IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/snopef/v5y2024i4d10.1007_s43069-024-00371-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Incomplete Objectives in Decision Making: How Omitting Objectives Affects Identifying the Most Promising Alternative

Author

Listed:
  • Sara J. M. Abdeen

    (RWTH Aachen University)

  • Florian Methling

    (RWTH Aachen University)

  • Rüdiger Nitzsch

    (RWTH Aachen University)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Sara J. M. Abdeen & Florian Methling & Rüdiger Nitzsch, 2024. "Incomplete Objectives in Decision Making: How Omitting Objectives Affects Identifying the Most Promising Alternative," SN Operations Research Forum, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 1-13, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:snopef:v:5:y:2024:i:4:d:10.1007_s43069-024-00371-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s43069-024-00371-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s43069-024-00371-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s43069-024-00371-3?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    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:spr:snopef:v:5:y:2024:i:4:d:10.1007_s43069-024-00371-3. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.