Bitte verwenden Sie diesen Link, um diese Publikation zu zitieren, oder auf sie als Internetquelle zu verweisen: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/316969 
Erscheinungsjahr: 
2024
Quellenangabe: 
[Journal:] Operations Research Forum [ISSN:] 2662-2556 [Volume:] 5 [Issue:] 4 [Article No.:] 92 [Publisher:] Springer International Publishing [Place:] Cham [Year:] 2024
Verlag: 
Springer International Publishing, Cham
Zusammenfassung: 
Abstract Research has shown that decision-makers omit a significant number of their objectives when making a decision. This study examines the consequences of incomplete objectives on decision making, i.e., how does omitting objectives affect identifying the most promising alternative? We investigate this question using a dataset of 945 observed decisions. These decisions were developed by students using the decision-skills and training tool entscheidungsnavi.com. The tool guides students in a step-by-step process based on value-focused thinking, multi-attribute utility theory, and debiasing methods. Results show that omitting objectives significantly reduces the chances of identifying the most promising alternative. Hence, neglecting only 20% of the objectives is sufficient to mislead more than one in four decisions. We have found three factors that influence this risk of misidentifying the most promising alternative: (1) the weight of the omitted objectives; (2) the consensus on the best alternative across all objectives; and (3) the consensus on the ranking of all alternatives across all objectives.
Schlagwörter: 
Decision analysis
Decision support systems
Value-focused thinking
Multi-attribute utility theory
Persistent Identifier der Erstveröffentlichung: 
Creative-Commons-Lizenz: 
cc-by Logo
Dokumentart: 
Article
Dokumentversion: 
Published Version
Erscheint in der Sammlung:

Datei(en):
Datei
Größe





Publikationen in EconStor sind urheberrechtlich geschützt.