Advertisement

Cyborganisation: Machines and Humans Make Optimal Decisions Together

  • Alan DormerEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 797)

Abstract

Business rules evolved from expert systems, a concept whereby expertise could be encoded and leveraged across an organisation. In the same way, artificial intelligence is now being used to replace human decision-makers. In both cases, the idea is to emulate and replace the decision-maker with a machine. But this approach could be considered as misguided for two reasons. Firstly, it is not possible to emulate a human with complete accuracy, and secondly, human decision-makers are fallible. Another approach is to consider how business rules and human experts can work together to maximise the expected profit of an organisation, creating a cyborganisation. There are several elements to this problem—the need to quantify the impact of different rules on the performance of the organisation, the accuracy of the human decision-maker on a case-by-case basis, and determine whether the machine and/or the human decision-maker makes the final decision. This paper considers a real example from a well-understood problem that of loan approval, but from the perspective of machine augmenting, rather than replacing, the human decision-maker. The results suggest that there are potential savings and increases in profit from this approach.

Keywords

Decision support Business process Business rules Human experts Optimisation 

Notes

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial or no-for-profit sectors.

References

  1. 1.
    Business Rules Group (2000, July) Final report, Revision 1.3Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wang O, Liberti L (2017, June) Controlling some statistical properties of business rules programs. In: International conference on learning and intelligent optimization. Springer, Cham, pp 263–276Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wang O, Liberti L, D’Ambrosio C, de Sainte Marie C, Ke C (2016, July) Controlling the average behavior of business rules programs. In: International symposium on rules and rule markup languages for the semantic web. Springer International Publishing, pp 83–96Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kunz TP, Crone SF (2015) The impact of practitioner business rules on the optimality of a static retail revenue management system. J Revenue Pricing Manag 14(3):198–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Quinzaños JM, Cartas A, Vidales P, Maldonado A (2014, May) iDispatcher: using business rules to allocate and balance workloads. In: DSS, pp 110–119Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hegazi MO (2015) Measuring and predicting the impacts of business rules using fuzzy logic. Int J Comput Sci Inf Secur 13(12):59Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dormer A (2017, June) A framework for optimising business rules, presented at BIS. In: 20th international conference on business information systems, Poznań, Poland, pp 28–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Taylor J (2011) Decision management systems: a practical guide to using business rules and predictive analytics, IBM Press, September 30, 2011, ISBN 0-13-288438-0Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Turney PD (1995) Cost-sensitive classification: Empirical evaluation of a hybrid genetic decision tree induction algorithm. J Artif Intell Res 2:369–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zadrozny B, Langford J, Abe N (2003, November) Cost-sensitive learning by cost-proportionate example weighting. In: Third IEEE international conference on data mining, ICDM, IEEE, pp 435–442Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Vergidis K, Tiwari A, Majeed B (2008) Business process analysis and optimization: beyond reengineering (Applications and Reviews). IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part C 38(1):69–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Laguna M, Marklund J (2013) Business process modeling, simulation and design. CRC PressGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Brunswik E (1985) The essential Brunswik: beginnings, explications, applications, New directions in research on decision making. In: Research conference on subjective probability, utility and decision making, Helsinki, FinlandGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
  15. 15.
    Frank E, Hall MA, Ian HW (2016) The WEKA workbench. Online appendix for data mining: practical machine learning tools and techniques, 4th edn. Morgan KaufmannGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Information TechnologyMonash UniversityClaytonAustralia

Personalised recommendations