Department of Public Administration and Policy
Graduate School of Public Affairs
Nelson A. Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy
PAD 611 Fall 1995
Decision Making in Government and Administration
Instructor: Jeryl Mumpower, Milne 300C, 442-3850 (J.Mumpower@Albany.Edu)
COURSE PURPOSE
The purpose of this course is to acquaint students with some fundamental ideas concerning judgment and decision making, especially as they apply in governmental and administrative settings. Theories of judgment and decision making can be divided into three broad categories: descriptive theories of judgment and decision making (theories about how decision makers actually behave); normative theories (theories about how decision makers ought to behave given certain assumptions about rationality); and prescriptive theories (theories about how to improve decision making processes and outcomes). This course will touch on all three types of concerns but will focus primarily on the last topic. We will be primarily concerned with what Herbert Simon defines as "bounded rationality" --- the behavior of persons who are attempting to behave purposefully but who lack complete knowledge about the world or perhaps even their own values, who are saddled with inherent cognitive and mental limits, and who have limited resources and time. Because of such limitations people are unable to make decisions in a manner compatible with economic notions of rational behavior. According to Simon, "it is precisely in the realm where human behavior is intendedly rational, but only limitedly so, that there is room for a genuine theory of organization and administration" (from the Introduction to the 3rd edition of his classic Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organization).
COURSE OUTLINE AND SCHEDULE
The course will be divided into six modules of roughly two weeks. The basic schedule is given below. Specific assignments for each module will be given out the week before it begins.
August 30/September 2 (Module 1: Decision Structure and Process)
Introduction to course
Limits to cognition
Examination of decision processes
Heuristics and biases
Alternatives, criteria, and futures
PAD 611
Fall 1995
COURSE OUTLINE AND SCHEDULE (cont.)
September 13/September 20 (Module 2: Multiattribute Utility Models & Decision Analysis)
Assessing discrete alternatives
Decisions under risk and uncertainty
Multiattribute utility models
Sensitivity analyses with spreadsheets
September 27/October 11 (Module 3: Judgment Models)
Intuition and analysis
The role of judgment in decision making
Modeling expertise
Social judgment analysis
Cognitive skills
October 18 (Module 3a: Expert Judgment)
Expert judgment
Modeling experts
Why experts disagree
October 25/November 1 (Module 4: Resource allocation models)
Resource allocation problems
Cost-benefit analysis
Investment progressions and efficient frontiers
Sensitivity analyses with spreadsheets
November 8/November 15 (Module 5: Negotiation and conflict management)
Negotiation and bargaining
Conflict and conflict management
Analytical mediation
Tradeoffs between utility and equity
Searching for optimality
November 29/December 6 (Module 6: Group decision making)
Group decision making
Nominal and real groups
Group decision support systems
Decision conferences
Assessing the effectiveness of decision processes in groups
December 13
Review and Summary
December 20
Final Examination
PAD 611
Fall 1995
GRADING POLICY
Grades will be based on approximately the following weightings:
Decision structure & process assignments (overdue after Sept. 13) 15%
Multiattribute utility models (overdue after September 27) 15%
Judgment models assignments (overdue after October 18) 15%
Expert judgment assignment (overdue after October 25) 5%
Resource allocation assignments (overdue after November 8) 15%
Negotiation & conflict assignments (overdue after November 29) 15%
Group decision making assignments (overdue after December 13) 10%
Final Examination (December 20) 10%
Late assignments may be marked down by up to one letter grade, at the discretion of the instructor.
Grades may be adjusted to reflect the quantity and quality of classroom participation.
READINGS
The following texts are required:
Hogarth, Robin M. (1987) Judgement and Choice: The Psychology of Decision (2nd edition). New York: Wiley.
POLICY PC Version 3.0 Software for Judgment Analysis Reference Manual, Executive Decision Services, 1991.
In addition, an extensive set of photocopied reading assignments is required. The specific readings required for each class are specified in the syllabus and assignments that are distributed for each module.
PAD 611 Fall 1995
Decision Making in Government and Administration
Instructor: Jeryl Mumpower, Milne 300C, 442-3850
Assignment for Module 1 (Decision Structure and Process)
Due September 6:
1. Read Hogarth, Chapters 1-7 (pages 1-152)
Outline or take notes as appropriate to facilitate learning.
2. Read "Letter from the Space Center" (New Yorker: November 1986)
3. Write a 5-7 page paper describing a decision that you personally have made recently. This may be either a professional or personal decision. Although you might briefly describe the problem (1-2 paragraphs at most), your primary focus should be on the cognitive activities by which you made your choice. The emphasis should be on how you selected your preferred option or alternative. The paper should NOT focus on how you collected your information to support your decision (for example what you read or what advice you were given.) Be careful to describe only one decision you made, not a string or series of connected decisions. This is a paper concerning CHOICE MAKING (activities dealing with the evaluation and selection from among alternative solutions), not a paper about problem identification, generation of alternatives, implementation, or monitoring, reviewing, and evaluation.
Due September 13:
4. Identify 10 aspects of decision processes that can cause difficulties in actual choice making. Hogarth (especially chapters 1-3, 6-7) should be helpful. Illustrate 5 of these aspects with examples from your self description (#3 above); illustrate the other 5 with examples from "Letter from the Space Center."
5. If you don't know how to use a spreadsheet you are in trouble and should go learn to use LOTUS 1-2-3, Microsoft's Excel, Borland's Quattro Pro, or some other spreadsheet. (I know the three mentioned by name well enough to be able to help you with them.)
6. Construct three two-dimensional matrices to show alternatives by criteria. List the alternatives down the side (rows) and the criteria across the top (columns) of the matrix:
Make one matrix to represent the alternatives and criteria in your personal choice (#3 above).
Make one matrix to represent the alternatives and criteria for the SSC problem (to be distributed).
Make a third matrix to represent the alternatives and criteria for some other choice-making situation; make sure that the matrix contains at least 5 criteria and 5 alternatives.
Put these matrices in the spreadsheet and print them out. Briefly explain each one.
All assignments are overdue after September 13. Any assignments handed in after that date may be marked down at the discretion of the instructor.
PAD 611 Fall 1995
Decision Making in Government and Administration
Instructor: Jeryl Mumpower, Milne 300C, 442-3850
Assignment for Module 2 (Multiattribute Utility Models)
Due September 13:
1. Read Hogarth, Chapters 9; Appendix D (you may find that it is helpful to refer to appendices A-C).
2. Read the following three articles:
Edwards, W., and Newman, J. R. Multiattribute evaluation. In H. R. Arkes and K. R. Hammond (eds.), Judgment and Decision Making. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986.
McEachern, A. W. Two simple versions of multiattribute utility analysis. In L. G. Nigro (ed.), Decision Making in the Public Sector. New York: Marcel Dekker, 1984.
Laufer, F. N. Managerial decision making in the laboratory. Clinical Laboratory Management Review, November/December, 1990, 425-431.
Due September 20:
3. Build a multiattribute utility model for a problem that is work-related and which you personally face. Write a paragraph or two describing the problem and adequately annotate the model, that is, the selection of alternatives and criteria, assignment of utilities, and assessment of weights, to indicate the justification of your judgments. Use at least two explicit and distinct assumptions about the future. Place the decision model on a spreadsheet. What differences between analyses for the two or more futures emerge?
Now perform a few sensitivity analyses with your model. What changes in utility scores and weights are worth testing? What impacts do those changes have on the cumulative, weighted utilities for the alternatives? Be sure to attach documentary print-out.
Using such "rules" as optimism, pessimism, regret, or expected value, identify a single alternative that you might choose. Explain your choice convincingly.
4. Repeat the exercise described above for a work problem faced by another individual. You should serve as that individual's "decision consultant" and assist with the structuring of that person's choice.
5. Write a four-page essay discussing what you learned as a result of these modeling efforts (#4 and #5, above), especially new insights you have about your own decision-making processes (or the decision-making processes of others). Stand back, observe, and comment on this project.
All assignments are overdue after September 27. Any assignments handed in after that date may be marked down at the discretion of the instructor.
PAD 611 Fall 1995
Decision Making in Government and Administration
Instructor: Jeryl Mumpower, Milne 300C, 442-3850
Assignment for Module 3 (Judgment Models)
Due September 27:
1. Read the following:
Dawes, R. M. The robust beauty of improper linear models of decision making. American Psychologist, 1979, 34, 571-582.
Dempsey, L. S. Certification of recreation and parks professionals. Rtao Reports, 1991, 2, 1-9.
Doherty, M. E. Assessing the fairness of social politics. In New Directions for Methodology of Social and Behavioral Science, 1980, 3, 61-71.
Hammond, K. R., & Adelman, L. Science, values, and human judgment. Science, 1976, 194, 389-396.
McCarrtt, A. The application of social judgment analysis to library faculty tenure decisions. College and Research Libraries, 1983, 16, 345-357.
2. Begin to familiarize yourself with the POLICY PC software.
Due October 11:
3. (Cognitive Skill building). Attached is a hiring task described sequentially in three, four, and five cues. Create a NEW BLOCK in POLICY PC for this task and test your cognitive skill at least three times at each level. PRINT SCREEN (or otherwise record) your function forms and weights for each skill building effort, and note your consistency score (R). Write a brief one-page essay about this cognitive skill building exercise.
Note: POLICY PC may say "Redo from start." If so, check the appropriateness of your last response. (Almost always) you don't have to begin at the very start of the program.
4. Choose a work-related problems that involves a series of repetitive judgments about cases. Identify the key cues on which such judgments are based and develop a judgment task using POLICY PC for each task. Work with at least one other judge, so that you can compare your judgment policies. Analyze your intuitive judgment policies and report the results. Write a 3-page essay about your work. What did you learn about the problem? What did you learn about the strengths and weakness of the way you structured the problem for analysis using POLICY PC? What did you learn about your own judgment processes? What did you learn about your collaborator's judgment processes.
All assignments are overdue after October 18. Any assignments handed in after that date may be marked down at the discretion of the instructor.
PAD 611 Fall 1995
Decision Making in Government and Administration
Instructor: Jeryl Mumpower, Milne 300C, 442-3850
Assignment for Module 3a (Judgment Models)
Due October 18 (overdue after October 25):
1. Read the following:
Adelman, L., & Mumpower, J. L. The analysis of expert judgment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 1979, 15, 191-204.
Mumpower, J. L., Livingston, S., & Lee, T. J. Expert judgments of political riskiness. Journal of Forecasting, 1987, 6, 51-65.
Shanteau, J. Psychological Characteristics of Expert Decision Makers. In J. Mumpower, O. Renn, L. Phillips, & V. R. R. Uppuluri (eds.), Expert Judgment and Expert Systems. Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1987. (289-304)
2. Write a brief (approximately 3-5 page essay) on the role of expertise in public policy making and/or public management. Discuss the strengths and potential pitfalls of experts and incorporate the above readings (as well as previous ones), as appropriate.
OR
Build a model of an expert (broadly defined) using POLICY PC or other appropriate tools
OR
Write a brief (approximately 3-5 page essay) on the lessons to be learned from the ATR case described in the recent New York Times articles. Consider the similarities and differences between this case and the Challenger case. Be specific and make sure that your discussion makes use of the concepts and ideas that we have discussed during the semester.
PAD 611 Fall 1995
Decision Making in Government and Administration
Instructor: Jeryl Mumpower, Milne 300C, 442-3850
Assignment for Module 5 (Negotiation and Conflict Management)
Due November 8:
1. Read the following:
Mumpower, J. L., Schuman, S. P., & Zumbolo, A. Analytical Mediation: An Application in Collective Bargaining. In R. M. Lee, A. M. McCosh, P. Migliarese (eds.), Organisational Decision Support Systems. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1988. (61-71)
Mumpower, J. L. The Judgment Policies of Negotiators and the Structure of Negotiation Problems. Management Science, 1991, 37, 1304-1323.
Rohrbaugh, J., McClelland, G., & Quinn, R. Measuring the Relative Importance of Utilitarian and Egalitarian Values: A Study of Individual Differences about Fair Distribution. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1980, 65, 34-49.
You will be assigned a role-playing negotiation exercise to be conducted outside of class. You are to negotiate with an assigned partner and to reach an agreement, before class on November 15. Being late with this assignment will make me much more unhappy than usual.
2. Use POLICY PC to develop a specified model of the negotiating positions of the two countries involved in border warfare (YELLOW and BLUE). Be sure to indicate that there are six cues and two judges (i.e., the two bargaining sides). Set the number of cases at 100. When you have specified the two policies in "Specify," including the proper functional forms and weights, set the judgment mean and standard deviation to 500, 200. This should correspond to the judgment scale on the y-axis (or vertical axis) of the attached graphs. Note: the judgment scale should also be set from 0 to 1000 for complete consistency.
Evaluate 100 cases in "Specify" by automatically testing each profile from that bargaining position of each country. If you have set up POLICY PC properly, all you have to do is press the return key to view the judgments from the specified policies; you do not need to enter any judgments yourself. When you find certain profiles that would appear to be good settlements to the dispute, given the judgments from the specified policies, make special note of the specific cue values, since these are the elements of a possible treaty. Prepare a "mediator's report" that includes several possible treaties described by concrete terms of settlement on each of the six issues, then recommend one particular solution that you believe is in the "mutual best interest" of both countries. Explain why you chose that specific treaty instead of the others. Finally, describe what you believe you have learned about bargaining, negotiation, and analytic mediation as a result of this assignment. Your project report should be about 5 pages in length; attach to the report a sheet that displays four of the better possible treaties plus the treaty you selected as best.
Due November 15:
3. Repeat the analytic mediation exercise for another dispute of your choosing. Include at least 5 issues (cues) and review 100 possible settlements. Prepare a second project report in the same form as above, attaching not only a sheet that displays four of the better possible settlements plus the settlement you selected as best but also a sheet that displays the bargaining positions of both sides as a set of functional forms and relative weights.
Above assignments are overdue after November 29.
PAD 611 Fall 1995
Decision Making in Government and Administration
Instructor: Jeryl Mumpower, Milne 300C, 442-3850
Assignment for Module 6 (Group Decision Making)
Due November 29:
1. Read the following:
Nutt, Paul C. (1989) Making Tough Decisions: Tactics for Improving Managerial Decision Making. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Regan-Cirincione, P. (1994). Improving the Accuracy of Group Judgment: A Process Intervention Combing Group Facilitation, Social Judgment Analysis, and Information Technology. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 58, 246-270.
Rohrbaugh, J. Assessing the Effectiveness of Expert Teams. In J. Mumpower, O. Renn, L. Phillips, & V. R. R. Uppuluri (eds.), Expert Judgment and Expert Systems. Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1987. (251-268)
Nunamaker, J. F., Dennis, Alan R., Valacich, Joseph S., Vogel, Douglas, R., & George, Joey F. (1991). Electronic Meeting Systems Support Group Work. Communications of the ACM, 34, 41 -- 61.
2. Write a 5-10 page essay on group decision making and group decision support. Be sure to address the following issues:
What do you think are the primary strengths and weaknesses of group decision making?
How can group decision making be facilitated?
How can and should we assess the effectiveness of group decision processes?
Due December 6:
3. Write a brief (2-5 page) description of how you would use a group to address a specific public policy problem. Be clear about the problem and about whom you would include in the group and why. Explain why the problem is an appropriate one for group decision making and how you would manage or facilitate the group process.
All assignments are overdue after December 13.