IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i24p16584-d999191.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Serious Games as a Validation Tool for PREDIS: A Decision Support System for Disaster Management

Author

Listed:
  • Sara Rye

    (School of Business, Department of Innovation, Leadership, Strategy and Management, Southwark Campus, London South Bank University, London SE1 0AA, UK)

  • Emel Aktas

    (Department of Logistics, Procurement and Supply Chain Management, Cranfield University, Bedford MK43 0AL, UK)

Abstract

In this paper, we validate PREDIS, a decision support system for disaster management using serious games to collect experts’ judgments on its performance. PREDIS is a model for DISaster response supplier selection (PREDIS). It has a PREDictive component (PRED) for predicting the disaster human impact and an estimation component to Estimate the DISaster (EDIS) needs to optimise supplier-based resource allocation. A quasi-experiment design embedded in a participatory simulation game is conducted to compare the opinions of equal samples of 22 experts and non-experts. The following questions are put forward. First, “Does PREDIS model assists the decision makers to make the same decisions faster?” Second, “Does the PREDIS model assist the non-experts as simulated decision makers to decide like an expert?” Using AHP weights of decision makers’ preferences as well as Borda counts, the decisions are compared. The result shows that PREDIS helps to reduce the decision-making time by experts and non-experts to 6 h after the disaster strike, instead of the usual 72 h. It also assists 71% of the non-experts to make decisions similar to those made by experts. In summary, the PREDIS model has two major capabilities. It enables the experts and non-experts to predict the disaster results immediately using widely available data. It also enables the non-experts to decide almost the same as the experts; either in predicting the human impact of a disaster and estimating the needs or in selecting suitable suppliers.

Suggested Citation

  • Sara Rye & Emel Aktas, 2022. "Serious Games as a Validation Tool for PREDIS: A Decision Support System for Disaster Management," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(24), pages 1-37, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:24:p:16584-:d:999191
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/24/16584/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/24/16584/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Oliver Musshoff & Norbert Hirschauer, 2014. "Using business simulation games in regulatory impact analysis - the case of policies aimed at reducing nitrogen leaching," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 46(25), pages 3049-3060, September.
    2. Herbert A. Simon, 1955. "A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 69(1), pages 99-118.
    3. Franck Taillandier & Carole Adam, 2018. "Games Ready to Use: A Serious Game for Teaching Natural Risk Management," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 49(4), pages 441-470, August.
    4. Lewis, Michael A. & Maylor, Harvey R., 2007. "Game playing and operations management education," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(1), pages 134-149, January.
    5. Simon, Herbert A, 1979. "Rational Decision Making in Business Organizations," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 69(4), pages 493-513, September.
    6. Hannu Nurmi & Hannu Salonen, 2008. "More Borda Count Variations for Project Assesment," Czech Economic Review, Charles University Prague, Faculty of Social Sciences, Institute of Economic Studies, vol. 2(2), pages 109-122, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. DeCanio, Stephen J. & Watkins, William E., 1998. "Information processing and organizational structure," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 275-294, August.
    2. Siegfried Berninghaus & Werner Güth & M. Vittoria Levati & Jianying Qiu, 2006. "Satisficing in sales competition: experimental evidence," Papers on Strategic Interaction 2006-32, Max Planck Institute of Economics, Strategic Interaction Group.
    3. Michaël Lainé, 2014. "Vers une alternative au paradigme de la rationalité ? Victoires et déboires du programme spinoziste en économie," Post-Print hal-01335618, HAL.
    4. Sadok Mansour, 2007. "Modelisation Du Risque Dans Les Methodologies D'Audit : Apport Des De La Psychometrie," Post-Print halshs-00543217, HAL.
    5. Hosseini, Hamid, 2003. "The arrival of behavioral economics: from Michigan, or the Carnegie School in the 1950s and the early 1960s?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 391-409, September.
    6. Elżbieta Jędrych & Dariusz Klimek & Agnieszka Rzepka, 2021. "Principles of Sustainable Management of Energy Companies: The Case of Poland," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-18, April.
    7. Prietula, Michael J. & Watson, Harry S., 2008. "When behavior matters: Games and computation in A Behavioral Theory of the Firm," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 74-94, April.
    8. Feng, Lei & Zhang, Minghui & Li, Yixin & Jiang, Yan, 2020. "Satisfaction principle or efficiency principle? Decision-making behavior of peasant households in China’s rural land market," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    9. Feduzi, Alberto & Runde, Jochen, 2014. "Uncovering unknown unknowns: Towards a Baconian approach to management decision-making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 124(2), pages 268-283.
    10. Meinard, Y. & Tsoukiàs, A., 2019. "On the rationality of decision aiding processes," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 273(3), pages 1074-1084.
    11. Tina Kalayil & Somya Tyagi & Mahfuza Khatun & Sikandar Siddiqui, 2019. "A Risk-Sensitive Momentum Approach To Stock Selection," Economic Annals, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Belgrade, vol. 64(220), pages 61-84, January –.
    12. Siegfried Berninghaus & Werner Güth & M. Levati & Jianying Qiu, 2011. "Satisficing search versus aspiration adaptation in sales competition: experimental evidence," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 40(1), pages 179-198, February.
    13. repec:dau:papers:123456789/3528 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Tyson, Christopher J., 2008. "Cognitive constraints, contraction consistency, and the satisficing criterion," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 138(1), pages 51-70, January.
    15. Dariusz Klimek & Elżbieta Jędrych, 2020. "A Model for the Sustainable Management of Enterprise Capital," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-13, December.
    16. Ronald Schettkat, 2018. "The Behavioral Economics of John Maynard Keynes," Schumpeter Discussion Papers sdp18007, Universitätsbibliothek Wuppertal, University Library.
    17. Sanjit Dhami & Ali al-Nowaihi & Cass R. Sunstein, 2019. "Heuristics and Public Policy: Decision-making Under Bounded Rationality," Studies in Microeconomics, , vol. 7(1), pages 7-58, June.
    18. Nawrocki, David N., 1995. "Expectations, technological change, information and the theory of financial markets," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 4(2-3), pages 85-105.
    19. Giada Marchi & Giulia Lucertini & Alexis Tsoukiàs, 2016. "From evidence-based policy making to policy analytics," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 236(1), pages 15-38, January.
    20. Sovacool, Benjamin K., 2015. "The political economy of pollution markets: Historical lessons for modern energy and climate planners," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 943-953.
    21. Ronald Schettkat, 2018. "Revision or Revolution? A Note on Behavioral vs. Neoclassical Economics," Schumpeter Discussion Papers sdp18005, Universitätsbibliothek Wuppertal, University Library.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:24:p:16584-:d:999191. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.