support systems, in
telligent agents, and knowledge management systems. These systems are in pr
inciple capable of explaining their reasoning or justifying their behavior.
There appears to be a lack of understanding, however, of the benefits that
can flow from explanation use, and how an explanation function should be c
onstructed. Work with newer types of intelligent systems and help functions
for everyday systems, such as word-processors, appears in many cases to ne
glect lessons learned in the past. This paper attempts to rectify this situ
ation by drawing together the considerable body of work on the nature and u
se of explanations. Empirical studies, mainly with knowledge-based systems,
are reviewed and linked To a sound theoretical base. The theoretical base
combines a cognitive effort perspective, cognitive learning theory, and Tou
lmin's model of argumentation. Conclusions drawn from the review have both
practical and theoretical significance. Explanations are important to users
in a number of circumstances-when the user perceives an anomaly, when they
want to learn, or when they need a specific piece of knowledge to particip
ate properly in problem solving. Explanations, when suitably designed, have
been shown to improve performance and learning and result in more positive
user perceptions of a system. The design is important, how ever, because i
t appears that explanations will nor be used if the user has to exert "too
much" effort to get them. Explanations should be provided automatically if
this can be done relatively unobtrusively, or by hypertext links, and shoul
d be context-specific rather than generic. Explanations that conform to Tou
lmin's model of argumentation, in that they provide adequate justification
for the knowledge offered, should be more persuasive and lead to greater tr
ust, agreement, satisfaction, and acceptance-of the explanation and possibl
y also of the system as a whole.