(Georgia Institute of Technology, 2014-07-09)
Feigh, Karen M.; Canellas, Marc; Chua, Zarrin K.
Decision makers are often required to make decisions with incomplete information. In order to design decision support systems (DSSs) utilizing restrictiveness and guidance to assist decision makers in these situations, it is essential to understand how certain decision making strategies are affected by incomplete information. This paper presents the results of a simulation measuring the accuracy and effort of take-the-best (TTB) and Tallying alongside two normative-rational decision making strategies, weighted-additive (WADD) and equal-weighting (EW) in scenarios with varying levels of total information, information imbalance, dispersion, and dominance. The results show there is significant variability in the effort requirements of heuristic strategies which may diminish the arguments for effort-accuracy trade-offs. Additionally, heuristic strategies were shown to be closest in accuracy to normative-rational strategies when context features matched dynamic decision settings. Ultimately, methods for restrictiveness and guidance based on trade-offs between total information and information imbalance were shown to enable reductions in total information that actually increased the accuracy of heuristics.
(Georgia Institute of Technology, 2010-03)
Chua, Zarrin K.; Feigh, Karen M.; Braun, Robert D.
Experimentally derived data was extrapolated to
compare the lunar landing performance of human pilots to
that of an automated landing system.12 The results of this
investigation are presented. Overall, the pilots performed
equal to or better than the automated system in 18% of the
relevant cases, but required more fuel. Pilot site selections
were further investigated as a function of the time to
complete. Each hypothetical case was compared to the
automated system, across a range of performance criteria
weighting distributions. This performance criteria is
threefold – proximity to point of interest, safety of the site,
and fuel consumed. In general, the pilots perform better
than the automated system in terms of safety and proximity
to points of interest criteria. However, as the priority of fuel
conservation increases, the tradeoff between using an
autonomous landing system versus a human-in-command
system favors the automation, especially if the pilot is not
able to make the proper decision within a performance
criteria specific threshold.