Abstract
We have two goals for this chapter. The first is to present a summary of the key ideas of our prescriptive decision paradigm. Second is to state the overarching concepts of our paradigm. These concepts are “like the skeleton, which, invisible to the naked eye, gives form and function to the body” (Morgenthau, Politics among nations. Alferd A. Knopf, 1960). These concepts are faintly visible throughout the book, but they form the skeleton of our book. We must be clear that we are making no claims about paradigm as theory. We are grounded on theory, but we are not building theory. Third, we will argue that we a rigorous paradigm. To demonstrate rigor, we submit our paradigm to tests of theory formulated by scholars. These tests of theory are the “eye of the needle” to demonstrate the paradigm’s rigor, not to claim to theory. But nevertheless, we will thread the needle. We conclude that we have a rigorous prescriptive paradigm for robust executive decisions. The functionality and efficacy of our systematic process is verified by our simulations and case studies.
References
Achterbergh, J., & Vriens, D. (2009). Organizations—Social systems conducting experiments. Berlin: Springer.
Bacharach, S. B. (1999). Organizational theories: Some criteria for evaluation. Academy of Management Journal, 14(4), 496–515.
Carroll, J. S., & Johnson, E. J. (1990). Decision research: A field guide. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Howard, R. A. (2007). The foundations of decision analysis revisited. In W. Edwards, R. F. Miles Jr., & D. von Winterfeldt (Eds.), Advances in decision analysis: From foundations to applications (pp. 32–56). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Howard, R. A., & Matheson, J. E. (2004). The principles and applications of decision analysis (Vol. 1). San Mateo, CA: Strategic Decisions Group.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (Eds.). (2000). Choices, values, and frames. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Keren, G., & de Bruin, W. B. (2003). On the assessment of decision quality: Considerations regarding utility, conflict and accountability. In D. Hardman & L. Macchi (Eds.), Thinking: Psychological perspectives on reasoning, judgment and decision making (pp. 347–363). Chichester: Wiley.
Popper, K. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Hutchinson.
Shepherd, D., & Suddaby, R. (2016). Theory building: A review and integration. Journal of Management, 43(1), 59–86. doi:10.1177/01492063166447102.
Simon, H. A. (1997). Models of bounded rationality (Vol. 3). Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
Simon, H. A. (2001). The sciences of the artificial (3rd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Spetzler, C. A. (2007). Building decision competency in organizations. In H. R. Arkes & K. R. Hammond (Eds.), Judgment and decision making: An interdisciplinary reader (pp. 450–468). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sutton, R. I., & Staw, B. M. (1995). What theory is not. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 371–384.
Tang, V., & Otto, K. N. (2009, August 30–September 2). Multifunctional enterprise readiness: Beyond the policy of build-test-fix cyclic rework. In Proceedings of the ASME 2009 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences & Design Theory and Design. IDETC/DTM 2009. DETC2009-86740. San Diego, CA.
Thompson, J. D. (2004). Organizations in action: Social science bases of administrative theory. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Wolpin, K. I. (2013). The limits of inference without theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Tang, V., Otto, K., Seering, W. (2018). Summary: Executive Decision Synthesis Paradigm. In: Executive Decision Synthesis. Contributions to Management Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63026-7_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63026-7_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-63024-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-63026-7
eBook Packages: Business and ManagementBusiness and Management (R0)