Tool-Supported Projects Evaluation for Decision Making of Institutional Planning

2021 ◽  
pp. 641-655
Author(s):  
Anié Bermudez Peña ◽  
Inelda Anabelle Martillo Alcivar ◽  
Gilberto Fernando Castro Aguilar ◽  
Alex Leopoldo Luque Letechi
Author(s):  
Francisco Angel Becerra Lois ◽  
César A. Del Río ◽  
Cristain Narváez

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the essential features of a Management Information System (MIS), designed and implemented at the Universidad de Otavalo to support strategic planning, institutional evaluation, and decision making.   A five-phase and fifteen-stage process was applied, along with their corresponding techniques and expected results.  Based on the literature review and their experience with the implementation, the authors devised a novel MIS implementation approach, comprising the following phases: planning, information analysis, MIS design, implementation and evaluation.  The MIS consisted of four main modules: teaching, research, linkages with society, and management, and was based on the client-server model.  The literature review did not yield any publications that discussed truly integrated management information systems applied to university management covering the four main modules, thus confirming the originality of the work described in this paper. The MIS implementation results contributed to the improvement of the management of the university through the automation of most of the processes and activities related to institutional planning and evaluation, and considerably accelerated the processing and analysis of useful information for decision making.


1970 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 429-442
Author(s):  
T Hermansen

The paper discusses methodological issues that arise when national planning is attempted which is regionalised and integrated with the traditional forms of physical and community development planning at the regional level. Distinctions are made between control and operational decisions and between analytical target planning and institutional planning. Decisions are furthermore classified according to levels in the decision-making hierarchy, and according to their sectoral and spatial dimensions, resulting in a multi-level, multi-sectoral, and multi-regional system of decision-making and planning activities. The key problem arising is that of distributing decision-making authority among the decision units and superimposing a planning and information exchange system that not only guarantees consistency, but also ensures efficiency in inter-sectoral growth patterns as well as with respect to location of project and utilisation of regional resources and external economies.


2018 ◽  
Vol 41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick Simen ◽  
Fuat Balcı

AbstractRahnev & Denison (R&D) argue against normative theories and in favor of a more descriptive “standard observer model” of perceptual decision making. We agree with the authors in many respects, but we argue that optimality (specifically, reward-rate maximization) has proved demonstrably useful as a hypothesis, contrary to the authors’ claims.


2018 ◽  
Vol 41 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Danks

AbstractThe target article uses a mathematical framework derived from Bayesian decision making to demonstrate suboptimal decision making but then attributes psychological reality to the framework components. Rahnev & Denison's (R&D) positive proposal thus risks ignoring plausible psychological theories that could implement complex perceptual decision making. We must be careful not to slide from success with an analytical tool to the reality of the tool components.


2018 ◽  
Vol 41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin Arceneaux

AbstractIntuitions guide decision-making, and looking to the evolutionary history of humans illuminates why some behavioral responses are more intuitive than others. Yet a place remains for cognitive processes to second-guess intuitive responses – that is, to be reflective – and individual differences abound in automatic, intuitive processing as well.


2014 ◽  
Vol 38 (01) ◽  
pp. 46
Author(s):  
David R. Shanks ◽  
Ben R. Newell

2014 ◽  
Vol 38 (01) ◽  
pp. 48
Author(s):  
David R. Shanks ◽  
Ben R. Newell

2020 ◽  
Vol 43 ◽  
Author(s):  
Valerie F. Reyna ◽  
David A. Broniatowski

Abstract Gilead et al. offer a thoughtful and much-needed treatment of abstraction. However, it fails to build on an extensive literature on abstraction, representational diversity, neurocognition, and psychopathology that provides important constraints and alternative evidence-based conceptions. We draw on conceptions in software engineering, socio-technical systems engineering, and a neurocognitive theory with abstract representations of gist at its core, fuzzy-trace theory.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document