A Summing up: The Challenge of Strategic Decision Making

  • Steen LeleurEmail author
Part of the Decision Engineering book series (DECENGIN)


The concluding Chap. 8 “A summing up: The challenge of strategic decision making” first reiterates some of the main concepts of systemic planning (SP), and afterwards ten cases where SP has been applied are reviewed. This forms the background for a subsequent assessment of the validity and potential of the SP framework. Afterwards complex strategic choices are put into a wider context, where issues about ‘known and unknown’ and risk-related Black Swan theory as developed by the American risk theorist and analyst Nassim Taleb are made use of to indicate what types of challenges organisations and companies may face with regard to long-term planning and complex strategic decision making. Finally some conclusions are presented together with a developmental perspective on SP. Among other things, it is stated that SP may be relevant as an approach to deal with strategic decision making related to issues of corporate social responsibility and issues of sustainability. Both issues represent important current strategic decision making challenges of a complex nature where a systemic approach like SP may be worthwhile to make use of.


Corporate Social Responsibility Analytic Hierarchy Process Systemic Planning Strategic Decision Soft System Methodology 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Andersen M, Petersen NB (2006) Bedømmelse af omfartsveje i Allerød. M.Sc. thesis, Centre for Traffic and Transport (CTT), Technical University of Denmark (DTU)Google Scholar
  2. Barfod MB (2010) Structuring and appraising large and complex decision problems using MCDA. In: Paper presented at the 24th European conference on operational research, Portugal, July 2010Google Scholar
  3. Barfod MB, Jensen AV, Leleur S (2008) STMA beslutnings-analyse: metoder, proces og software. In: Carlsson CM (ed) Hållbart transportsystem för inre och yttre attraktionskraft, EU interreg project about strategic transport management in the Øresund region (STMØ) MAH Malmö, final STMØ report by Decision Modelling Group, DTU Transport. Technical University of Denmark (DTU), DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  4. Beslutningsmodelgruppen (2009) Principper og metoder til brug for prioritering i forbindelse med udmøntning af pulje til mere cykeltrafik, DMG Danmarks Tekniske Universitet, Denmark, Sept 2009Google Scholar
  5. Beslutningsmodelgruppen (2010) Principper og metoder til brug for prioritering i forbindelse med udmøntning af ITS-puljen, DMG DTU Transport. Danmarks Tekniske Universitet, Denmarks, Dec 2010Google Scholar
  6. Bhushan N, Rai K (2004) Strategic decision making: applying the analytic hierarchy process, Springer series in decision engineeringGoogle Scholar
  7. Drewes Nielsen L, Homann Jespersen P (2003) The use of action research methods in scenario construction. Seville workshop, Institute for Prospective Technologies––EU Joint Research Centres (IPTS), May 2003Google Scholar
  8. DTU (2007) Dokumentationsmodel for TGB Vurderingsmodel (Trafikplan for Grønland: Beslutningsredskab), Center for Trafik og Transport (CTT). Danmarks Tekniske Universitet, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  9. Ellis T (2010) The new pioneers: sustainable business success through social innovation and social entrepreneurship. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Hiselius LW, Barfod MB, Leleur S, Jeppesen, SL, Jensen AV, Hjalte K (2010) Helhetsorienterad utvärdering av kollektivtrafikåtgärder, Bulletin 246, Institutionen för Teknik och Samhälle, LTH, Lunds Universitet Google Scholar
  11. Larsen, LA, Skougaard, BZ (2010) Vurdering af alternativer for en fast forbindelse Helsingør-Helsingborg. M.Sc. thesis, DTU Transport. Danmarks Tekniske Universitet, DanmarkGoogle Scholar
  12. Leleur S (2000) Road infrastructure planning—a decision-oriented approach, 2nd edn. Polyteknisk Forlag Lyngby, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  13. Leleur S (2008a) Systems science and complexity: some proposals for future development, Sys Res Behav Sci 25(1):67–79Google Scholar
  14. Leleur S, Kronbak J, Rehfeld C (2000) The Øresund fixed link: evaluation issues and development of new methodology, TRANS-TALK, ICCR, Vienna, EU 5th framework programme, thematic network meeting, Brussels, Nov 2000 Google Scholar
  15. Leleur S, Holvad T, Jensen AV, Salling KB (2004a) Development of the CLG-DSS evaluation model, midterm report presenting the CTT contribution to task 9 evaluation methodology, Centre for Logistics and Goods Transport (CLG) at the Centre for Traffic and Transport (CTT). Technical University of Denmark, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  16. Leleur S, Jensen AV, Salling KB (2004b) COSIMA––Software manual, version June 2004, Centre for Traffic and Transport (CTT). Technical University of Denmark, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  17. Leleur S, Jensen AV, Salling KB (2004c) Modelling decision support and uncertainty for large transport infrastructure projects: the CLG-DSS model of the Øresund fixed link. In: Antunes CH, Dias LC (eds) Proceedings of the 15th mini-EURO conference in managing uncertainty in decision support models––MUDSM 2004, Coimbra, Portugal. INESC-Coimbra, Sept 2004Google Scholar
  18. Leleur S, Petersen NB, Barfod MB (2007) The COSIMA approach to transport decision making: combining cost-benefit and multi-criteria analysis for comprehensive project appraisal. In: Kim K-S (Ed) Proceedings of the Korean Development Institute & World Bank Conference, Seoul, May 2007. Improving public investment management for large-scale government projects: focusing on the feasibility studies, Publisher KDI, pp 100–122Google Scholar
  19. Leleur S, Larsen AL, Skougaard BZ (2010) Strategic transport decision making: the SIMDEC approach based on risk simulation and multi-criteria analysis, EUROSIS. In: Proceedings of the Asian simulation technology conference ASTEC’ 2010 conference, Shanghai, March 2010Google Scholar
  20. Martin J (2007) The meaning of the 21st century: a vital blueprint for ensuring our future. Riverhead Books, Penquin Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Midgley G (2000) Systemic intervention: philosophy, methodology and practice. Kluwer Academic, KluwerGoogle Scholar
  22. Mingers J, Gill A (1997) Multimethodology. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. Mitchell SD (2004) Why integrative pluralism? Emerg Complex Organ 6(1–2):81–91Google Scholar
  24. Mortensen, M, Andersen, MB (2007) Sammenfattende vurdering af luftfartsalternativer ved Nuuk––med særligt fokus på multi-kriterie analyse. M.Sc. thesis, Center for Trafik og Transport (CTT). Danmarks Tekniske Universitet, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  25. Narayanan VK, Zane LJ, Kemmerer B (2011) The cognitive perspective in strategy: an integrative review. J Manag 37(1): 305–351 (SAGE journals)Google Scholar
  26. Nicholls J, Lawlor E, Neitzert E, Goodspeed T (2010) A guide to social return on investment, the SROI network in association with the Scottish GovernmentGoogle Scholar
  27. Priemus H, Flyvbjerg B, van Wee B (2008) Decision-making on mega-projects: cost-benefit analysis, planning and innovation. Edward Elgar Publishing, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  28. Rumsfeld D (2002) Accessed 1 July 2011
  29. Rønnest AK, Ohm A, Leleur S (1997) The Øresund fixed link––the conflicts and the players, WP7 case report, TEN-ASSESS research project, ICCR, Vienna, EU 4th framework programmeGoogle Scholar
  30. Saaty TL (2001). Decision making for leaders: the analytic hierarchy process for decisions in a complex world. RWS Publications, PittsburghGoogle Scholar
  31. Salling KB (2008) Assessment of transport projects: risk analysis and decision support. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Transport, Technical University of Denmark, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  32. Salling KB, Leleur S (2009) Modelling of transport project uncertainties: risk assessment and scenario analysis. In: Proceedings of the modelling and applied simulation’09 conference. Puerto de la Cruz, TenerifeGoogle Scholar
  33. Taleb N (2010) The black swan: the impact of the highly improbable. Random House, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  34. TetraPlan (2008) Traffic flow: scenario, traffic forecast and analysis of traffic on the Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T), TEN-CONNECT study, Final report for the EU Commission, Dec 2008Google Scholar
  35. Trafikministeriet (2003) Manual for samfundsøkonomisk analyse, juni 2003, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  36. Tsamboulas D, Beuthe M, Grant-Muller S, Leleur S, Nellthorp J, Panou K, Pearman A, Rehfeld C (1998) Innovations in decision analysis, deliverable D10, EUNET research project, EU 4th framework programmeGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of TransportTechnical University of DenmarkKgs. LyngbyDenmark

Personalised recommendations