Recognizing Multiple Decision-Making Models
A Guide for Managers
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 9360073 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Joan Giesecke (University of Nebraska–Lincoln, corresponding author) |
| Year | 1993 |
| Volume | 54 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 103-114 |
| Publication date | 1993-03-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | College & Research Libraries (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0010-0870 • E-ISSN: 2150-6701 |
| Publisher | Association of College and Research Libraries (PUBLISHER • US) |
| DOI | 10.5860/crl_54_02_103 |
| OpenAlex | W2046212595 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 2 |
| References cited | 7 |
Empirical studies of decision making find that the process is more disorderly than described in rational models. New models have appeared that suggest that managers need to accommodate the randomness found in complex organizations. This article examines two approaches for dealing with this disorder: the political-bargaining model and the garbage can model. The essay clarifies the differences between these two approaches and assesses their usefulness to managers for understanding tlze decision-making process
Business · Decision process · Decision-making · Economics · Empirical modelling · Garbage · Management · Management science · Operations research · Political science · Politics · Process (computing · Randomness · Rational planning model · Simulation · Computer Science · Cross-Cultural and Social Analysis · Economic Theory and Institutions · Economic, financial, and policy analysis · Engineering · Law · Marketing
| Unique citing works | 2 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0.67 |
| Citation span | 2023 - 2023 (1) |
| Citation velocity | historical |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 2 |