supporting high stakes cms decision making
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Supporting High-Stakes CMS Decision Making

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 23

Supporting High-Stakes CMS Decision Making - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 86 Views
  • Uploaded on

Supporting High-Stakes CMS Decision Making. By Bruce Landon, Ph.D. Psychology Department Douglas College http://www.c2t2.ca/landonline. Memory Span Limits. The number of “things” that you can hold in your head at once while working on an problem

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Supporting High-Stakes CMS Decision Making' - abedi


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
supporting high stakes cms decision making

Supporting High-Stakes CMS Decision Making

By Bruce Landon, Ph.D.

Psychology Department

Douglas College

http://www.c2t2.ca/landonline

memory span limits
Memory Span Limits
  • The number of “things” that you can hold in your head at once while working on an problem
  • This limited “working memory” is a profound handicap for a rational decision maker
  • When you work with ideas in your head you are moving them around sort of like a juggler
about making difficult decisions
About Making Difficult Decisions:
  • Multi-Attribute Utility Theory,
  • Idealized Decision Process,
  • Cognitive Illusions,
  • Clues from Decision Making Research,
  • The Comparative Analysis Approach,
multi attribute utility theory
Multi-Attribute Utility Theory:
  • Breaking a decision into independent dimensions
  • Determining the relative weights of each dimension
  • Listing of all of the alternatives
  • Ranking the alternatives along all dimensions (rating can work as well as ranking)
  • Multiplying the ranking by the weighting to determine the value
  • Selecting the alternative with the highest value
idealized decision process
Idealized Decision Process:
  • Select relevant features and assign importance weighting to features
  • Evaluate each application on relevant features and assign a suitability score
  • Score Applications by first multiplying each score by the corresponding feature weight
  • Select the application with the highest weighted average score - The Rational Choice
cognitive illusions
Cognitive Illusions:
  • Availability Heuristic
  • Representativeness Heuristic
  • Hindsight Bias
  • Gambler\'s Fallacy
  • Effect of more options – delaying
the framing effect
The Framing Effect
  • Refers to the frame of reference
  • People tend to avoid risks that are described in terms of benefits
  • But people tend to take risks described in terms of loss
  • Reminiscent of Win-stay, Lose-shift strategy
the crowning fallibility is overconfidence
The Crowning fallibility is Overconfidence
  • The tendency to be more confident than is warranted by the evidence
  • To overestimate the accuracy of one\'s beliefs and judgments (availability heuristic again)
  • For example, the confidence of by the eye witness in their testimony is unrelated to the accuracy of that testimony
  • This overestimation of confidence enhances personal self-esteem and contributes to the resistance to being persuaded otherwise
comparative analysis approach
Comparative Analysis Approach:
  • Use review panel to provide consensus on feature/tool importance weighting
  • Limit Focus to what is required
  • Consider only a very few things at a time when making ratings/rankings of suitability
  • Make the computer keep track of the data and do the arithmetic calculations for the familiar weighted grading model for scores
  • Provide for sensitivity analysis (tweaking and recalculating)
small example decision model
Small Example Decision model:
  • 1 Set weights,
  • 2 Evaluate parts,
  • 3 Select best score,
  • select best student
  • select best application
  • Link to www.c2t2.ca/landonline
making a decision policy with decision weights
Making a Decision Policy with Decision Weights:
  • Simple strategies - ones and zeros
  • Complex hierarchical strategies - by user group then by function
  • Stakeholder involvement in setting importance weights
  • Peer Review Committee - with a distributed Delphi process
  • Opportunity to align the decision process with institutional values
review of main points
Review of Main Points:
  • Importance of the application selection decision
  • The cognitive illusions of the decision makers
  • Strategy to break down complex decision into:
    • smaller, simpler decisions
  • The Comparative Analysis Approach to Decisions
  • - Structure the decision with importance weights of important application features that accommodate your institutional context
  • - Rate suitability of single features/tools one at a time
  • - Use the Multi-Attribute Utility to select most suitable application for your institutional situation (highest weighted average among the candidates)
progress in redesigning landonline
Progress in redesigning landonline
  • Refocus on Higher Education products
  • New Advisory Board and WCET sponsor
  • Revised list of product features & glossary
  • Research Assistants for faster updates
  • Rewriting middleware as open source
  • Revised User Interface to Decisions
  • Companion sites to landonline.edutools.info
  • Rollout of sites in the summer 2002
ad