scholarly journals Simulating Systems Thinking under Bounded Rationality

Complexity ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-12
Author(s):  
Mark W. Sellers ◽  
Hiroki Sayama ◽  
Andreas D. Pape
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Bounded Rationality ◽  
Systems Thinking ◽  
Computer Model ◽  
Adaptive Systems ◽  
Unintended Consequences ◽  
Complex Dynamic ◽  
Simple Computer ◽  
Self Organized ◽  
Top Performers

Brian Arthur’s El Farol bar model of bounded rationality provides a simple computer model of decision making in a complex, dynamic, and self-organized environment. Can systems thinking provide a viable alternative strategy to traditional methods for dealing with these types of problems? Nine different agents, designed from both traditional and systems perspectives, compete in fifteen variants of the El Farol environment and their performance in 4 categories—Winner, Top Performers, Competitive, and Vulnerable—is compared. We show that systems thinking is a competitive strategy that is, at least, on par with traditional strategies and may be less vulnerable to elimination or ruin. However, there are two consequential elements that emerge. First, all strategies have some environments where they succeed and others where they fail. Second, as the population of practitioners adopts these adaptive, systems-based strategies, the environment exhibits new behaviors with a new set of unintended consequences.

scholarly journals Public Reform Paradoxes and the Old Effectiveness–Efficiency Problem

2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 501-529
Author(s):  
Mirko Pečarič
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Complex Adaptive Systems ◽  
Adaptive Systems ◽  
Essential Elements ◽  
Unintended Consequences ◽  
Negative Effects ◽  
Or Methodology ◽  
Complex Adaptive ◽  
Human Decision ◽  
Effectiveness And Efficiency

Although effectiveness and efficiency are old comrades of public administrations, they still often cause unintended consequences. The relation between (absent) effectiveness and (overly emphasised) efficiency remains unresolved. The paper shows that effectiveness and efficiency are still used interchangeably, and despite the presence of negative effects, it comes as a surprise that important documents still address these terms without procedure or methodology to provide the content whereby they could be more clearly elaborated. Not only is the goal to achieve clearer meaning, but to accomplish results with the fewest possible negative effects. Alongside different management reforms, decision-makers must not lose sight of the whole; all reforms are only specific answers to inadequate previous ones, and it could be valuable to take a step back to see how/why different reforms emerge. The paper addresses the success/failure of reforms and the outcomes thereof. It claims the core problem of rational decision-making lies not in rationality per se, but in a lack of concept and/or insufficient attention to the behaviour of complex adaptive systems. With the help of complex adaptive systems, cybernetics, and combinations of effectiveness and efficiency, the paper presents the essential elements for adaptive (human) decision-making (such as diversity, variation, selection, adaptation, and integration) as the framework whereby unintended, reverse, and neutral effects can be reduced. New rules/decisions should be based on different levels of planning and adaptation, and on moving from the general to the more specific, in accordance with context specificity and unplanned, emergent things. It seems the hardest thing to address is the human character that does not (want to) recognise a situation as the situation in which some things must be spotted, evaluated, and changed if needed.

Reconsidering policy systems

2020 ◽  
pp. 11-32
Author(s):  
Kate Crowley ◽  
Jenny Stewart ◽  
Adrian Kay ◽  
Brian W. Head
Keyword(s):  
Systems Thinking ◽  
Complex Adaptive Systems ◽  
Adaptive Systems ◽  
Unintended Consequences ◽  
Policy Sciences ◽  
Complex Interactions ◽  
Complex Adaptive ◽  
Policy Systems ◽  
And Control ◽  
Policy Problems

Systems thinking has been neglected in the policy sciences, to the detriment of both broad understandings of the role of policy, and of policy-making capacity. This chapter remedies this deficiency by tracing the trajectory of systems thinking in the policy sciences, introducing and explaining themes from complexity science in policy-relevant terms, and concluding with practical examples of applications of systems thinking to real-world policy problems. To illustrate: complex adaptive systems are discussed in the context of regulation and control. Two general claims are made for this approach: firstly, systems thinking is likely to be particularly productive where policy problems defy conventional solutions and unintended consequences are rife. In these situations, systems thinking has the ability to move beyond the specifics of each problem to identify and depict underlying complexity; secondly, in the governance era, sites of policy-relevant action are more likely than in the past to lie outside the formal boundaries of government, and to require complex interactions among stakeholders.

Reasonable Bounds on Rationality

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Igor Grossmann ◽  
Richard Eibach
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Bounded Rationality ◽  
Cognitive Resources ◽  
Previous Theory ◽  
Making Choices ◽  
Points Of View ◽  
Sound Judgment

Previous theory and research on bounded rationality has emphasized how limited cognitive resources constrain people from making utility maximizing choices. This paper expands the concept of bounded rationality to consider how people’s rationality may be constrained by their internalization of a qualitatively distinct standard for sound judgment, which is commonly labeled reasonableness. In contrast to rationality, the standard of reasonableness provides guidance for making choices in situations that involve balancing incommensurable values and interests or reconciling conflicting points-of-view. We review recent evidence showing that laypeople readily recognize the distinctions between rationality and reasonableness and thus are able to utilize these as distinct standards to inform their everyday decision-making. The fact that people appear to have internalized rationality and reasonableness as distinct standards of sound judgment supports the notion that people’s pursuit of rationality may be bounded by their determination to also be reasonable.

FORBEEF: A forage-livestock system computer model used as a teaching aid for decision making

1987 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 85-87
Author(s):  
W. C. Stringer ◽  
N. S. Hill ◽  
B. W. Pinkerton
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Computer Model ◽  
Teaching Aid ◽  
Livestock System

Systems thinking, a consilience of values and logic

2005 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 259-274
Author(s):  
Sameer Kumar ◽  
Thomas Ressler ◽  
Mark Ahrens
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Problem Solving ◽  
Systems Thinking ◽  
Qualitative Reasoning ◽  
Colleges And Universities ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Modern World ◽  
Problem Solving Process ◽  
Problem Solvers

This article is an appeal to incorporate qualitative reasoning into quantitative topics and courses, especially those devoted to decision-making offered in colleges and universities. Students, many of whom join professional workforce, must become more systems thinkers and decision-makers than merely problem-solvers. This will entail discussion of systems thinking, not just reaching “the answer”. Managers will need to formally and forcefully discuss objectives and values at each stage of the problem-solving process – at the start, during the problem-solving stage, and at the interpretation of the results stage – in order to move from problem solving to decision-making. The authors suggest some methods for doing this, and provide examples of why doing so is so important for decision-makers in the modern world.

Beyond Bounded Rationality: CEO Reflective Capacity and Firm Sustainability Performance

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-38
Author(s):  
Yingya Jia ◽  
Anne S. Tsui ◽  
Xiaoyu Yu
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Bounded Rationality ◽  
Three Dimensional ◽  
Strategic Decision ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Sustainability Performance ◽  
Business Executives ◽  
Dimensional Measure ◽  
Reflective Capacity ◽  
Mediating Mechanisms

ABSTRACT Optimal or rational decision making is not possible due to informational constraints and limits in computation capability of humans (March & Simon, 1958; March, 1978). This bounded rationality serves as a filtering process in decision making among business executives (Hambrick & Mason, 1984). In this study, we propose the concept of CEO reflective capacity as a behavior-oriented cognitive capability that may overcome to some extent the pervasive limitation of bounded rationality in executive decision-making. Following Hinkin's (1998) method and two executive samples, we developed and validated a three-dimensional measure of CEO reflective capacity. Based on two-wave surveys of CEOs and their executive-subordinates in 213 Chinese small-medium sized firms, we tested and confirmed three hypotheses on how CEO reflective capacity is related to a firm's sustainability performance (including economic, societal, and environmental dimensions) through the mediating mechanisms of strategic decision comprehensiveness and CEO behavioral complexity. We discuss the contribution of this study to the literature on the upper echelons and information processing perspectives. We also identify the implications for future research on strategic leadership and managerial cognition in complex and dynamic contexts.

Complexation of Iron with the Orally Active Decorporation Drug L1 (3-Hydroxy-1,2-Dimethyl-4-Pyridinone)

1992 ◽  
Vol 38 (4) ◽  
pp. 562-565 ◽  
Author(s):  
M A Kline ◽  
C Orvig
Keyword(s):  
Blood Plasma ◽  
Potentiometric Titration ◽  
Stability Constants ◽  
Computer Model ◽  
Chelating Agent ◽  
Glass Electrode ◽  
Simple Computer ◽  
Active Iron ◽  
The Stability ◽  
Orally Active

Abstract The stability constants for the Fe(III) complexes of the orally active iron decorporation drug L1 (3-hydroxy-1,2-dimethyl-4-pyridinone) have been determined by potentiometric titration [glass electrode, 25.0 degrees C, mu = 0.15 mol/L (isotonic) NaCl]. A simple computer model of blood plasma (citrate 100 mumol/L, transferrin 37 mumol/L) has been used to compare the Fe(III) binding efficacies in blood of L1 and the clinically used intravenously administered chelating agent deferoxamine.

scholarly journals Participation in Decision Making as a Property of Complex Adaptive Systems: Developing and Testing a Measure

2013 ◽  
Vol 2013 ◽  
pp. 1-16 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruth A. Anderson ◽  
Donde Plowman ◽  
Kirsten Corazzini ◽  
Pi-Ching Hsieh ◽  
Hui Fang Su ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Complex Adaptive Systems ◽  
Adaptive Systems ◽  
Discriminant Validity ◽  
Reliability And Validity ◽  
Organizational Level ◽  
Validity And Reliability ◽  
Complex Adaptive ◽  
Participation In Decision Making ◽  
Level Property

Objectives.To (1) describe participation in decision-making as a systems-level property of complex adaptive systems and (2) present empirical evidence of reliability and validity of a corresponding measure.Method.Study 1 was a mail survey of a single respondent (administrators or directors of nursing) in each of 197 nursing homes. Study 2 was a field study using random, proportionally stratified sampling procedure that included 195 organizations with 3,968 respondents.Analysis.In Study 1, we analyzed the data to reduce the number of scale items and establish initial reliability and validity. In Study 2, we strengthened the psychometric test using a large sample.Results.Results demonstrated validity and reliability of the participation in decision-making instrument (PDMI) while measuring participation of workers in two distinct job categories (RNs and CNAs). We established reliability at the organizational level aggregated items scores. We established validity of the multidimensional properties using convergent and discriminant validity and confirmatory factor analysis.Conclusions.Participation in decision making, when modeled as a systems-level property of organization, has multiple dimensions and is more complex than is being traditionally measured. Managers can use this model to form decision teams that maximize the depth and breadth of expertise needed and to foster connection among them.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document