战略决策中的创新专家方法

D. Gombitová, D. Dokupilová
{"title":"战略决策中的创新专家方法","authors":"D. Gombitová, D. Dokupilová","doi":"10.12776/qip.v26i1.1643","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: This study introduces managerial techniques applied for the first time in the high-level strategic public policy decision-making process in Slovakia with an aim to assess the strategic decision-making of groups of experts in a methodologically supported environment. It compares groups of internal analysts and external specialists and should demonstrate the extent to which these two groups are able to process problems analytically and suppress intuition.\nMethodology/Approach: Multi-criteria decision methods are used when deciding on complex problems. One of the most popular and most frequently used is the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Application of this method enables measurement of preference consistency, and its relationship with cognitive reflection.\nFindings: Consistency of judgement was very similar in both groups. The prioritisation of measures resulted in a similar set of priorities determined by both groups. The assumed relationship of consistency and cognitive reflection score and/or overconfidence was not detected, and decision makers proved to be well calibrated.\nResearch Limitation/Implication: The main limitation of our research was the small sample size of decision makers, which complied with the requirements of the decision method, but was not sufficient to confirm the statistical validity.\nOriginality/Value of paper: The introduction of the multi-criteria decision method into decision-making for public policy strategies combines practical policy exercises with scientific research on high-stakes decisions and enables to carry out participatory decision-making process with relevant stakeholders.","PeriodicalId":44057,"journal":{"name":"Quality Innovation Prosperity-Kvalita Inovacia Prosperita","volume":"222 3 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Innovative Expert Methods in Strategic Decision Making\",\"authors\":\"D. Gombitová, D. Dokupilová\",\"doi\":\"10.12776/qip.v26i1.1643\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Purpose: This study introduces managerial techniques applied for the first time in the high-level strategic public policy decision-making process in Slovakia with an aim to assess the strategic decision-making of groups of experts in a methodologically supported environment. It compares groups of internal analysts and external specialists and should demonstrate the extent to which these two groups are able to process problems analytically and suppress intuition.\\nMethodology/Approach: Multi-criteria decision methods are used when deciding on complex problems. One of the most popular and most frequently used is the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Application of this method enables measurement of preference consistency, and its relationship with cognitive reflection.\\nFindings: Consistency of judgement was very similar in both groups. The prioritisation of measures resulted in a similar set of priorities determined by both groups. The assumed relationship of consistency and cognitive reflection score and/or overconfidence was not detected, and decision makers proved to be well calibrated.\\nResearch Limitation/Implication: The main limitation of our research was the small sample size of decision makers, which complied with the requirements of the decision method, but was not sufficient to confirm the statistical validity.\\nOriginality/Value of paper: The introduction of the multi-criteria decision method into decision-making for public policy strategies combines practical policy exercises with scientific research on high-stakes decisions and enables to carry out participatory decision-making process with relevant stakeholders.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44057,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Quality Innovation Prosperity-Kvalita Inovacia Prosperita\",\"volume\":\"222 3 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Quality Innovation Prosperity-Kvalita Inovacia Prosperita\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.12776/qip.v26i1.1643\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quality Innovation Prosperity-Kvalita Inovacia Prosperita","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12776/qip.v26i1.1643","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本研究介绍了斯洛伐克高层战略公共政策决策过程中首次应用的管理技术,目的是在方法支持的环境中评估专家组的战略决策。它比较了内部分析师和外部专家的群体,并应该证明这两个群体能够分析处理问题和抑制直觉的程度。方法论/方法:在决定复杂问题时使用多准则决策方法。其中最流行和最常用的是层次分析法。应用这种方法可以测量偏好一致性及其与认知反射的关系。结果:两组的判断一致性非常相似。各项措施的优先次序导致两组人确定了一套类似的优先事项。假设的一致性和认知反思得分和/或过度自信的关系没有被检测到,决策者被证明是很好的校准。研究局限/启示:本研究的主要局限是决策者的样本量较小,符合决策方法的要求,但不足以证实统计效度。论文原创性/价值:将多标准决策方法引入公共政策战略决策,将实际政策练习与高风险决策的科学研究相结合,使相关利益相关者能够开展参与式决策过程。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Innovative Expert Methods in Strategic Decision Making
Purpose: This study introduces managerial techniques applied for the first time in the high-level strategic public policy decision-making process in Slovakia with an aim to assess the strategic decision-making of groups of experts in a methodologically supported environment. It compares groups of internal analysts and external specialists and should demonstrate the extent to which these two groups are able to process problems analytically and suppress intuition. Methodology/Approach: Multi-criteria decision methods are used when deciding on complex problems. One of the most popular and most frequently used is the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Application of this method enables measurement of preference consistency, and its relationship with cognitive reflection. Findings: Consistency of judgement was very similar in both groups. The prioritisation of measures resulted in a similar set of priorities determined by both groups. The assumed relationship of consistency and cognitive reflection score and/or overconfidence was not detected, and decision makers proved to be well calibrated. Research Limitation/Implication: The main limitation of our research was the small sample size of decision makers, which complied with the requirements of the decision method, but was not sufficient to confirm the statistical validity. Originality/Value of paper: The introduction of the multi-criteria decision method into decision-making for public policy strategies combines practical policy exercises with scientific research on high-stakes decisions and enables to carry out participatory decision-making process with relevant stakeholders.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
13.30%
发文量
16
审稿时长
6 weeks
期刊最新文献
Benchmarking of the e-Learning Quality Assurance in Vocational Education and Training: Project Results Mapping the Accidents and Unsafe Conditions of Workers in the Automotive Sector Developing a Systematic and Practical Road Map for Implementing Quality 4.0 Quality 4.0 in Digital Manufacturing – Example of Good Practice Comparative Analysis of Innovation Districts to Set Up Performance Goals for Tec Innovation District
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1