scholarly journals Crowdsourced Knowledge in Organizational Decision Making

Knowledge ◽  
2022 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 26-40
Author(s):  
Stephen L. Dorton ◽  
Samantha B. Harper ◽  
LeeAnn R. Maryeski ◽  
Lillian K. E. Asiala
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Mental Model ◽  
Design Thinking ◽  
Rhetorical Analysis ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Organizational Decision Making ◽  
Types Of Knowledge ◽  
Survey Responses ◽  
Diverse Groups ◽  
Professional Disciplines

Inefficiencies naturally form as organizations grow in size and complexity. The knowledge required to address these inefficiencies is often stove-piped across different organizational silos, geographic locations, and professional disciplines. Crowdsourcing provides a way to tap into the knowledge and experiences of diverse groups of people to rapidly identify and more effectively solve inefficiencies. We developed a prototype crowdsourcing system based on design thinking practices to allow employees to build a shared mental model and work collaboratively to identify, characterize, and rank inefficiencies, as well as to develop possible solutions. We conducted a study to assess how presenting crowdsourced knowledge (votes/preferences, supporting argumentation, etc.) from employees affected organizational Decision Makers (DMs). In spite of predictions that crowdsourced knowledge would influence their decisions, presenting this knowledge to DMs had no significant effect on their voting for various solutions. We found significant differences in the mental models of employees and DMs. We offer various explanations for this behavior based on rhetorical analysis and other survey responses from DMs and contributors. We further discuss different theoretical explanations, including the effects of various biases and decision inertia, and potential issues with the types of knowledge elicited and presented to DMs.

scholarly journals Escalation Of Commitment In Groups And The Moderating Effects Of Information Framing

2011 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert W. Rutledge
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Investment Decision ◽  
Relevant Information ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Moderating Effects ◽  
Organizational Decision Making ◽  
Escalating Commitment ◽  
Decision Choices ◽  
Information Framing ◽  
Prior Decision

The escalation effect occurs when managers elect to commit additional resources to a project where the unfavorable economic prospects indicate the project should be canceled. It has been suggested that the context in which the decision is reached (e.g., a managers responsibility for the original decision to invest in a project) may influence a managers decision choices (Staw 1981). Bazerman (1984) suggests that framing of information used by decision-makers may explain the escalation effect. This study investigates whether responsibility for a prior decision will affect decision-making in interactive groups in an escalation situation. Additionally, this study looks at the effect of framing on the groups decisions and examines the ability of framing to moderate the escalation effect resulting from responsibility. The results suggest that groups are subject to escalating commitment when they are responsible for a prior related investment decision. The results also provide evidence that groups are influenced by the framing of decision-relevant information, and further, that the framing may have the ability to moderate the effects of responsibility. Implications for organizational decision making are provided.

An Attention-Based View on DSS

2011 ◽  
pp. 38-45 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sven A. Carlsson
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Decision Support ◽  
Organizational Behavior ◽  
Support Systems ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Alternative View ◽  
Herbert Simon ◽  
Organizational Decision Making ◽  
Promising Alternative ◽  
Organizational Attention

Commentators on decision support and decision support systems (DSS) have called for serious discussion of the discourses underpinning decision support and DSS (Huber, 1981; Stabell, 1987; Humphreys, 1998). Huber and Humphreys say that decision support and DSS discourses are critical to the advancement of the academic DSS field as well as to DSS practice, but the discourses are too seldom discussed. This article questions the influential “decision-making as choice” view. We suggest that the attention-based view of the firm (Ocasio, 1997) is a promising alternative view of organizational decision-making and that this view can be a basis for DSS design. More than 50 years ago Herbert Simon suggested that to explain organizational behavior is to explain how organizations distribute and regulate the attention of their decision-makers (Simon, 1947). Simon was emphasizing the duality of structural processes and cognitive processes in structuring of organizational attention. More recent writings have either emphasized cognition and activity or structure. The attention-based view of the firm explicitly links structure, activity, and cognition and the view stresses that organizational decision- making is affected by both the limited attentional capacity of humans and the structural influences on a decision-maker’s attention.

The influence of design thinking tools on NGO accountability

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lediaa ANDRAWES ◽  
Gerda GEMSER ◽  
Adela MCMURRAY
Keyword(s):  
Design Thinking ◽  
Research Study ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Sense Making ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Participatory Action ◽  
Complex Information ◽  
Felt Accountability ◽  
Diverse Groups ◽  
Thinking Tools

There is continued criticism regarding the over-reliance on donor-centred accountability mechanisms in aid projects. Conversely, there is increasing interest in Design Thinking as an approach to support greater beneficiary-centred accountability. Accountability can be conceptualised as ‘felt’ virtue which privileges internal motivations of decision-makers; and as ‘imposed’ mechanism which privileges externally enforced structures on decision-makers. However, there is limited understanding about whether Design Thinking tools can influence the accountability of decision-makers. This participatory action research study utilised semi-structured interviews and observations. The analysis revealed decision-makers perceived two tools, being Personas and Journey Maps, as having influenced their ‘felt’ accountability. Suggestions on how the tools may be contributing to the ‘felt’ accountability of decision-makers include: building a shared picture among diverse groups, humanising complex information, grounding discussions in realities, and deepening empathy. This study contributes to extant literature by showing that Design Thinking can enhance, decision-makers’ ‘felt’ accountability through new sense-making practices and tools.

Why are you watching? Video surveillance in organizations

2018 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 274-291 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christina S. Hagen ◽  
Leila Bighash ◽  
Andrea B. Hollingshead ◽  
Sonia Jawaid Shaikh ◽  
Kristen S. Alexander
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Video Surveillance ◽  
Relevant Literature ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Surveillance Video ◽  
Ethical Considerations ◽  
Organizational Decision Making ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Video Footage ◽  
Decision Making Model

Purpose Organizations and their actors are increasingly using video surveillance to monitor organizational members, employees, clients, and customers. The use of such technologies in workplaces creates a virtual panopticon and increases uncertainty for those under surveillance. Video surveillance in organizations poses several concerns for the privacy of individuals and creates a security-privacy dilemma for organizations to address. The purpose of this paper is to offer a decision-making model that ties in ethical considerations of access, equality, and transparency at four stages of video surveillance use in organizations: deployment of cameras and equipment, capturing footage, processing and storing data, and editing and sharing video footage. At each stage, organizational actors should clearly identify the purpose for video surveillance, adopt a minimum capability necessary to achieve their goals, and communicate decisions made and actions taken that involve video surveillance in order to reduce uncertainty and address privacy concerns of those being surveilled. Design/methodology/approach The paper proposes a normative model for ethical video surveillance organizational decision making based on a review of relevant literature and recent events. Findings The paper provides several implications for the future of dealing with security-privacy dilemmas in organizations and offers structured considerations for corporation leaders and decision makers. Practical implications The paper includes implications for organizations to approach video surveillance with ethical considerations for stakeholder privacy while balancing security demands. Originality/value This paper offers a framework for decision-makers that also offers opportunities for further research around the concept of ethics in organizational video surveillance.

The Mythical Decision Maker

2011 ◽  
pp. 653-660 ◽  
Author(s):  
Csaba Csáki
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Decision Support ◽  
Decision Maker ◽  
Support Systems ◽  
Historical Context ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Organizational Decision Making ◽  
Theoretical Investigations ◽  
Human Decision ◽  
History Of

During the history of decision support systems (DSSs)— in fact, during the history of theoretical investigations of human decision-making situations—the decision maker (DM) has been the centre of attention who considers options and makes a choice. However, the notion and definitions of this decision maker, as well as the various roles surrounding his or her activity, have changed depending on both time and scientific areas. Reading the DSS literature, one might encounter references to such players as decision makers, problem owners, stakeholders, facilitators, developers, users, project champions, and supporters, and the list goes on. Who are these players, what is their role, and where do these terms come from? This article presents a review in historical context of some key interpretations aimed at identifying the various roles that actors may assume in an organizational decision-making situation.

Deciding for Responsibility and Legitimation: Alternative Interpretations of Organizational Decision‐Making

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nils Brunsson
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Local Governments ◽  
Empirical Studies ◽  
Decision Processes ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Organizational Decision Making ◽  
Empirical Validity ◽  
Organizational Action ◽  
National Governments

Recent studies have questioned the empirical validity of the equating of decision and choice and pointed at another role that organizational decisions sometimes play — the role of mobilizing organizational action, a role that requires less rationality than choice. But choice and mobilization are not the only roles of decision-making and decisions in organizations. This chapter argues that two additional roles exist — decisions may allocate responsibility and legitimacy to decision-makers and organizations. The chapter also considers how the different roles can explain the design of decision processes, the use of information and the number of decisions in organizations. The discussion is based on empirical studies of decision processes in such organizations: in local governments, national governments, and company boards. The eight decision processes studied concern city budgets, investments and disinvestments, and governmental programmes.

The heart in organizational buying: marketers’ understanding of emotions and decision-making of buyers

2018 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-28 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elyria A. Kemp ◽  
Aberdeen Leila Borders ◽  
Nwamaka A. Anaza ◽  
Wesley J. Johnston
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Buying Behavior ◽  
Organizational Decision Making ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Organizational Buying ◽  
Functional Value ◽  
Human Decision ◽  
Personal Level ◽  
Depth Interviews

Purpose Organizational buying behavior has often been treated as a rational activity, even though humans are involved in the decision-making. Human decision-making often includes a complex cadre of emotions and rationalizations. Subsequently, organizational buyers may not only be driven by logic, testing and facts, but also by emotions. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the role that emotions play in organizational buying behavior. Design/methodology/approach In-depth interviews were conducted with marketing decision-makers for one of the most valuable brands in the world. The role that emotions play in the behavior of organizational buyers is elucidated from the perspective of these marketing professionals. Findings Emotions are prevalent at all stages in the organizational decision-making process and various discrete emotions fuel action tendencies among buyers. Efforts are made by marketers to strategically manage the emotions buyers experience. Practical implications Although organizational buyers must see the functional value of a product or brand, companies need to consider ways in which brands can connect with buyers on an emotional and personal level. Originality/value This paper contributes to the literature by offering insights into which discrete or specific emotions are most prominent in organizational buying behavior and how the manifestation of these emotions impact decision-making at each stage in the buying cycle.

Satisficing in Political Decision Making

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Stevens
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Decision Rule ◽  
Survey Design ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Cognitive Effort ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Positive Effects ◽  
Cognitive Limitations ◽  
Survey Responses

The idea of satisficing as a decision rule began with Herbert Simon. Simon was dissatisfied with the increasingly dominant notion of individuals as rational decision-makers who choose alternatives that maximize expected utility on two grounds. First, he viewed the maximizing account of decision-making as unrealistic given that individuals have cognitive limitations and varying motivations that limit cognitive ability and effort. Second, he argued that individuals do not even choose alternatives as if they are maximizing (i.e., that the maximizing account has predictive validity). Instead, he offered a theory of individuals as satisficers: decision-makers who consider a limited number of alternatives, expending limited cognitive effort, until they find one that is “good enough.” At this point, he argued, the consideration of alternatives stops. The satisficing decision rule has influenced several subfields of political science. They include elite decision-making on military conflicts, the economy, and public policy; ideas of what the mass public needs to know about politics and the extent to which deficits in political knowledge are consequential; and understanding of survey responses and survey design. Political and social psychologists have also taken Simon’s idea and argued that satisficing rather than maximizing is a personality trait—stable characteristics of individuals that make them predisposed toward one or other type of alternative search when making decisions. Research in these subfields additionally raises normative questions about the extent to which satisficing is not only a common way of making decisions but a desirable one. Satisficing seems superior to maximizing in several respects. For example, it has positive effects on aspects of decision-makers’ well-being and is more likely to result in individuals voting their interests in elections. There are, however, a number of directions in which future research on satisficing could be taken forward. These include a fuller incorporation of the interaction of affect and cognition, clearer tests of alternative explanations to satisficing, and more focus and understanding on the effects of the Internet and the “information age.”

OP22 Patient-Based Evidence: Its Role In Decision-Making On New Medicines

2019 ◽  
Vol 35 (S1) ◽  
pp. 4-5
Author(s):  
Sharon Hems ◽  
Louise Taylor ◽  
Jan Jones ◽  
Eileen Holmes
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
End Of Life ◽  
Survey Methodology ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Added Value ◽  
Valuable Insight ◽  
Survey Responses ◽  
Psychological Benefit

IntroductionThe Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC) advises NHS Scotland on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of new medicines. Since 2014, evidence from patients and carers on end-of-life and orphan medicines has been gathered during Patient and Clinician Engagement (PACE) meetings. The output is a consensus statement which describes the added value of a new medicine from the perspective of the patient/carer and clinician. This study investigates the importance of factors identified through PACE to committee members and how these are used in their decision-making.MethodsSurvey methodology was used to gain an understanding of the factors from the PACE statement that are most likely to influence members (n = 26) in decision-making. The survey instrument was informed by a literature review and observation of PACE and SMC meetings. Likert scale questions were used to determine the relative importance of factors in the PACE statement, including information relating to eight prominent ‘quality of life’ themes (family/carer impact, health benefits, tolerability, psychological benefit, hope, normal life, treatment choice and convenience), that were identified by an earlier thematic analysis of these statements.ResultsAnalysis of survey responses will use mainly descriptive techniques to generate percentages and ranges. Correlation analysis will be considered to investigate relationships between members’ demographics, type of medicine (end-of-life, orphan) and the importance of different factors in the PACE statement. Preliminary results indicate that key quality of life themes highly valued by patients/carers are also important to committee members in their decision making. Challenges in assimilating qualitative patient-based evidence from PACE alongside quantitative clinical and economic data were highlighted.ConclusionsFindings from this survey will provide valuable insight into how PACE evidence is used by SMC decision makers alongside traditional clinical and economic evidence and will help shape future improvements to the PACE methodology.

278 Understanding Biosecurity Perceptions in Pennsylvania Pig Producers

2021 ◽  
Vol 99 (Supplement_3) ◽  
pp. 147-148
Author(s):  
Elizabeth M Brownawell ◽  
Elizabeth A Hines ◽  
Linda Falcone ◽  
Chris Gambino
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Cognitive Processes ◽  
Mental Model ◽  
Motivating Factors ◽  
Record Keeping ◽  
Network Diagram ◽  
Intercoder Reliability ◽  
Perceive Risk ◽  
Survey Responses ◽  
Interdependent Relationships

Abstract The group mental model of swine-related biosecurity for producers and experts was assessed and compared using network analysis. The proper implementation of biosecurity plans reduces the risk of biological hazards that could cripple the industry. Recently collected survey data show producer motivation to adopt a biosecurity protocol is not driven solely by the value of the operation (Hines and Falcone, unpublished). Other motivating factors exist for how producers perceive risk relating to biosecurity management. To identify how pig producers and experts conceptualize biosecurity, open-ended survey questions were asked. Survey responses (n = 123) were coded using a newly developed codebook. Intercoder reliability was established using Krippendorff’s a. Code co-occurrence was used to build a network diagram showing producer and expert mental models, or depiction of the interdependent relationships among values, beliefs, behavior, and cognitive processes of decision making. Analyses of code co-occurrence revealed differences between producers and experts. The results suggest PA-based producers think of biosecurity relating to the protection of their property (ie. inward protection) which was closely associated with limiting access of “outsiders.” Also, the mental model diagram suggests producers think about biosecurity more broadly due to less clustering of ideas. Whereas experts think about biosecurity more specifically relating to two to three themes. Specifically, the expert biosecurity diagram revealed record keeping as an important component of biosecurity, which was strongly related to how experts think about cleanliness and limiting outsider access. Regarding strategies to address biohazard risks, both producers and experts recognize several options. However, experts proved to have stronger connections between concepts. Specifically, the diagrams revealed experts see all strategies as connected. From an expert perspective, strategies to address biohazard risks should be implemented simultaneously. These findings are the first step to designing communication to bridge the gaps between expert and producer understanding of biosecurity.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document