Introduction to the Special Issue. Naturalistic Decision Making and Organizational Decision Making: Exploring the Intersections

2006 ◽  
Vol 27 (7) ◽  
pp. 917-923 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raanan Lipshitz ◽  
Gary Klein ◽  
John S. Carroll
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Situation Awareness ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Distributed Teams ◽  
Special Issue ◽  
Natural Habitats ◽  
Naturalistic Decision Making ◽  
Organizational Decision Making ◽  
Organizational Goals ◽  
Normative Economic

Although naturalistic decision making (NDM) and organizational decision making (ODM) have much in common, they hardly interact. Both NDM and ODM focus on what decision makers actually do in their ‘natural habitats’ and reject the equivalence of decision making with normative economic and statistical reasoning which can be studied in sparse laboratory settings. Linking with ODM would help NDM researchers to include organizational goals, norms, and other aspects of context in their models. Conversely, linking with NDM would provide ODM researchers with detailed descriptions of how individuals and groups perform functions such as decision making, sensemaking, and planning on the basis of pattern matching, story telling and argumentation, and detailed descriptions of the processes through which distributed teams build and maintain shared situation awareness. In the introduction to this special issue we outline the two fields, argue why they should be in closer contact, and summarize the papers contributed to this issue.

scholarly journals Civil Engineering and Symmetry

Symmetry ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 501 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas ◽  
Romualdas Bausys ◽  
and Jurgita Antucheviciene
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Civil Engineering ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Research Management ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Environmental Benefits ◽  
Special Issue ◽  
Optimisation Methods ◽  
Current Special Issue

A topic of utmost importance in civil engineering is finding optimal solutions throughout the life cycle of buildings and infrastructural objects, including their design, manufacturing, use, and maintenance. Operational research, management science, and optimisation methods provide a consistent and applicable groundwork for engineering decision-making. These topics have received the interest of researchers, and, after a rigorous peer-review process, eight papers have been published in the current special issue. The articles in this issue demonstrate how solutions in civil engineering, which bring economic, social and environmental benefits, are obtained through a variety of methodologies and tools. Usually, decision-makers need to take into account not just a single criterion, but several different criteria and, therefore, multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) approaches have been suggested for application in five of the published papers; the rest of the papers apply other research methods. The methods and application case studies are shortly described further in the editorial.

scholarly journals Special issue on the 11th conference on naturalistic decision making

2015 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 315-318 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hervé Chaudet ◽  
Liliane Pellegrin ◽  
Nathalie Bonnardel
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Special Issue ◽  
Naturalistic Decision Making

scholarly journals Escalation Of Commitment In Groups And The Moderating Effects Of Information Framing

2011 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert W. Rutledge
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Investment Decision ◽  
Relevant Information ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Moderating Effects ◽  
Organizational Decision Making ◽  
Escalating Commitment ◽  
Decision Choices ◽  
Information Framing ◽  
Prior Decision

The escalation effect occurs when managers elect to commit additional resources to a project where the unfavorable economic prospects indicate the project should be canceled. It has been suggested that the context in which the decision is reached (e.g., a managers responsibility for the original decision to invest in a project) may influence a managers decision choices (Staw 1981). Bazerman (1984) suggests that framing of information used by decision-makers may explain the escalation effect. This study investigates whether responsibility for a prior decision will affect decision-making in interactive groups in an escalation situation. Additionally, this study looks at the effect of framing on the groups decisions and examines the ability of framing to moderate the escalation effect resulting from responsibility. The results suggest that groups are subject to escalating commitment when they are responsible for a prior related investment decision. The results also provide evidence that groups are influenced by the framing of decision-relevant information, and further, that the framing may have the ability to moderate the effects of responsibility. Implications for organizational decision making are provided.

An Attention-Based View on DSS

2011 ◽  
pp. 38-45 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sven A. Carlsson
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Decision Support ◽  
Organizational Behavior ◽  
Support Systems ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Alternative View ◽  
Herbert Simon ◽  
Organizational Decision Making ◽  
Promising Alternative ◽  
Organizational Attention

Commentators on decision support and decision support systems (DSS) have called for serious discussion of the discourses underpinning decision support and DSS (Huber, 1981; Stabell, 1987; Humphreys, 1998). Huber and Humphreys say that decision support and DSS discourses are critical to the advancement of the academic DSS field as well as to DSS practice, but the discourses are too seldom discussed. This article questions the influential “decision-making as choice” view. We suggest that the attention-based view of the firm (Ocasio, 1997) is a promising alternative view of organizational decision-making and that this view can be a basis for DSS design. More than 50 years ago Herbert Simon suggested that to explain organizational behavior is to explain how organizations distribute and regulate the attention of their decision-makers (Simon, 1947). Simon was emphasizing the duality of structural processes and cognitive processes in structuring of organizational attention. More recent writings have either emphasized cognition and activity or structure. The attention-based view of the firm explicitly links structure, activity, and cognition and the view stresses that organizational decision- making is affected by both the limited attentional capacity of humans and the structural influences on a decision-maker’s attention.

scholarly journals A normative decision-making model for cyber security

2019 ◽  
Vol 27 (5) ◽  
pp. 636-646
Author(s):  
Andrew M’manga ◽  
Shamal Faily ◽  
John McAlaney ◽  
Chris Williams ◽  
Youki Kadobayashi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Situation Awareness ◽  
Cyber Security ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Proof Of Concept ◽  
Security Analysts ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Novel Approach ◽  
Risk Scenario ◽  
Decision Making Model

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate security decision-making during risk and uncertain conditions and to propose a normative model capable of tracing the decision rationale. Design/methodology/approach The proposed risk rationalisation model is grounded in literature and studies on security analysts’ activities. The model design was inspired by established awareness models including the situation awareness and observe–orient–decide–act (OODA). Model validation was conducted using cognitive walkthroughs with security analysts. Findings The results indicate that the model may adequately be used to elicit the rationale or provide traceability for security decision-making. The results also illustrate how the model may be applied to facilitate design for security decision makers. Research limitations/implications The proof of concept is based on a hypothetical risk scenario. Further studies could investigate the model’s application in actual scenarios. Originality/value The paper proposes a novel approach to tracing the rationale behind security decision-making during risk and uncertain conditions. The research also illustrates techniques for adapting decision-making models to inform system design.

Why are you watching? Video surveillance in organizations

2018 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 274-291 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christina S. Hagen ◽  
Leila Bighash ◽  
Andrea B. Hollingshead ◽  
Sonia Jawaid Shaikh ◽  
Kristen S. Alexander
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Video Surveillance ◽  
Relevant Literature ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Surveillance Video ◽  
Ethical Considerations ◽  
Organizational Decision Making ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Video Footage ◽  
Decision Making Model

Purpose Organizations and their actors are increasingly using video surveillance to monitor organizational members, employees, clients, and customers. The use of such technologies in workplaces creates a virtual panopticon and increases uncertainty for those under surveillance. Video surveillance in organizations poses several concerns for the privacy of individuals and creates a security-privacy dilemma for organizations to address. The purpose of this paper is to offer a decision-making model that ties in ethical considerations of access, equality, and transparency at four stages of video surveillance use in organizations: deployment of cameras and equipment, capturing footage, processing and storing data, and editing and sharing video footage. At each stage, organizational actors should clearly identify the purpose for video surveillance, adopt a minimum capability necessary to achieve their goals, and communicate decisions made and actions taken that involve video surveillance in order to reduce uncertainty and address privacy concerns of those being surveilled. Design/methodology/approach The paper proposes a normative model for ethical video surveillance organizational decision making based on a review of relevant literature and recent events. Findings The paper provides several implications for the future of dealing with security-privacy dilemmas in organizations and offers structured considerations for corporation leaders and decision makers. Practical implications The paper includes implications for organizations to approach video surveillance with ethical considerations for stakeholder privacy while balancing security demands. Originality/value This paper offers a framework for decision-makers that also offers opportunities for further research around the concept of ethics in organizational video surveillance.

The Mythical Decision Maker

2011 ◽  
pp. 653-660 ◽  
Author(s):  
Csaba Csáki
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Decision Support ◽  
Decision Maker ◽  
Support Systems ◽  
Historical Context ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Organizational Decision Making ◽  
Theoretical Investigations ◽  
Human Decision ◽  
History Of

During the history of decision support systems (DSSs)— in fact, during the history of theoretical investigations of human decision-making situations—the decision maker (DM) has been the centre of attention who considers options and makes a choice. However, the notion and definitions of this decision maker, as well as the various roles surrounding his or her activity, have changed depending on both time and scientific areas. Reading the DSS literature, one might encounter references to such players as decision makers, problem owners, stakeholders, facilitators, developers, users, project champions, and supporters, and the list goes on. Who are these players, what is their role, and where do these terms come from? This article presents a review in historical context of some key interpretations aimed at identifying the various roles that actors may assume in an organizational decision-making situation.

Judgment as the Imagination of Futures: Practical Rationality in Decisions on Complex Issues

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael J. Mazarr
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Dual Process ◽  
Heuristics And Biases ◽  
Naturalistic Decision Making ◽  
Actual Mechanism ◽  
Conflicting Objectives ◽  
Process Theories ◽  
Dual Process Theories ◽  
Classical Decision

The field of judgment and decision making has seen an explosion of research and analyses since the 1990s, notably in five closely related fields: Rational choice and its variants, the concept of intuition, “dual process” theories, the “heuristics and biases” literature, and the concept of “naturalistic” decision making. Yet none of these theories captures—by design or because of the limits of the approach—the actual mechanism by which emergent judgment occurs on complex decisions. Such decisions are non-optimizable and guided by multiple and often conflicting objectives and values; their outcomes will flow from the nonlinear interaction of many variables whose causal relationships are poorly understood. As a result, critical assumptions of many classical decision making models cannot be met in such situations, and the default approach relies not so much on calculative decision making as on instinctive judgment. This term implies a mechanism that is less calculative and consequentialist that it is imaginative, creative, and unconscious. Emergent, largely intuitive judgment is the only mechanism appropriate to such complex, nonlinear situations in which both an objective maximization of utilities and an accurate assessment of likely consequences are impossible. The concept of judgment broadly defined, as a form of unconscious, emergent, and imaginative interpretation of facts and events, offers the best model for how decision makers approach non-optimizable situations.

Deciding for Responsibility and Legitimation: Alternative Interpretations of Organizational Decision‐Making

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nils Brunsson
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Local Governments ◽  
Empirical Studies ◽  
Decision Processes ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Organizational Decision Making ◽  
Empirical Validity ◽  
Organizational Action ◽  
National Governments

Recent studies have questioned the empirical validity of the equating of decision and choice and pointed at another role that organizational decisions sometimes play — the role of mobilizing organizational action, a role that requires less rationality than choice. But choice and mobilization are not the only roles of decision-making and decisions in organizations. This chapter argues that two additional roles exist — decisions may allocate responsibility and legitimacy to decision-makers and organizations. The chapter also considers how the different roles can explain the design of decision processes, the use of information and the number of decisions in organizations. The discussion is based on empirical studies of decision processes in such organizations: in local governments, national governments, and company boards. The eight decision processes studied concern city budgets, investments and disinvestments, and governmental programmes.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document