Polytechnic University of the Philippines

College of Business Administration

Department of Human Resource Development
Management
Sta. Mesa, Manila

COPING WITH EACH STYLE AND

SCHOOLS OF DECISIONS THEORY
Decision Making

Submitted by:
Group 3

Soliman, Jonalyn Tiama, Luis Gabriel

Soriano, Joss Aira Tile-tile Sweet Erica

Tanguan, Charisse Timario, Liela Jane

Tañala, Princess Harlene Tubigon, Jairah

Tambong, Gerald Turtuna, Ella Mae

Tapnio, Ojay Urmenita, Rose Marie

BSBA-HRDM MSM 4-FS1N

Submitted to:
Dr. Marilou Mondana
 REPORTER: Tile-tile, Sweet Erica
Introduction
Basically, the term style means learned habits. So decision style refers to learned habits
of decision making. Like all of our styles- writing style, style of talking, dressing, or of playing
games-we learn to make decisions in school, at work, in leisure time activities and from the
following examples of others. Because of diverse backgrounds, people learn varied styles of
decision making.
The Five (5) Basic Decision Styles
1. Decisive Style
Decisive use a minimum amount of information to rapidly come up with a clear
solution for a problem.

2. The Flexible Style

Like the decisive, the flexible moves fast. But there is emphasis on adaptability.
3. The Hierarchic Style

Hierarchic use lots of information to evaluate a problem and then to carefully

constructs a very detailed and specific plan for handling the problems.
4. The Integrative Style

Like the hierarchic, integrative also use a lot of information to evaluate situations.
However, rather than zeroing in on a single solution, their tendency is to explore a problem
from many perspectives to come up with a variety of alternatives for dealing with the
problem.
5. The Systemic Style

Of the five basic decision styles, the systemic style is the most complex and difficult
to grasp. This is because the style combines qualities of both integrative and hierarchic
style.

REPORTER: Tubigon, Jairah

Once Again: No Best Style

None of the styles we just described is better or worse than any of the other styles in an absolute
sense. There is no Superman style here, nor is there a Failure style among the four. Each of the
decision styles has its own strengths and weaknesses "built-in," so to speak.
In general, the Decisive and Flexible styles have the edge when things have to be done now,
particularly when the issues that must be considered are relatively simple and clear.
The Hierarchic, Integrative and Systemic styles excel when problems are complex and decisions
will have costly, long-term consequences.
The Decisive and Hierarchic styles have the advantage in highly structured or regulated
situations, where experimentation or exploration cannot or will not be tolerated. But, on the other
hand, the Flexible and Integrative styles are superior in highly changeable situations where there
is a lot of new territory to be covered.

Dealing With Others’ Decision Styles

To deal effectively with other people you ideally should identify both role and operating styles.
Role styles are relatively easy to identify, inasmuch as they are the styles that you are likely to
see first when meeting a person. To identify a person's operating style, however, may take longer.
Nevertheless, even on a first meeting you may see a person's operating style break through as
conversation and attention turn to substantive issues and the person becomes less conscious of
the interpersonal relations aspects of the meeting. So, it is important to stay alert to subtle
changes in the behavior of people you have only seen previously in formal situations.

To help you size up the styles of other people, Figure 5 shows a number of key behaviors and
values that characterize different decision styles. These characteristics can be used as clues that
will give you a "best guess" about a person's styles.
The last row in Figure 5, which deals with communicating, shows some of the reasons that
communication between people can falter so easily. In many respects, communication between
people with different decision styles resembles the proverbial ships passing in the night. The
people may be speaking the same language, but more often than not they will remain "out of
synch" and out of touch.
By making the effort to identify a person's styles you can significantly increase the probability of
communicating and dealing effectively with that person. Figure 6 gives some basic pointers that
you can use to adjust to the styles of other people. These pointers can be especially valuable
when making presentations, selling, or negotiating. However, you can use them effectively also
in everyday communications and dealings with others.

As Figure 6 shows,
Decisive communications should be short and to the point, without elaborate explanations and
analyses. Be sure not to keep a Decisive in suspense: you could lose the person's attention and
confidence easily. Keep your points clear and stress the major benefits (but not too many) of
accepting your recommendation.

REPORTER: Tapnio, Ojay

COPING PRODUCTIVE WITH DECISION STYLES

A. Flexible Style

With Flexibles, you need to avoid elaborate detail and explanations. Be careful not
to "beat an issue to death." If you do, your Flexible associate will begin to see you as
plodding and dogmatic. Don't expect or push for long-term commitment. And, don't try to
nail things down too specifically. Instead, look for agreement to try out one or two ideas.
Then keep in touch with brief and general progress reports. Overall, try not to be too
intense (so, watch out if your own style is Hierarchic).
 B. Hierarchic Style

In this case, you will need to carefully construct your logic. Be sure to show that
you used a lot of data to arrive at your conclusion or recommendation. Also, make it clear
how you used the data on which you are basing your position. At all times, make sure to
show your logic. Also, be sure to point out both short-term and long-term benefits you
anticipate. Don't win an argument, but don't vacillate or acquiesce too easily either. Also,
don't expect immediate acceptance of your point of view. Give your Hierarchic associate
some time to mull things over. If possible, "prime the pump" by sending information
supporting your point of view in advance. Hierarchics are unlikely to completely go along
with an idea until they feel that they have convinced themselves of the wisdom of doing
so.

C. Integrative Style

With Integratives you can forget about getting a pre-conceived idea accepted
without modifications. Integratives want to participate with you in the analysis of a problem
and in the formulation of solutions. So, be prepared to have an interactive discussion. You
must remain open to new ideas and alternatives. Expect to play give and take. React with
interest to criticisms of your analysis or your proposals. Ask for input and alternative ideas.
Keep some additional alternatives in the back of your mind at all times. Do not hold rigidly
to one point of view. If you do, your Integrative associates simply will lose interest in your
issue and your ideas. As with Hierarchics, don’t expect on-the-spot decisions. Try to get
agreement for several strategies and keep your Integrative associates involved and
informed. As you can see, communications with Integratives are dynamic and evolving.

The figure below gives some basic pointers that you can use to adjust to the styles of other people.
These pointers can be especially valuable when making presentations, selling, or negotiating.
However, you can use them effectively also in everyday communications and dealings with
others.

DECISION THEORY
REPORTER: Timario, Liela Jane
Three (3) Main Areas/Branches
 NORMATIVE DECISION THEORY

Normative decision theory is concerned with identifying the best decision to make,
modelling an ideal decision maker who is able to compute with perfect accuracy and is
fully rational.
 It is concerned with identifying the best decision to make, modelling an
ideal decision maker who is able to compute with perfect accuracy and is fully rational. It is also
gives advice on how to make the best decisions, given a set of uncertain beliefs and a set
of values;
Normative Decision Theory is a theory about how the decision should be made.
The "should" in the foregoing sentence can be interpreted in many ways.
There is, however, virtually complete agreement among decision scientists that it refers to the
prerequisites of rational decision-making. In other words, a normative decision theory is a theory
about how decisions should be made in order to be rational.
This is a very limited sense of the word "normative". Norms of rationality are by no means
the only – or even the most important – norms that one may wish to apply in decision-making.
However, it is practice to regard norms other than rationality norms as external to decision theory.
Since a normative decision theory tells us how a rational agent should act, falsification must
refer to the dictates of rationality. It is not evident, however, how strong the conflict must be
between the theory and rational decision-making for the theory to be falsified. I propose, therefore,
the following two definitions for different strengths of that conflict.

 A decision theory is weakly falsified as a normative theory if a decision problem can be

found in which an agent can perform in contradiction with the theory without being
irrational. (F3)
 A decision theory is strictly falsified as a normative theory if a decision problem can be
found in which an agent who performs in accordance with the theory cannot be a rational
agent.

REPORTER: Tiama, Luis Gabriel

 DESCRIPTIVE DECISION THEORY
Descriptive decision theory is concerned with characterising and explaining regularities in the
choices that people are disposed to make. It is standardly distinguished from a parallel enterprise,
normative decision theory, which seeks to provide an account of the choices that people ought to
be disposed to make. Also, it is based on the idea that people rely on a simplified shortcuts or
rules of thumb to make decisions.

Heuristics
The “rule of thumb” is known as heuristics. Heuristics are simple, efficient rules, learned or hard-
coded by evolutionary processes, that has been proposed to explain how people make decisions,
come to judgments, and solve problems typically when facing complex problems or incomplete
information.

For example, a highly trained pilot is flying a small private plane when, for some reasons, the
engines stopped working properly. In this instance, he doesn’t have any time or resources to
conduct a thorough analysis of what happened. Thus, he would have to take his best guess. But
the caviat in using heuristics is that it could lead to sub-optimal decisions. He would have no
choice but to perform an unplanned landing. Said pilot would have to choose between landing on
a deserted highway or on the open field. The pilot may choose the field as passes for a landing
strip, but he would have to maintain a steep angle of decent in order to have enough runway

REPORTER: Turtuna, Ella Mae

 PRESCRIPTIVE DECISION THEORY

Decision theory (or the theory of choice) is the study of the reasoning underlying an agent's
choices. Decision theory can be broken into three branches, Normative decision theory,
Descriptive decision theory, and Prescriptive decision theory. Prescriptive Decision Theory, which
tries to guide or give procedures on how or what we should do in order to make best decisions in
line with the Normative theory. It is concerned with guidelines that describe what to do in order to
achieve specific outcome. A prescriptive model is one which can and should be used by a real
decision maker and is tuned to both the specific situation, and needs of the decision maker.
Prescriptive models are based on both the strong theoretical foundation of normative theory in
combination with the observations of descriptive theory. Instructional design is the umbrella which
assembles Prescriptive theories. Instructional design is the process by which learning products
and experiences are designed, developed, and delivered. Instructional design, also known as
instructional systems design is the analysis of learning needs and systematic development of
instruction. Instructional designers often use instructional technology as a method for developing
instructions. Instructional design models typically specify a method, that if followed will facilitate
the transfer of knowledge, skills, and attitude to the recipient or acquirer of the instruction.

DECISION PROCESSES
REPORTER: Soriano, Joss Aira
 CONDORCET

The first general theory of the stages of a decision process that I am aware of was put forward by
the great enlightenment philosopher Condorcet (1743-1794) as part of his motivation for the
French constitution of 1793. He divided the decision process into three stages. In the first stage,
one “discusses the principles that will serve as the basis for decision in a general issue; one
examines the various aspects of this issue and the consequences of different ways to make the
decision.” At this stage, the opinions are personal, and no attempts are made to form a majority.
After this follows a second discussion in which “the question is clarified, opinions approach and
combine with each other to a small number of more general opinions.” In this way the decision is
reduced to a choice between a manageable set of alternatives.
The third stage consists of the actual choice between these alternatives. This is an insightful
theory. In particular, Condorcet's distinction between the first and second discussion seems to be
a very useful one. However, his theory of the stages of a decision process was virtually forgotten,
and does not seem to have been referred to in modern decision theory.
  MODERN SEQUENTIAL MODELS

Instead, the starting-point of the modern discussion is generally taken to be John Dewey's
exposition of the stages of problem-solving. According to Dewey, problem-solving consists of five
consecutive stages:
(1) a felt difficulty
(2) the definition of the character of that difficulty
(3) suggestion of possible solutions
(4) evaluation of the suggestion, and
(5) further observation and experiment leading to acceptance or rejection of the suggestion.

Herbert Simon (1960)

According to Simon, decision-making consists of three principal phases: "finding occasions for
making a decision; finding possible courses of action; and choosing among courses of action."
The first of these phases he called intelligence, "borrowing the military meaning of intelligence"
The second design and the Third choice. Another influential subdivision of the decision process
was proposed by Brim et al. (1962). They divided the decision process into the following five
steps:
1. Identification of the problem
2. Obtaining necessary information
3. Production of possible solutions
4. Evaluation of such solutions
5. Selection of a strategy for performance

The proposals by Dewey, Simon, and Brim et al are all sequential in the sense that they divide
decision processes into parts that always come in the same order or sequence.

REPORTER: Soliman, Jonalyn

 NON-SEQUENTIAL MODELS

One of the most influential models that satisfy this criterion was proposed by Mintzberg,
Raisinghani, and Theoret (1976). In the view of these authors, the decision process consists of
distinct phases, but these phases do not have a simple sequential relationship. They used the
same three major phases as Simon, but gave them new names: identification, development and
selection.
The Identification Phase (Simon’s “intelligence”) consists of two routines.

 Decision Recognition – Problems and opportunities are identified in the streams of

ambiguous, largely verbal data that decision makers receive.
 Diagnosis – Or the tapping of existing information channels and the opening of new ones
to clarify to define the issues.
The Development Phase (Simon’s “design”) serves to define and clarify the options. This
phase, too, consists of two routines.

 Search Routine – Aims at finding ready-made solutions

 Design Routine – Developing new solution or modifying or ready-made ones.
The Selection Phase (Simon’s “choice”) consists of three routines.

 Screen Routine – Is only evoked when search is expected to generate more ready-made
alternative than can be intensively evaluated.
 Evaluation-choice Routine – Is the actual choice between the alternatives. It may include
the use of one more of three “modes”, namely (intuitive) judgment, bargaining, and
analysis.
 Authorization Routine – Approval for the solution selected is acquired higher up in the
hierarchy.

 THE PHASES OF PRACTICAL DECISIONS – AND OF THE DECISION THEORY

According to Simon, executives spend a large fraction of their time in intelligence activities, an
even larger fraction in design activity and a small fraction in choice activity. This was corroborated
by the empirical findings of Mintzberg et al. In 21 out of 25 decision processes studied by them
and their students, the development phase dominated the other two phases.
In contrast to this, by far the largest part of the literature on decision making has focused
on the evaluation-choice routine. Although many empirical decision studies have taken the whole
decision process into account, decision theory has been executively concerned with the
evaluation-choice routine. This is “rather curious” according to Mintzberg and coauthors, since
“this routines seems to be far less significant in many of the decision processes we studied than
diagnosis or design”.
This is a serious indictment of decision theory. In its, defense, however, may be said that
the evaluation-choice routine is the focus of the decision process. It is this routine that makes the
process into a decision process, and the character of the other routines is to a larger part
determined by it. All this is a good reason to pay much attention to the evaluation-choice routine.
It is not, however, a reason to almost completely neglect the other routines – and this is what
normative decision theory is in most cases guilty of.
WHAT KIND OF DECISIONS NEED THEORY?

REPORTER: Urmenita, Rose Marie

 DECISION UNDER UNCERTAINTY

Decision- a choice that you make about something after thinking about it
Uncertainty- lack of certainty, a state of limited knowledge where it is impossible to exactly
describe the existing state, a future outcome, or more than one possible outcome

In decision under uncertainty, individual decision makers have to choose one of a set number of
alternatives with complete information about their outcomes but in the absence of any information
or data about the probabilities of the various state of nature.
Typically, personal and professional decisions can be made with some difficulty. Either the best
course of action is clear or the varieties of the decision are not significant enough to require a
great amount of attention. Occasionally, decisions arise where the path is not clear and it is
necessary to take substantial time and effort in devising a systematic method of analyzing the
various courses of action. With decisions under uncertainty, the decision maker should:
1. Take an inventory of all viable options available for gathering information, for experimentation
and for action.
2. List all events that may occur.
3. Arrange all pertinent information and choices/assumptions made.
4. Rank the consequences resulting from the various courses of action.
5. Determine the probability of an uncertain event occurring.

Upon systematically describing the problem and recording all necessary data, judgments, and
preferences, the decision maker should synthesize the information set before using the most
appropriate decision rules.
When a decision maker should choose one possible actions, the ultimate consequences of some,
if not all of these actions will generally depend on uncertain events and future actions extending
indefinitely far into the future.

Decision Analysis
It's an inescapable fact of the human condition that what we receive, for good or ill, depends in
part on what actions we freely choose to take and in part on circumstances beyond our control.
Decision Analysis is based on making a clear conceptual distinction between actions we freely
choose to take, and circumstances that are entirely outside of our control.
In other words, if something is partly controllable, decision analysis needs to know what part is
controllable and what part is not. Thus, Decision Analysis model must clearly specify three parts:
1. A set of Alternative Actions: we may choose whichever one of these we please
2. A set of possible States of Nature: completely capture all the possible facts that might prevail
in the decision situation that affect the outcome of acting. One of these will turn out to be the real
one, but we have no control as to which one
3. A set of Outcomes, one for each combination of an Alternative Action and a State of Nature,
and a Value, monetary or otherwise, for each Outcome.

Decision Rules/Criteria
Decision rules prescribe how an individual faced with a decision under uncertainty should go
about choosing a course of action consistent with the individual’s basic judgments and
preferences. Each makes a different assumption about the decision maker's state of mind.

 The Maximax Rule "Go for the gold!"

Select the alternative that, if things turn out for the best, provides the highest payoff or outcome.
In other words, Maximize the maximum payoff or outcome. Either the decision maker is extremely
optimistic, or he or she is in such dire straits that any but the best payoff is of no value. Remember
that you assume that you will get the best State of Nature given your chosen alternative, but you
don't really get to choose it and there is no guarantee that it will happen.

 The Maximin Rule "Cover your assets"

Select the alternative that, having the best of the worst possible outcomes or if things turn out for
the worst, provides the highest payoff. Maximize the minimum payoff. This is a very conservative
and pessimistic criterion. It is like nature is out to get me, and I must protect myself.

 The Hurwicz Rule "Seek a balance"

This is a compromise between the maximax and maximin rules; simple pick an "optimism"
coefficient α, and represent each alternative by α times its best payoff plus 1-α times its worst
payoff. Choose the alternative that has the highest weighted average.

 The Minimax Regret Rule "I'd hate myself if it went wrong"

Select the alternative that will Minimize the maximum regret. Here, we define "regret" as being
the opportunity loss of having selected a choice other than the one that turns out to be the best.
This decision maker can accept some risk, but doesn't want to look bad after the fact. In effect,
regret focuses attention where our actions have the most effect.

 The Laplace-Bayes role, or " Principle of Insufficient Reason "

Named for 2 great early theoreticians, Pierre Laplace and Thomas Bayes. This is sometimes
called the Principle of Equal Likelihood. If you have no idea that any State of Nature is more
probable than any other, this criterion holds that this is equivalent to saying that all are equally
probable. In that case, you just compute the average payoff across all States of Nature for each
alternative, and select the alternative with the best average. Note that this rule, unlike the previous
ones, assumes that there is no connection between how likely something is and how likable it is.

REPORTER: Tanguan, Charisse

 INTERTEMPORAL CHOICE

Intertemporal choice is concerned with the kind of choice where different actions lead to
outcomes that are realized at different points in time. If someone received a windfall of several
thousand dollars, they could spend it on an expensive holiday, giving them immediate pleasure,
or they could invest it in a pension scheme, giving them an income at some time in the future.
What is the optimal thing to do? The answer depends partly on factors such as the expected rates
of interest and inflation, the person's life expectancy, and their confidence in the pensions
industry. However even with all those factors taken into account, human behavior again deviates
greatly from the predictions of prescriptive decision theory, leading to alternative models in which,
for example, objective interest rates are replaced by subjective discount rates.

In business:

Intertemporal choice is an economic term describing how an individual's current decisions

affect what options become available in the future. Theoretically, by not consuming today,
consumption levels could increase significantly in the future, and vice versa.

Ways a Short-Term Intertemporal Choice Can Affect Long-Term Opportunities

Individuals tend to be limited by budget constraints that prevent them from consuming to
the extent of their desires. A preference for focusing on current consumption leads many
individuals to make intertemporal choices that accommodate near-term needs and wants.

If an individual makes an exorbitant purchase, for instance pays for an around-the-world

vacation that exceeds their usual budget and requires additional financing to cover, this could
have a substantial impact on their long-term wealth. They might take out a personal loan, max
out credit cards, or even withdraw funds from retirement accounts in order to cover the expense.

Making such a choice would reduce the assets they have available to continue to save for
their retirement. They may have to fund supplemental forms of income to augment their salary to
make up for the decline in their assets.

This could be further exacerbated if there unforeseen events affect their current income.
A sudden loss of employment, for example, would make it difficult to recoup recent expenses and
set aside funds for retirement. If the consumer made a sizeable purchase and then was laid off,
their intertemporal choices combined with those external factors stand to change their future
opportunities.
 Perhaps they planned to retire by a certain age or were on track to finish paying off a
mortgage. The shortfall in assets could mean postponing retirement or taking out a second
mortgage to help deal with the more immediate issues.

Decisions on employment can also factor into intertemporal choices. A professional might
be presented with job opportunities with different salaries based on the intensity and demands of
the job. One position may be high-stress with long hours required, however the compensation
might also be higher than what is standard for such a position. As an intertemporal choice, taking
such a job might allow for more options on later retirement plans. Conversely taking a job that
offers a lower salary, but a better work-life balance may mean having fewer retirement options
with less funding available.

REPORTER: Tañala, Princess Harlene

 INTERACTION OF DECISION MAKERS

Some decision are difficult because of the need to take into account how other people in
the situation will respond to the decision that is taken. The analysis of such social decisions is
more often treated under the label of game theory, rather that decision theory, though it involves
the same mathematical method.
From the standpoint of game theory most of the problem treated in decision theory are
one-player games. In the emerging socio-cognitive engineering, the research is especially
focused on the different types of distributed decision making in human organizations, in normal
and abnormal emergency crisis situations.

REPORTER: Tambong, Gerald

 COMPLEX DECISION
The action or process of deciding something or of resolving a question consisting of many different
and connected parts.

Six tips for taking complex decisions at work

Companies and individuals face various problems daily. Some of these problems are the direct
consequences of our actions or reactions to the situations we face. When we fail to explore the
nuances and complexity of a problem, our response is not as flexible and effective as it should
be. Systems today are volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous, and the dominant dynamics
are beyond our control. Making the right decisions or responding optimally is therefore far more
challenging than previously.

Thus, it is important to always identify the problem, to define the boundaries of the problem, and
to analyse the future paths and impact. There is most certainly a relation between a system’s
history, its present state and its future state, but this does not mean that the same solutions can
be applied to the same problem at different times in history. In addition, solutions often depend
on changes in different parts of the world. We should therefore build tailor-made solutions for
each problem, each time.
Two Swiss companies, Bühler and DSM, started off with very successful business models. They
decided to enter a new market – China – and failed miserably. They used a linear approach and
simply replicated their well-tested strategy in a very different socio-economic and cultural context.
After a subsequent careful assessment of their mistakes, and a systemic analysis of the markets
they wanted to access, they crafted a successful strategic plan, with contributions from different
stakeholders. This plan involved moving from an exclusive focus on product development to
adopting a more comprehensive approach that prioritized the local context. This more transparent
and collaborative process allowed the companies to better understand consumer preferences and
to involve a variety of stakeholders, which determined their ultimate success.

Based on our experience in working with the public and private sector, we’ve identified the
following steps to guide decision-makers and strategists, which can help them turn the most
complex issues into opportunities.

1. Identify the causes and effects of the problem across the social, economic and
environmental dimensions. The system is characterized by feedbacks within and across
sectors, which may create synergies or side effects. All these different dimensions should
therefore be carefully analysed.
2. Use a multistakeholder approach to account for a variety of points of view and to
incorporate as much varied knowledge as possible in the analysis. Solving complexity
requires collaboration from actors (public, private, civil society) in different sectors
(economic, social, environmental), levels (international, national, regional) and interests.
Only diversity can solve complex problems such as global warming or unemployment.
Each stakeholder brings different, often unique, assets to the table. Companies, for
example, have financial means, while NGOs have local knowledge and the power that
comes from working with volunteers.
3. Evaluate the impact across sectors and find a balanced strategy to improve the
performance of the entire system, rather than maximizing some areas at the expense of
others.
4. Evaluate the impact across actors and find an inclusive strategy that will allocate
costs consistently and distribute the benefits equitably across the key actors in the system.
5. Think long term and prioritize resilience. Success often relies on resilience in the face
of unforeseen events, and a focus on increasing a system’s capacity to absorb and adapt
to change, with clear, long-term goals.
6. Monitor the performance of systems to learn about the many ways they respond to
strategy and policy implementation. It also helps to improve decision-making by
incrementally addressing the causes of a given system’s success or failure.
References:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative_model_of_decision-making
https://www.google.com.ph/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://people.kth.se/~soh/decision
theory.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjfuIvEkLzcAhVSdt4KHUytBTQQFjAAegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw36r6i_
rPAk2o7jG8Bk1GCv
https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/61873
http://www2.gsu.edu/~dscthw/8350decis-w.pdf
http://web.pdx.edu/~stipakb/download/PA557/ReadingsPA557sec9-11.pdf
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/intertemporalchoice.asp#ixzz5MHU6ala1
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2014/04/six-ways-handle-complex-decisions-work/
https://books.google.com.ph/books/about/The_Dynamic_Decision_Maker.html?id=
tOTT4gTUGkC&redir_esc=y
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_theory
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-662-02840-7_4
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/decision-theory-descriptive
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuristic