1.1 Introduction
What motivates one to make a decision? Finding the precise reason behind these motivations might not be as easy as it might seem. Nevertheless, given that these choices are shaping the world around us, it would not be an exaggeration to claim that the answer to the aforementioned question may facilitate understanding the workings of many world phenomena. Just for a moment consider the possibility of knowing the motivations prompting person to make decisions. If that were achieved, predicting humansā behavior from the simple everyāday activity to the most sophisticated social, economic, and political contexts would be possible.
Now let us change the scope of the question; how can one make a good choice? This time we may be more successful in finding a more proper answer. Let us take a moment to consider the description of the act of decisionāmaking. The Oxford dictionary defines decisionāmaking as āthe process of deciding about something important, especially in a group of people or in an organization.ā From a psychological point of view, however, decisionāmaking is regarded as the cognitive process resulting in the selection of a belief or a course of action among several alternative possibilities. Each decisionāmaking process produces a final choice, which may or may not prompt action (Tzeng and Huang 2011). In other words, the decisionāmaking merely refers to the act choosing among a set of solutions, rather than the procedural requirements of executing the selected set of alternatives.
The decisionāmaking process is founded on a fourāstage analytical procedure (Vroom and Jago 1974; Bell et al. 1988; Weber and Coskunoglu 1990; Kleindorfer et al. 1993). The first stage of the decisionāmaking process is better known as descriptive analytics or positive analytics, which is concerned with describing observed behaviors of the stakeholders who are involved in the decisionāmaking process, mainly by looking at the their past performance and understanding such behavior either by mining historical data sets, and/or looking for the behavioral and social, psychological, and even neurology reasoning motivations that can best describe the course of actions made by the stockholders of the decisionāmaking problem (Tzeng and Huang 2011; Santos and Rosati 2015). Descriptive analysis is outside the scope of this book in spite of its psychological nature being pertinent to decisionāmaking process.
The predictive analytic stage concerns the prediction of what is likely to occur given a set of circumstances, which takes place after discerning the motivational patterns behind decisionāmaking problems through descriptive analytical techniques. The application of predictive analysis is limited to the decisionāmaking under uncertainty and, admittedly, not all decisionāmaking problems require such approach. Nevertheless, if necessary, the historical data sets may be reviewed during this second stage to determine the probability of an event or the likelihood of a situationās occurrence (Bell et al. 1988; Kleindorfer et al. 1993). Exploring this phase of the decisionāmaking process is left to readers given the scope and aims of this book.
The third stage of the decisionāmaking process is the normative analysis. The term ānormativeā generally refers to relating an item to an evaluative standard through assessing and making judgments about the itemās behavior or outcomes (Kahneman and Tversky 1984; Tversky and Kahneman 1986). Normative analysis, subsequently, is concerned with techniques through which the decisionāmakers would be able to evaluate the feasible alternatives in a mathematical sense (Bell et al. 1988; Kleindorfer et al. 1993). Note that traditional normative analysis is based on the assumption of rationalism through the evolved entities of the decisionāmaking problem, which, loosely speaking, is a term that refers to decisionāmakers pursuing what was described through the previous stages, as their interests and goals. Naturally, making a decision irrationally is beyond the scope of this book, though methods are introduced throughout this book that would enable decisionāmakers to cope with different types of criteria, including intangible criteria.
The final stage of the decisionāmaking process is called prescriptive analysis. In this stage, decisionāmakers go beyond predicting future outcomes to determine which alternatives would be the most advantageous or desirable solutions to the problem at hand (Saad 2001). In other words, prescriptive analytics combine the information gathered through studying the behavioral patterns of the stockholders (descriptive analysis), the likelihood of random events inherent to the decisionāmaking problems (predictive analysis), which would be expressed in mathematicalāoriented frameworks (normative analysis), to obtain the best course of actions for the decisionāmakers. Furthermore, through the realms of prescriptive analysis, decisionāmakers can explore the possible options on how to take advantage of future opportunities or coping with future risks, and, eventually, evaluate the implication of each feasible decision option based on the nature the decisionāmaking problem at hand (Bell et al. 1988; Kleindorfer et al. 1993; Tzeng and Huang 2011).
Having defined decisionāmaking, we consider what is a good choice or alternative in a decisionāmaking problem. Indeed, the notion of a āgood alternativeā may differ among decisionāmakersā viewpoints due to their different personal desires, experiences, and backgrounds. In other words, oneās idea of a āgood choiceā may not necessarily represent every decisionāmakersā ideal choice. Furthermore, the selection procedure of decisionāmakers may differ from one another, when facing the same decisionāmaking problem. Nevertheless, the decisionāmakersā selection procedure is founded on a basic and similar principle, which is that decisionāmakers would have to choose a set of solutions that would outperform other feasible alternatives based on a set of evaluation criteria defined either explicitly or implicitly by the d...