Technological forecasting for decision making

1984 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 161
Author(s):  
John Langrish
2021 ◽  
Vol 67 ◽  
pp. 101707
Author(s):  
Jalil Heidary Dahooie ◽  
Navid Mohammadi ◽  
Tugrul Daim ◽  
Amir Salar Vanaki ◽  
Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas

Futures ◽  
1984 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 197-199 ◽  
Author(s):  
BrianC. Twiss

2013 ◽  
Vol 10 (01) ◽  
pp. 1350001
Author(s):  
CHUNG-SHING LEE ◽  
JONATHAN C. HO

This paper applies the multiple-perspective decision-making approach [Linstone (1984, 1999); Linstone and Zhu (2000)] and the concepts of discounting and technological forecasting and planning as a framework to study the influence of culture on technology development and management in Korea. Korea was an early innovator of both metallic movable type printing and MP3 players and they had the first-mover advantage of developing both technologies earlier than other technologically advanced countries in the same era. However, these two innovations were not commercially successful in Korea. Many reasons could have attributed to the failure. By analyzing these two cases and an additional case on Korea's plan to build an Internet-centric economy, we conclude that the imbalance among the technical, organizational, and personal (TOP) perspectives was the major factor. Business executives and policy makers need to deal with not only issues related to discounting and forecasting when planning for commercialization and diffusion of new technologies, but also the organizational and cultural factors which play an important role that bridges inventions and the successful diffusion of innovations. In sum, the balance of multiple perspectives of decision-making, the applications of the principles of discounting and technology forecasting and planning, and the roles of diversity and government policy are all crucial for the success of an innovation in a global context.


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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document