scholarly journals Application of Game Theory in Middle-Management: A Military Historical Study of the Role of the Middle-Manager as a Correlated Equilibrium Factor in the Decision-Making Process

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 51-64
Author(s):  
Quentin Commine ◽  
Jérémie Aboiron
Keyword(s):  
Game Theory ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Middle Management ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Middle Manager ◽  
Historical Study ◽  
Correlated Equilibrium ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Scientific Publications

The role of the manager, defined by innumerable scientific publications, is only rarely seen through the prism of game theory and its notions of equilibrium allowing decision-makers to optimize situations. The role of the middle-manager, mindful of the human factor and respectful toward his mission shall lead to a virtuous balance, can be defined in game theory as a correlated equilibrium in the sense of the game theorist Robert Aumann. Indeed, this kind of equilibrium goes further than the Nash equilibrium by introducing the notion of a common game and an intermediary embedded in the decision-making process and getting the strategy from his superiors to translate it to his subordinated staff. We use two military historical illustrations to illustrate this concept: the case of the Auftragstaktik refers to Sherman's "march to the sea" while the study of Lee's defeat at Gettysburg refers to the necessity of having capable subordinated staff to maximize an outcome. Throughout this study, we show and formalize the essential role of the middle-manager in the elaboration of effective decisions and processes.

Augmenting Medical Diagnosis Decisions? An Investigation into Physicians’ Decision-Making Process with Artificial Intelligence

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ekaterina Jussupow ◽  
Kai Spohrer ◽  
Armin Heinzl ◽  
Joshua Gawlitza
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Medical Errors ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Medical Decision ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Self Monitoring ◽  
Rule Based ◽  
Human Actors

Systems based on artificial intelligence (AI) increasingly support physicians in diagnostic decisions, but they are not without errors and biases. Failure to detect those may result in wrong diagnoses and medical errors. Compared with rule-based systems, however, these systems are less transparent and their errors less predictable. Thus, it is difficult, yet critical, for physicians to carefully evaluate AI advice. This study uncovers the cognitive challenges that medical decision makers face when they receive potentially incorrect advice from AI-based diagnosis systems and must decide whether to follow or reject it. In experiments with 68 novice and 12 experienced physicians, novice physicians with and without clinical experience as well as experienced radiologists made more inaccurate diagnosis decisions when provided with incorrect AI advice than without advice at all. We elicit five decision-making patterns and show that wrong diagnostic decisions often result from shortcomings in utilizing metacognitions related to decision makers’ own reasoning (self-monitoring) and metacognitions related to the AI-based system (system monitoring). As a result, physicians fall for decisions based on beliefs rather than actual data or engage in unsuitably superficial evaluation of the AI advice. Our study has implications for the training of physicians and spotlights the crucial role of human actors in compensating for AI errors.

scholarly journals Environmental Justice in India: The National Green Tribunal and Expert Members

2015 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 175-205 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gitanjali Nain Gill
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Environmental Justice ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Environmental Disputes ◽  
Scientific Experts ◽  
Decision Making Processes ◽  
Technical Expert ◽  
Insight Into

AbstractThis article argues that the involvement of technical experts in decision making promotes better environmental results while simultaneously recognizing the uncertainty in science. India’s record as a progressive jurisdiction in environmental matters through its proactive judiciary is internationally recognized. The neoteric National Green Tribunal of India (NGT) – officially described as a ‘specialised body equipped with necessary expertise to handle environmental disputes involving multi-disciplinary issues’ – is a forum which offers greater plurality for environmental justice. The NGT, in exercising wide powers, is staffed by judicial and technical expert members who decide cases in an open forum. The experts are ‘central’, rather than ‘marginal’, to the NGT’s decision-making process.This article draws on theoretical insights developed by Lorna Schrefler and Peter Haas to analyze the role of scientific experts as decision makers within the NGT. Unprecedented interview access provides data that grants an insight into the internal decision-making processes of the five benches of the NGT. Reported cases, supported by additional comments of bench members, illustrate the wider policy impact of scientific knowledge and its contribution to the NGT’s decision-making process.

scholarly journals EVALUATION MODEL FOR MULTIATTRIBUTES–MULTIAGENTS DECISION MAKING: SATISFICING GAME APPROACH

2009 ◽  
Vol 08 (01) ◽  
pp. 73-91 ◽  
Author(s):  
AYELEY P. TCHANGANI
Keyword(s):  
Game Theory ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Decision Problem ◽  
Value Function ◽  
Evaluation Model ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
A Value ◽  
Negative Attributes

This paper considers the evaluation step in a decision-making process that follows decision-making goals setting, feasible alternatives and attributes or criteria that characterize them determination steps. Evaluation step must establish a model or algorithm to evaluate alternatives taking into account their performances with regard to criteria as well as decision makers or stakeholders preferences. Though this problem is rather a classic one, researches related to evaluation model construction continue to be active to find models that cope with more realities or that fit well how human beings behave in group and proceed when facing the problem of choosing, ranking or sorting alternatives or options. The purpose of this paper is to construct an evaluation model that integrate the performances of alternatives with regard to attributes or criteria and decision makers or agents opinions with regard to the importance to assign to each criterion in order to obtain a value function. As any decision problem is almost always a matter of tradeoff, among attributes characterizing alternatives there will be those acting toward the achievement of decision makers goal (benefit) and those that decision makers would like to reduce as much as possible (cost); we will designate the first ones as positive attributes and the later ones as negative attributes. The process of dividing attributes into positive attributes and negative attributes is beyond the scope of this paper and this partition will be considered as a part of the problem specification. The model is constructed in two steps: firstly, satisfiability (selectability and rejectability) measures or functions are obtained for each alternative using attributes values (positive attributes will contribute to selectability measure whereas negative ones are used in the derivation of rejectability measure) and agents opinions in the framework of satisficing game theory and secondly a value function is built on that measures. Agents opinions with regard to attributes will be expressed locally by weighting them by category (positive/negative).

scholarly journals Decision Making: Rational Choice or Hyper-Rational Choice

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 583-589
Author(s):  
Gholamreza Askari ◽  
Madjid Eshaghi Gordji
Keyword(s):  
Game Theory ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Rational Choice ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Game Analysis ◽  
Individual Preferences ◽  
Human Decision ◽  
Insight Into ◽  
Rational Players

In this paper, we provide an interpretation of the rationality in game theory in which player consider the profit or loss of the opponent in addition to personal profit at the game.‎ ‎‎The goal of a game analysis with two hyper-rationality players is to provide insight into real-world situations that are often more complex than a game with two rational players where the choices of strategy are only based on individual preferences. The hyper-rationality does not mean perfect rationality but an insight toward how human decision-makers behave in interactive decisions. ‎‎The findings of this research can help to enlarge our understanding of the psychological aspects of strategy choices in games and also provide an analysis of the decision-making process with cognitive economics approach at the same time.‎ ‎‎‎

Increasing Choices or Decreasing Hope? Explaining the Rising Prevalence of Depression From a Decision-Making Perspective

2021 ◽  
pp. 003329412098812
Author(s):  
Sabnam Basu ◽  
Shikha Dixit
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Theoretical Perspective ◽  
Modern Society ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Self Blame ◽  
Prevalence Of Depression ◽  
The Face ◽  
Decisional Regret

In today’s fast-moving society, we get a multitude of options available. However, choices once considered beneficial, are now being largely debated. In the face of rising prevalence of depression and being identified as the ‘disease of modernity’, this burden of increasing choices on the modern society needs to be re-evaluated. In this paper, we aim to elucidate the rising rate of depression in today’s society with regard to the increasing number of choices, the decision-making process, and the consequent attribution of the decision-making situations. We also attempt to look at the role of culture, acknowledging its importance in depression and perception of choices. Lastly, a theoretical perspective is being outlined about how the increasing amount of choices being provided in today’s society can give rise to a pessimistic attribution style among decision-makers. Decision-makers therein might be more likely to face post-decisional regret and self-blame, ultimately developing risk for depression. The way in which choices are perceived in a particular culture could either facilitate or act as a buffer to depression. Thus, the essential role that culture might play in moderating this relationship is also discussed.

strategi dalam pengambilan keputusan

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Suci Handayani Handayani ◽  
Hade Afriansyah
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Imperfect Information ◽  
Economic Value ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Administrative Process ◽  
Left Behind ◽  
Information Time ◽  
Complex Matter ◽  
General Individuals

Decision making is one element of economic value, especially in the era of globalization, and if it is not acceptable in the decision making process, we will be left behind. According to Robins, (2003: 173), Salusu, (2000: 47), and Razik and Swanson, (1995: 476) say that decision making can be interpreted as a process of choosing a number of alternatives, how to act in accordance with concepts, or rules in solving problems to achieve individual or group goals that have been formulated using a number of specific techniques, approaches and methods and achieve optimal levels of acceptance.Decision making in organizations whether a decision is made for a person or group, the nature of the decision is often determined by rules, policies, prescribed, instructions that have been derived or practices that apply. To understand decision making within the organization it is useful to view decision making as part of the overall administrative process. In general, individuals tend to use simple strategies, even if in any complex matter, to get the desired solution, because the solution is limited by imperfect information, time and costs, limited thinking and psychological stress experienced by decision makers.

scholarly journals Decision Making from the Experience of Orthognathic Surgery Patients: A Grounded Theory Approach

2021 ◽  
pp. 238008442110144
Author(s):  
N.R. Paul ◽  
S.R. Baker ◽  
B.J. Gibson
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Grounded Theory ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Study Data ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Major Surgery ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Theory Approach

Introduction: Patients’ decisions to undergo major surgery such as orthognathic treatment are not just about how the decision is made but what influences the decision. Objectives: The primary objective of the study was to identify the key processes involved in patients’ experience of decision making for orthognathic treatment. Methods: This study reports some of the findings of a larger grounded theory study. Data were collected through face-to-face interviews of patients who were seen for orthognathic treatment at a teaching hospital in the United Kingdom. Twenty-two participants were recruited (age range 18–66 y), of whom 12 (male = 2, female = 10) were 6 to 8 wk postsurgery, 6 (male = 2, female = 4) were in the decision-making stage, and 4 (male = 0, female = 4) were 1 to 2 y postsurgery. Additional data were also collected from online blogs and forums on jaw surgery. The data analysis stages of grounded theory methodology were undertaken, including open and selective coding. Results: The study identified the central role of dental care professionals (DCPs) in several underlying processes associated with decision making, including legitimating, mediating, scheduling, projecting, and supporting patients’ decisions. Six categories were related to key aspects of decision making. These were awareness about their underlying dentofacial problems and treatment options available, the information available about the treatment, the temporality of when surgery would be undertaken, the motivations and expectation of patients, social support, and fear of the surgery, hospitalization, and potentially disliking their new face. Conclusion: The decision-making process for orthognathic treatment is complex, multifactorial, and heavily influenced by the role of DCPs in patient care. Understanding the magnitude of this role will enable DCPs to more clearly participate in improving patients’ decision-making process. The findings of this study can inform future quantitative studies. Knowledge Transfer Statement: The results of this study can be used both for informing clinical practice around enabling decision making for orthognathic treatment and also for designing future research. The findings can better inform clinicians about the importance of their role in the patients’ decision-making process for orthognathic treatment and the means to improve the patient experience. It is suggested that further research could be conducted to measure some of the key constructs identified within our grounded theory and assess how these change during the treatment process.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document