Towards a model for exploring the relationship between managerial decision problems and decision support opportunities

The organisational decision making environment is complex, and decision makers must deal with uncertainty and ambiguity on a continuous basis. Managing and handling decision problems and implementing a solution, requires an understanding of the complexity of the decision domain to the point where the problem and its complexity, as well as the requirements for supporting decision makers, can be described. Research in the Decision Support Systems domain has been extensive over the last thirty years with an emphasis on the development of further technology and better applications on the one hand, and on the other hand, a social approach focusing on understanding what decision making is about and how developers and users should interact. This research project considers a combined approach that endeavours to understand the thinking behind managers’ decision making, as well as their informational and decisional guidance and decision support requirements. This research utilises a cognitive framework, developed in 1985 by Humphreys and Berkeley that juxtaposes the mental processes and ideas of decision problem definition and problem solution that are developed in tandem through cognitive refinement of the problem, based on the analysis and judgement of the decision maker. The framework facilitates the separation of what is essentially a continuous process, into five distinct levels of abstraction of manager’s thinking, and suggests a structure for the underlying cognitive activities. Alter (2004) argues that decision support provides a richer basis than decision support systems, in both practice and research. The constituent literature on decision support, especially in regard to modern high profile systems, including Business Intelligence and Business analytics, can give the impression that all ‘smart’ organisations utilise decision support and data analytics capabilities for all of their key decision making activities. However this empirical investigation indicates a very different reality.

Landscape and planning: strengthening discussions in the decision-making process

Since the emergence of the European Landscape Convention (ELC) in 2000, the important link between landscape and planning has greatly intensified. Now, more than ever, the fundamental role of the planning system in delivering the ELC’s requirements is recognised. This has been further substantiated within Ireland’s recently published National Landscape Strategy. However it has continually been suggested that decision-making processes need to adapt better to the holistic, valueladen and multidimensional approaches underpinning the ELC. In light of these milestones for the preservation, management and planning of landscape, this research sets out to establish synergies and disparities in the existing relationship between landscape and planning. It investigates detailed evidence of the presence and manifestations of landscape in key processes of day-to-day planning practice in Ireland, from individual planning appeals and ‘special’ cases, to the major strategic instruments that inform the making of landscape policies within development plans. This is set within wider theoretical and policy contexts where the compatibility of landscape and planning is subjected to critical scrutiny and then explored through these practical case studies. Driving this research is the intention to make a case for the planning domain to be an ideal ‘home’ for landscape – in all its deep, multidimensional meaning – and for enhancing landscape arguments and objectives in the face of conflict, competing values and power-plays in the real world. Emerging out of this research is a set of recommendations for how, at a national level, new approaches for decision making for and about landscape can be more effective and meaningful.

Systems 1 and 2 thinking processes and cognitive reflection testing in medical students

Background: Diagnostic decision-making is made through a combination of Systems 1 (intuition or pattern-recognition) and Systems 2 (analytic) thinking. The purpose of this study was to use the Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT) to evaluate and compare the level of Systems 1 and 2 thinking among medical students in pre-clinical and clinical programs. Methods: The CRT is a three-question test designed to measure the ability of respondents to activate metacognitive processes and switch to System 2 (analytic) thinking where System 1 (intuitive) thinking would lead them astray. Each CRT question has a correct analytical (System 2) answer and an incorrect intuitive (System 1) answer. A group of medical students in Years 2 & 3 (pre-clinical) and Years 4 (in clinical practice) of a 5-year medical degree were studied. Results: Ten percent (13/128) of students had the intuitive answers to the three questions (suggesting they generally relied on System 1 thinking) while almost half (44%) answered all three correctly (indicating full analytical, System 2 thinking). Only 3-13% had incorrect answers (i.e. that were neither the analytical nor the intuitive responses). Non-native English speaking students (n = 11) had a lower mean number of correct answers compared to native English speakers (n = 117: 1.0 s 2.12 respectfully: p < 0.01). As students progressed through questions 1 to 3, the percentage of correct System 2 answers increased and the percentage of intuitive answers decreased in both the pre-clinical and clinical students. Conclusions: Up to half of the medical students demonstrated full or partial reliance on System 1 (intuitive) thinking in response to these analytical questions. While their CRT performance has no claims to make as to their future expertise as clinicians, the test may be used in helping students to understand the importance of awareness and regulation of their thinking processes in clinical practice.