Suchergebnisse

AbstractMost models of investor behavior consider only two attributes of assets, risk and return, and are deterministic in that only one unique choice is allowed. This paper develops a multiattribute model in which investor choice is described in terms of the probability of various choices occurring. The model is solved by standard linear programming techniques and allows for investor behavior that is not explained by the usual models.

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.

Quantum Electronics was a Brazilian startup in the 1990's that was acquired by an American equity fund in 2012. They are currently the largest manufacturer of vehicle tracking and infotainment systems. The company was founded by three college friends, who are currently executives at the company: Camilo Santos, Pedro Barbosa and Luana Correa. Edward Hutter was sent by the equity fund to take over the company's finances, but is having trouble making organizational decisions with his colleagues. As a consultant, I was called to help them improve their decision making process and project prioritization. I adapted and deployed our firm's methodology, but, in the end, its adequacy is shown to be very much in question. The author of this case study intends to explore how actual organizational decisions rely on different decision models and their assumptions, .as well as demonstrate that a decision model is neither absolutely good nor bad as its quality is context dependent.

IN A SENSE UNINTENDED BY THE AUTHORS, THESE TWO CLOSELY RELATED BOOKS PRESENT A STORY WITHIN A STORY. BOTH RATIONAL DECISION MAKING AND DECISIONS IN CRISIS ARE STRIKING EFFORTS TO UNDERSTAND THE DECISION-MAKING SUBSTANCE AND PROCESS OF A KEY ACTOR IN THE MIDDLE EAST IMBROGHO-ISRAEL. IN ADDITION, THE AUTHORS STRIVE TO EVALUATE THE QUALITY OF THE DECISION MAKING CHOICES AGAINST CURRENT INSIGHTS OFFERED BY NATIONAL AND OTHER DECISION-MAKING FRAMEWORKS. AS WELL, THOSE ANALYSES REVEAL IMPORTANT ELEMENTS OF DECISION-MAKING CHOICE BY THE AUTHORS THEMSELVES. THEY THUS SHOW THE STATE OF THE ART AS IT EXISTS, AND THEY PROVIDE CLUES OF WHERE THE FIELD MUST MOVE IN THE FUTURE. WHILE THESE ARE CLOSELY RELATED BOOKS, THEY ARE NOT IDENTICAL. NEITHER METHODOLOGICALLY NOR SUBSTANTIVELY DO THEY COVER THE SAME GROUND. INDEED, ONE OF THE MOST TROUBLING ASPECTS OF READING BOTH STUDIES, AT LEAST THE RESPECTIVE COVERAGE OF THE 1967 CRISIS, IS THAT FREQUENTLY ONE WONDERS IF HE IS READING ABOUT THE SAME CRISIS AT ALL. THIS IS EVEN MORE DISTURBING WHEN ONE TAKES INTO ACCOUNT THAT DATA AND ADVICE WERE OFFERED WILLINGLY BY MICHAEL BRECHEN TO THE AUTHORS OF THE OTHER STUDY. FOR INSTANCE, BRECHER FINDS THE HOLOCAUST SYNDROME A SIGNIFICANT INFLUENCE ON THE ATTITUDINAL PRISM OF MAJOR ACTORS IN 1967, YET STEIN AND TANTER FAIL EVEN TO MENTION IT AS A FACTOR IN THEIR BOUNDED RATIONALITY PRESENTATION.