Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Heuristics and Evidences Decision (HeED) Making: a Case Study in a Systemic Model for Transforming Decision Making from Heuristics-Based to Evidenced-Based

  • Published:
Journal of the Knowledge Economy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Studies refer to Heuristics and Evidences Decision Making approaches in a comparative manner; however, it is identified that these two approaches are inseparable and are applied in parallel. The objective of this paper is to provide a qualitative analysis of a systems thinking framework that defines a transition path from either a heuristic dominated or evidence-based dominated decision-making approach to a balanced one. The aims are to demonstrate the stages of change and prepare managers and executives for the resistance that will be evident during the transition. We do not claim that this is the only path of change; however, it provides a structured model that can be repeated under similar context. We use abductive reasoning in order to make logical inferences and construct the framework’s theory based on a case study company, and then system dynamics that help us proceed to the modeling approach of this framework. The holistic modeling approach reveals the need to base decision making in both evidence and heuristics. Furthermore, it demonstrates actions to manage resistance and to make this system a self-regulated and continuous decision-making tool.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For anonymity purposes we nicknamed the firm as MiddlePharma

  2. In this case we define “campaign strategy” as balk production of a single product family that does not require tool changeovers and cleaning, based on annual demand.

  3. Evidence is defined in our work as an organized body of information that is used in order to justify or support conclusions (Sackett et al. 2000). This information may have many forms, depending on the type of activities that are going to be used for and the scientific or managerial context they refer to. For example Sackett et al. (2000) consider information, as forms of evidence that may be used for evidence- based decision making.

  4. Often the reasoning for change is external to the firm factors, for example, the activities and innovations of the competitor organizations, developments in technology and organizational procedures, diversity in customers’ requirements, changes in national and international legislation, diversity in local and global trading and economic circumstances, and changing cultural and social conditions (Radovic-Markovic 2007).

  5. Frozen referred to the timeframe to 2 weeks closer the actual production. Changes are prohibited at this stage because it would be costly to reverse the plan to purchase the materials and produce different products. Firm, 2 weeks before frozen. In these weeks changes can occur, but only in exceptional situations. Full, which means that all the available production capacity has been allocated to orders. Changes in the full section can be made and production costs will be only slightly affected, but the effect on customer satisfaction is uncertain. The last section called Open, which means that there is available capacity for new orders (based on Gaither and Frazier 2002).

References

  • Amason, A. C., & Mooney, A. C. (2008). The Icarus paradox revisited: how strong performance sows the seeds of dysfunction in future strategic decision-making. Strategic Organization, 6(4), 407–434.

    Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong, M. (2001). A handbook of human resource management practice (8th ed.). London: Kogan Page Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arribas, I., Comeig, I., Urbano, A., & Vila, J. (2014). Statistical formats to optimize evidence- based decision making: a behavioral approach. Journal of Business Research, 67(5), 790–794.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bala, A., & Koxhaj, A. (2017). Key performance indicators (KPIs) in the change management of public administration. European Scientific Journal, 13(4), 278–283.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balogun, J., & Johnson, G. (2005). From intended strategies to unintended outcomes: the impact of change recipient sensemaking. Organization Studies, 26, 1573–1601.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balsvik, R. & Haller, S. A. (2015). Ownership change and its implications for the match between the plant and its workers. Dublin: UCD School of Economics. Available at: http://irserver.ucd.ie/bitstream/handle/10197/6588/WP15_12.pdf?sequence=1 [accessed on 14/10/2018].

  • Bartkus, B. (1997). Employee ownership as catalyst of organizational change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 10(4), 331–344.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bavol’ár, J., & Orosová, O. (2015). Decision-making styles and their associations with decision- making competencies and mental health. Judgment and Decision making, 10(1), 115–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boohene, R., & Williams, A. A. (2012). Resistance to organizational change: a case study of Oti Yeboah complex limited. International Business and Management, 4(1), 135–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bray, R. (2015). Developing a participative multi criteria decision making technique: a case study. International Journal of Management and Decision Making, 14(1), 66–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bridges, W. (2003). Managing transitions (2nd ed.). Cambridge: MA, Perseus Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bröder, A., & Schiffer, S. (2006). Stimulus format and working memory in fast and frugal strategy selection. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 19(4), 361–380.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buono, A. F., & Kerber, K. W. (2010). Creating a sustainable approach to change: Building organizational change capacity. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 75(2), 4–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Busenitz, L. W., & Barney, J. B. (1997). Differences between entrepreneurs and managers in large organizations: biases and heuristics in strategic decision-making. Journal of Business Venturing, 12(1), 9–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carmeli, A., Tishler, A., & Edmondson, A. C. (2012). CEO relational leadership and strategic decision quality in top management teams: the role of team trust and learning from failure. Strategic Organization, 10(1), 31–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caroly, S., Coutarel, F., Landry, A., & Mary-Cheray, I. (2010). Sustainable MSD prevention: Management for continuous improvement between prevention and production. Ergonomic intervention in two assembly line companies. Applied Ergonomics, 41, 591–599.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chakravarthy, B., & Cho, H.-J. (2004). Managing trust and learning: an exploratory study. International Journal of Management and Decision Making, 5(4), 333–347.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coyle, R. G. (1996). System dynamics modeling: a practical approach. New York: Chapman & Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danesh, D., Ryan, M. J., & Abbasi, A. (2018). Multi-criteria decision-making methods for project portfolio management: a literature review. International Journal of Management and Decision Making, 17(1), 75–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawson, P. (1994). Organizational change: a processual approach. London: Paul Chapman Publishing Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dholakia, U., & Sonenshein, S. (2012). Explaining employee engagement with strategic change implementation: a meaning-making approach. Organization Science, 23(1), 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dooley, L., & O’Sullivan, D. (1999). Decision support system for the management of systems change. Technovation, 19(8), 483–493.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eastwood, J., Snook, B., & Luther, K. (2012). What people want from their professionals: attitudes toward decision-making strategies. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 25(5), 458–468.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elbanna, S., & Child, J. (2007). Influences on strategic decision effectiveness: development and test of an integrative model. Strategic Management Journal, 28, 431–453.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eriksson, C. B. (2004). The effects of change programs on employees’ emotions. Personnel Review, 33(1), 110–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fernando, R., Fernando, S., & Nepomuceno-Fernández, A. (2013). An epistemic and dynamic approach to abductive reasoning: abductive problem and abductive solution. Journal of Applied Logic, 11(4), 505–522.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiegenbaum, A., & Thomas, H. (1995). Strategic groups as reference groups: theory, modeling and empirical examination of industry and competitive strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 16(6), 461–476.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forrester, J. W. (1961). Industrial dynamics. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forrester, J. W., & Senge, P. M. (1980). Tests for building confidence in system dynamics models. In A. A. Legasto, J. W. Forrester, & J. M. Lyneis (Eds.), System dynamics, studies in the management sciences (pp. 209–228). North Holland Publishing Company.

  • Friedman, R. S., & Prusak, L. (2008). On heuristics, narrative and knowledge management. Technovation, 28(12), 812–817.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaither, N., & Frazier, G. (2002). Production and operations management. Sao Paulo: Thomson Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galanakis, K. (2006). Innovation process. Make sense using systems thinking. Technovation, 26(11), 1222–1232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garcia-Sabater, J. J., & Marin-Garcia, J. A. (2011). Can we still talk about continuous improvement? Rethinking enablers and inhibitors for successful implementation. International Journal Technology Management, 55(1/2), 28–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, B. (2013). Cyert and March (1963) at Fifty: a perspective from organizational economics. MIT and NBER April 7, 2013 Prepared for NBER Working Group in Organizational Economics SIEPR, April 12–13, 2013.

  • Gigerenzer, G. (2001). The adaptive toolbox. In G. Gigerenzer & R. Selten (Eds.), Bounded rationality: the adaptive toolbox (pp. 37–50). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gigerenzer, G., Todd, P. M., & ABC Research Group. (1999). Simple heuristics that make us smart. Oxford: Oxford UP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gold, J., Cureton, P., & Anderson, L. (2010). Theorising and practitioners in HRD: The role of abductive reasoning. Journal of European Industrial Training, 35(3), 230–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haque, B., Pawar, K. S., & Barson, R. J. (2003). The application of business process modeling to organisational analysis of concurrent engineering environments. Technovation, 23(2), 147–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heckmann, N., Steger, T., & Dowling, M. (2016). Organizational capacity for change, change experience, and change project performance. Journal of Business Research, 69(2), 777–784.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofmann, D. A. (2015). Overcoming the obstacles to cross-functional decision making: laying the groundwork for collaborative problem solving. Organizational Dynamics, 44(1), 17–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huy, Q. N., Corley, K. G., & Kraatz, M. S. (2014). From support to mutiny: shifting legitimacy judgments and emotional reactions impacting the implementation of radical change. Academy of Management Journal, 57(6), 1650–1680.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ionescu, E. I., Merut, A., & Dragomiroiu, R. (2014). Role of managers in management of change. In 21st International Economic Conference (pp. 293–298). Sibiu: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, L., Watson, B., Hobman, E., Bordia, P., Gallois, P., & Callan, V. J. (2008). Employee perceptions of organizational change: impact of hierarchical level. Leadership & Organizational Development Journal, 29(4), 294–316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Judge, W. Q., & Elenkov, D. (2005). Organizational capacity for change and environmental performance: an empirical assessment of Bulgarian firms. Journal of Business Research, 58(7), 893–901.

    Google Scholar 

  • Julnes, P. D., & Holzer, M. (2001). Promoting the utilization of performance measures in public organizations: an empirical study of factors affecting adoption and implementation. Public Administration Review, 61, 693–708.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kilintzis, P., Samara, E., Carayannis, E., & Bakouros, Y. (2020). Business model innovation in Greece: Its effect on organizational sustainability. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 11(3), 949–967.

  • Kotter, J. P. (2007). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review. [Online] pp. 1–11. Available at: https://hbr.org/1995/05/leading-change-why-transformation-efforts-fail-2 [Accessed on 14/10/2018].

  • Kotter, J., & Schlesinger, L. (1979). Choosing strategies for change. Harvard Business Review, 57, 106–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krabuanrat, K., & Phelps, R. (1998). Heuristics and rationality in strategic decision making: an exploratory study. Journal of Business Research, 41(1), 83–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krawczyk, M. W., & Rachubik, J. (2019). The representativeness heuristic and the choice of lottery tickets: a field experiment. Judgment and Decision making, 14(1), 51–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • LaValle, S., Lesser, E., Shockley, R., Hopkins, M. S., & Kruschwitz, N. (2010). Big data, analytics and the path from insights to value. MIT Sloan Management Review, 52(2), 21–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • LeRoux, K., & Wright, N. S. (2010). Does performance measurement improve strategic decision making? Findings from a national survey of nonprofit social service agencies. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39(4), 571–587.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, L. (2005). The effects of trust and shared vision on inward knowledge transfer in subsidiaries’ intra- and inter-organizational relationships. International Business Review, 14(1), 77–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindley, D. V. (2000). The philosophy of statistics. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series D, 49(3), 293–319.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maani, K., & Maharaj, V. (2004). Links between systems thinking and complex decision making. System Dynamics Review, 20(1), 21–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maldonado, M. & Grobbelaar, S. (2017). System dynamics modeling in the innovation systems literature. In: 15th Globelics International Conference. Athens: Globelics, pp. 1–32.

  • Marsee, J. (2002). Ten steps for implementing change. Vancouver: Nacubo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, A., & Moon, P. (1992). Purchasing decisions, partial knowledge, and economic search- experimental and simulation evidence. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 5(4), 253–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Min, D. J., & Cunha, M. (2019). The influence of horizontal and vertical product attribute information on decision making under risk: the role of perceived competence. Journal of Business Research, 97(C), 174–183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mingers, J., & White, L. (2010). A review of the recent contribution of systems thinking to operational research. European Journal of Operational Research, 207(3), 1147–1161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nepomuceno-Fernández, A., Soler-Toscano, F., & Velazquez-Quesada, F. R. (2013). Journal of Applied Logic, 11(4), 505–522.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nutley, S., & Davies, H. T. O. (2000). Making a reality of evidence-based practice: some lessons from the diffusion of innovations. Public Money & Management, 20(4), 35–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ooi, K. B., & Arumugam, V. (2006). The influence of corporate culture on organisational commitment: case study of semiconductor organisations in Malaysia. Sunway Academic Journal, 3, 99–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oreg, S. (2003). Resistance to change: developing an individual differences measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 680–693.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pachur, T., & Forrer, E. A. (2013). Selection of decision strategies after conscious and unconscious thought. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 26(5), 477–488.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pachur, T., Bröder, A., & Marewski, J. N. (2008). The recognition heuristic in memory-based inference: is recognition a non-compensatory cue? Journal of Behavioural Decision Making, 21(2), 183–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parnell, G. S., Driscoll, P. J., & Henderson, D. L. (Eds.). (2011). Decision making in systems engineering and management. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons Inc..

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. (In press). Hard facts, dangerous half-truths, and total nonsense: Profiting from evidence-based management. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

  • Phipps, A. G. (1988). Rational versus heuristic decision making during residential search. Geographical Analysis, 20(3), 231–248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piderit, S. K. (2000). Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 783–794.

    Google Scholar 

  • Radovic-Markovic, M. (2007). The perspective of women's entrepreneurship in the age of globalization. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing Inc..

    Google Scholar 

  • Raineri, A. B. (2011). Change management practices: impact on perceived change results. Journal of Business Research, 64(3), 266–272.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau, D. M. (2012). Envisioning evidence-based management. The Oxford handbook of evidence-based management, pp. 3–24.

  • Rousseau, D. M. (2018). Making evidence-based organizational decisions in an uncertain world. Organizational Dynamics, 47, 135–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rugman, A., & Hodgetts, R. (2001). The end of global strategy. European Management Journal, 19(4), 332–344.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rumelt, P. R. (2011). Good strategy/bad strategy: the difference and why it matters. New York: Crowd Publishing Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sackett, D. L., Straus, S. E., Richardson, W. S., Rosenberg, W., & Haynes, R. B. (2000). Evidence-based medicine: how to practice and teach EBM. New York: Churchill Livingstone.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samara, E., Georgiadis, P., & Bakouros, I. (2012). The impact of innovation policies on the performance of national innovation systems: a system dynamics analysis. Technovation, 32(11), 624–638.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarasin, F. P. (1999). Decision analysis and the implementation of evidence-based medicine. Monthly Journal of the Association of Physicians, 92(11), 669–671.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schein, E. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schermerhorn, J. G., Hunt, J. G., & Osborn, R. N. (2005). Organizational behavior (9th ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc..

    Google Scholar 

  • Schilling, M. A., & Steensma, H. K. (2001). The use of modular organizational forms. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 1149–1168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuldt, J. P., Chabris, C. F., Williams Woolley, A., & Hackman, J. R. (2017). Confidence in dyadic decision making: the role of individual differences. Journal of Behavioural Decision Making, 30, 168–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline. The Art and Practice of the Learning Organisation. Century Business.

  • Shah, A. K., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2008). Heuristics made easy: an effort-reduction framework. Psychological Bulletin, 134(2), 207–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shattuck, L. G., & Miller, N. L. (2006). Extending naturalistic decision making to complex organizations: a dynamic model of situated cognition. Organization Studies, 27(7), 989–1009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherman, L. W. (2002). Evidence-based policing: social organization of information for social control. In E. Waring & D. Weisburd (Eds.), Crime and social organization (pp. 217–248). New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skyttner, L. (2001). General systems theory: ideas & publications. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skyttner, L. (2006). General systems theory: problems, perspectives, practice (2nd ed.). NJ: World Scientific Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snyder, S. (2013). The simple, the complicated, and the complex: educational reform through the lens of complexity theory. OECD Education Working Papers, No. 96, OECD Publishing, pp. 11.

  • Sondoss, E., Guillaume, J. H. A., Filatova, T., Josefine, R., & Jakeman, A. J. (2015). A methodology for eliciting, representing, and analysing stakeholder knowledge for decision making on complex socio-ecological systems: from cognitive maps to agent- based models. Journal of Environmental Management, 151, 500–516.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sterman, J. D. (2000). Business dynamics: systems thinking and modeling for a complex world. Boston: Irwin McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, T. J. (1992). A critical survey on the status of multiple criteria decision making theory and practice. Omega, 20(5), 569–586.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stragalas, N. (2010). Improving change implementation. OD Practitioner: Organization Development Network, 42(1), 31–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Svenson, O., Gonzalez, N., & Eriksson, G. (2018). Different heuristics and same bias: a spectral analysis of biased judgments and individual decision rules. Judgment and Decision making, 13(5), 401–412.

    Google Scholar 

  • Svensson, J. (2004). Managing legitimacy in hybrid governance. In NIG Annual Work Conference. [online] Rotterdam: University of Twente, pp 1–17. Available at: file:///C:/Users/pkili/Downloads/NIG4-01.pdf [Accessed on 14/10/2018].

  • Sverdrup, T. E., & Stensaker, I. G. (2017). Restoring trust in the context of strategic change. Strategic Organization, 1–28.

  • Talebi, S. (2015). Employee ownership as a driver of the need for change in organizations. European Scientific Journal, 11(1), 130–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trader-Leigh, K. E. (2001). Case study: identifying resistance in managing change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 15(2), 138–155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence- informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14(3), 207–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Venkata, R. (2007). Decision making in the manufacturing environment. Springer Series in Advanced Manufacturing.

  • Vishwanath, V. B., & Farimah, H. (2012). Toward a theory of evidence based decision making. Management Decision, 50(5), 832–867.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vlaev, I., & Dolan, P. (2015). Action change theory: a reinforcement learning perspective on behavior change. Review of General Psychology, 19(1), 69–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walumbwa, F. O., Maidique, M. Q., & Atamanik, C. (2014). Decision-making in a crisis: what every leader needs to know. Organizational Dynamics, 43(4), 284–293.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, J. M. (2019). Individuals matter, but the situation’s the thing: the case for a habitual situational lens in leadership and organizational decision-making. Organizational Dynamics, 49(1), 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wyer, R. S., & Srull, T. K. (1986). Human cognition in its social context. Psychological Review, 93(3), 322–359.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yilmaz, S., Daly, S. R., Seifert, C. M., & Gonzalez, R. (2016). Evidence-based design heuristics for idea generation. Design Studies, 46, 95–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yurtseven, M. K., & Buchanan, W. W. (2016). Decision making and systems thinking: educational issues. American Journal of Engineering Education, 7(1), 19–28.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Nottingham Business School, Nottingham Trent University, 50 Shakespeare Street, Nottingham, NG1 4QU, UK

    Tariq Mahadeen & Kostas Galanakis

  2. Department of Regional Development & Cross Border Studies, University of Western Macedonia, Kozani, 50100, Greece

    Elpida Samara

  3. Department of Mechanical Engineering, Univeristy of Western Macedonia, Kozani, 50132, Greece

    Pavlos Kilintzis

Authors
  1. Tariq Mahadeen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kostas Galanakis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Elpida Samara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Pavlos Kilintzis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pavlos Kilintzis.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mahadeen, T., Galanakis, K., Samara, E. et al. Heuristics and Evidences Decision (HeED) Making: a Case Study in a Systemic Model for Transforming Decision Making from Heuristics-Based to Evidenced-Based. J Knowl Econ 12, 1668–1693 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-020-00688-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-020-00688-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation