Skip to main content

Summary: Executive Decision Synthesis Paradigm

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Executive Decision Synthesis

Part of the book series: Contributions to Management Science ((MANAGEMENT SC.))

  • 484 Accesses

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Achterbergh, J., & Vriens, D. (2009). Organizations—Social systems conducting experiments. Berlin: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bacharach, S. B. (1999). Organizational theories: Some criteria for evaluation. Academy of Management Journal, 14(4), 496–515.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, J. S., & Johnson, E. J. (1990). Decision research: A field guide. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Howard, R. A., & Matheson, J. E. (2004). The principles and applications of decision analysis (Vol. 1). San Mateo, CA: Strategic Decisions Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (Eds.). (2000). Choices, values, and frames. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper, K. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Hutchinson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shepherd, D., & Suddaby, R. (2016). Theory building: A review and integration. Journal of Management, 43(1), 59–86. doi:10.1177/01492063166447102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1997). Models of bounded rationality (Vol. 3). Cambridge, MA: MIT press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (2001). The sciences of the artificial (3rd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutton, R. I., & Staw, B. M. (1995). What theory is not. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 371–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, J. D. (2004). Organizations in action: Social science bases of administrative theory. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolpin, K. I. (2013). The limits of inference without theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics