The structure of adjustment decision-making

Brugha, Cathal M.

doi:10.1016/s0377-2217(97)00249-x

Cited by 28 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This is illustrated in Fig. 1 below. A healthy balanced system will find equilibrium between doing too much and too little of each activity (Brugha, 1998b). The development of any system naturally flows through each of the eight activities beginning with uncertainty, moving to more certainty over time.…”

Section: Interpreting Ireland's Problemmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implications of Knowledge Economy for Citizens: An Empirical Exploration

Casey

Brugha

2005

Syst Pract Act Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We describe the application of Priority Pointing, a generically applicable research procedure, to the question how Ireland can become an innovative knowledge economy. Questioning received orthodoxy, we show that Irish culture should put more value on scientific skills, promote a scientifically literate culture, and reform institutional and structural support systems to develop an innovative knowledge-based economy. In autopoietic terms, we illustrate how structure of the social systems and the history of those systems determine the space and capability for future development and innovation. The Systems Science theory used is Nomology, which claims that three different processes of adjusting, convincing, and committing comprehensively describe how the mind structures decisions. Committing and convincing are subjective and correspond to the processes that build the autopoietic aspects of a society or organization. Consequently, the proposed adjustments that emerge from the research should not challenge what we are as citizens, within our autopoietic societal boundary.

show abstract

Section: Interpreting Ireland's Problemmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implications of Knowledge Economy for Citizens: An Empirical Exploration

Casey

Brugha

2005

Syst Pract Act Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…See Brugha (1998c) for some examples of these principal activities used in management, including Peters and Waterman's (1982) eight criteria of excellent companies from which McKinsey's 7 Ss (Waterman, 1982) was developed.…”

Section: The Principal Adjustment Activitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A lot of negative answers would point to a block in the dynamic flow from one activity to another. In addition, adjustment theory suggests (Axiom 18 in Brugha, 1998c) that the most dynamic organization has a high tolerance for and a large spread of usage and balance between the various activities it uses. This is controlled by the punch and prevention prorespondents comprised senior decision-makers working mainly in different institutions and who were not in daily contact with each other.…”

Section: Adjustment By Groupsmentioning

confidence: 99%

An introduction to the Priority-Pointing Procedure

Brugha

2000

J. Multi-Crit. Decis. Anal.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Nomology (Brugha 1998a(Brugha , 1998b(Brugha and 1998c Consider the structuring that was done for the house choice. The hierarchy in Figure 3 shows that the biggest qualitative distinction is at the top of the hierarchy with the issue of financing determining whether or not one can afford the house or not.…”

Section: Relevance Of Nomologymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This article develops from work by the author on the structure of qualitative decision-making (Brugha 1998a(Brugha , 1998b(Brugha and 1998c which is determined by Nomology (Hamilton, 1877), the science of the laws of the mind. It provides a basis for modelling the way people might differentiate multiple criteria.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Structuring and Weighting Criteria in Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM)

Brugha

1998

Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The implications of qualitative distinctions between multiple criteria are considered. Some contributions to theory about the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) are challenged. Experiments on alternative criteria structures are reported. These suggest that confusing structures are bad, but good structures are better than none. Guidelines on how to develop a structure are given for a well known case of the purchase of a house. It is suggested that differences between decision alternatives should provide a first phase basis for discovering criteria. A criteria tree should be structured 'top down' as a second phase by clustering criteria on the basis of qualitative difference. On any level the differences between criteria should follow relatively simple patterns. The rules used suggest the relevance of work on the structure of qualitative decision-making which is determined by Nomology, the science of the laws of the mind. Implications are considered for weighting trade-offs between homogeneous clusters of criteria.This should be done as a later 'bottom up' phase. The AHP scoring system is challenged. Some tests of alternative scoring methods are reported.

show abstract

The structure of adjustment decision-making

Cited by 28 publications

References 4 publications

Implications of Knowledge Economy for Citizens: An Empirical Exploration

Implications of Knowledge Economy for Citizens: An Empirical Exploration

An introduction to the Priority-Pointing Procedure

Structuring and Weighting Criteria in Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About