Suchergebnisse

Purpose
This paper aims to analyse three decision-making approaches that involve humans and artificial autonomous agents, namely, human "in the loop", "on the loop" and "out of the loop" and identifies the decision characteristics that determine the choice of a decision-making approach.


Design/methodology/approach
This is a conceptual paper that analyses the relationships between the human and the artificial autonomous agents in the decision-making process from the perspectives of the agency theory, sustainability, legislation, economics and operations management.


Findings
The paper concludes that the human "out of the loop" approach is most suitable for quick, standardised, frequent decisions with low negative consequences of a wrong decision by the artificial intelligence taken within a well-defined context. Complex decisions with high outcome uncertainty that involve significant ethical issues require human participation in the form of a human "in the loop" or "on the loop" approach. Decisions that require high transparency need to be left to humans.


Originality/value
The paper evaluates the decision-making approaches from the perspectives of the agency theory, sustainability, legislation, economics and operations management and identifies the decision characteristics that determine the choice of a decision-making approach.

Objective: This article describes the origins and contributions of the naturalistic decision making (NDM) research approach. Background: NDM research emerged in the 1980s to study how people make decisions in real-world settings. Method: The findings and methods used by NDM researchers are presented along with their implications. Results: The NDM framework emphasizes the role of experience in enabling people to rapidly categorize situations to make effective decisions. Conclusion: The NDM focus on field settings and its interest in complex conditions provide insights for human factors practitioners about ways to improve performance. Application: The NDM approach has been used to improve performance through revisions of military doctrine, training that is focused on decision requirements, and the development of information technologies to support decision making and related cognitive functions.

A synthesis of the work of three noted authors provides a framework for collaborative decisions built on the foundation of decision analysis. A Nobel Prize winner provides a psychological foundation for the framework, an authority on harnessing the collective wisdom of organizations argues for the necessity of a mechanism for the aggregation of the decision makers' understandings, and a former senior executive for a Fortune 500 company describes a series of structured dialogues that supports the aggregation of understandings.The resulting collaborative decision process aggregates, rather than compromises, the understandings of decision makers. It makes explicit the aggregation of individuals' understandings of the frame of the decision to be made, the alternatives to be considered, the sources of value and risk, and, finally, the reasons for the resulting collaborative choice.In collaborative decision making, we do not strive for an optimum, a compromise, or a satisficing solution. Rather, collaborative decision making results in a significantly more valuable choice than the alternatives envisioned by any of the decision makers through the aggregation understandings. Though the collaborative choice was not envisioned by the decision makers, each feels ownership of it and explicitly agrees to implement it.

"This title provides a thorough understanding of the key decision making infrastructure of clinical practice and retains its emphasis on practice and principles of individualized medical decision making"--Provided by publisher

Proposes that decision making is part of all management tasks and that it is particularly important for emergency managers as they often need to take decisions quickly on very inadequate information. Briefly reviews some of the particular problems of emergency decision. Looks at the usefulness of Vroom and Yetton's decision process model for emergencies, before proposing a simplified problem classification based on three problem characteristics. Concludes by reviewing a collection of "emergency" decisions and analysing some of the common factors to suggest a number of simple action rules to be used in conjunction with the simplified decision process model proposed, the "emergency manager's decision cube".

The decisions employers make are of critical importance to sociological understandings of labor market stratification. While contemporary research documents employment outcomes with ever-growing precision, far less work examines how employers actually make decisions. In this article, I review research on the process of employer decision making, focusing on how employers evaluate, compare, and select workers in personnel decisions. I begin by summarizing the most prevalent theories of employer decision making in sociology, grouping them into competency-based, status-based, and social closure–based approaches. A common thread underlying much of this work is the assumption that employers are utility maximizers who base decisions on systematic, even if flawed, cognitive calculations of worker skill and workforce productivity. I then turn to recent research from sociology and beyond that challenges this notion and highlights the importance of understanding how employers themselves—their emotions, identities, and environments—affect decisions. I conclude by suggesting directions for future research.

Recent research on joint or dyadic decision making has received renewed attention from behavioral scientists. This interest is due mostly to the advances in analytic and conceptual models used to study interaction processes. A number of related disciplines have used distinctive paradigms to study the same focal problem: namely, the processes by which two people interact, come to resolve a problem and, finally, reach a decision. Dyadic Decision Making presents in a single, integrated volume the conceptual and analytic strategies developed in communications research, marketing, psychology and sociology to investigate joint decision making

AbstractSome aspects of the phenomena associated with decision making by an organization are discussed. Their interplay is illustrated by a simple examde.

PATTERNS OF DECISION MAKING IN YUGOSLAVIA ARE EXAMINED WITH A VIEW TO ASSESSING THE LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUED POLITICAL STABILITY FOR THE NATION 'POST-TITO'. A SYSTEM BASED ON INTERREGIONAL CONSULTATION, COMPROMISE, AND CONSENSUS HAS BEEN QUITE SUCCESSFUL IN THE MULTI-ETHNIC NATION. A NEW MECHANISM, ADVOCATED BY TITO, IS ASSESSED AND CRITIQUED WHICH WOULD INCREASE OFFICEHOLDING ROTATION.

Many "real world" decisions are made by groups. It is rare that the responsi- bility for a very important decision is given to a single decision maker with complete authority. Group decision making adds both advantages to the process as well as disadvantages. This research examines the question: "Are decisions made by groups really that much different from the decisions made by individuals in the group?" A specific case study involving the selection of the best primary training aircraft type for military pilot training is used to examine this question. Fifteen military pilots with various backgrounds and experience levels participate as decision makers in the study. The decision analysis method of Value Focused Thinking is used to facilitate both individual and group decision making sessions. Value hierarchies are created for all sessions, and a set of alternatives is generated and scored. Kendall's Coefficient of Concordance is used to determine the level of agreement between decisions made by the group and individual decision makers.