Decision Strategy and Performance in Dynamic Tasks: The 2-Layer Process Model

Chapter
Part of the Understanding Complex Systems book series (UCS)

Abstract

While organizational decisions are made to achieve objectives and goals, a decision strategy sets rules to guide decision-making. For instance, in stable environments, if managers embrace consistency in their decisions, their performance could be improved substantially. However, in dynamic tasks where environments are ever-changing, the effects of consistent decision strategy are difficult to predict.

Keywords

Organizational decisions Decision strategy Consistency Fishbankile Dynamic decision-making behavior Transfer learning Regression Prior knowledge Structural knowledge Heuristics knowledge Variations-oriented strategy Systematic exploration Decision time Task performance Random variations Designer’s logic Systematic diversity of actions Pathways Dynamic task Operator’s logic Cognitive effort Integrated process model 

References

  1. 1.
    Cohen, I.: Improving time-critical decision making life-threatening situations: observations and insights. Decis. Anal. 5(2), 100–110 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gröbler, A., Maier, F.H., Milling, P.M.: Enhancing learning capabilities by providing transparency in transparency. Simul. Gaming 31(2), 257–278 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hogarth, R.M., Marridakis, S.: The value of decision making in complex environment: an experimental approach. Manag. Sci. 27, 93–107 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Moxnes, E.: Not only the tragedy of the commons: misperceptions of feedback and policies for sustainable development. Syst. Dyn. Rev. 16(4), 325–348 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Moxnes, E.: Misperceptions of basic dynamics: the case of renewable resource management. Syst. Dyn. Rev. 20, 139–162 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mun, Y., Davis, D.: Improving computer training effectiveness for decision technologies: behavior modeling and retention enhancement. Decis. Sci. 32(3), 521–544 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Payne, J.W., Bettman, J.R., Johnson, E.J.: The Adaptive Decision Maker. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Plate, R.: Assessing individuals’ understanding of nonlinear casual structures in complex systems. Syst. Dyn. Rev. 28(1), 19–33 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Putz-Osterloh, W., Bott, B., Koster, K.: Modes of learning in problem solving—are they transferable to tutorial systems. Comput. Hum. Behav. 6, 83–96 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Qudrat-Ullah, H., Karakul, M.: Decision making in interactive learning environments: towards an integrated model. J. Decis. Syst. 16(1), 79–99 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Senge, P.: The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. Doubleday/Currency, New York (1990)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sengupta, K., Abdel-Hamid, T.: Alternative concepts of feedback in dynamic decision environments: An experimental investigation. Manag. Sci. 39(4), 411–428 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Spector, J.M.: System dynamics and interactive learning environments: Lessons learned and implications for the future. Simul. Gaming 31(4), 528–535 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sterman, J.D.: Learning in and abound complex systems. Syst. Dyn. Rev. 10(2–3), 291–323 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sterman, J.D.: Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World. McGraw-Hill, New York (2000)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Administrative StudiesYork UniversityTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations