A satisficing game theory approach for group evaluation of production units

The problem under consideration in this paper is that of analysing the performance of a production unit in two directions: resource utilization versus output perfomance on the one hand and inter-unit comparison (within-group evaluation) on the other hand, all this subjected to possible subjective intervention of a decision maker or group of decision makers (DMs). A well known method that deals mainly with the second point (without intervention of DMs) of this problem which is widely covered in the literature is the so called data envelopment analysis (DEA). The point of view that will be expressed in this paper can be thought of as complementary to the DEA approach giving a more complete analysis in terms of the weak points of units identification and DMs' recommendations. The performance of each decision unit is evaluated through the so called satisfiability functions in the framework of satisficing game theory

Economic framework for information systems

information systems;microeconomics;computers

Is defining life pointless? Operational definitions at the frontiers of Biology

Despite numerous and increasing attempts to define what life is, there is no consensus on necessary and sufficient conditions for life. Accordingly, some scholars have questioned the value of definitions of life and encouraged scientists and philosophers alike to discard the project. As an alternative to this pessimistic conclusion, we argue that critically rethinking the nature and uses of definitions can provide new insights into the epistemic roles of definitions of life for different research practices. This paper examines the possible contributions of definitions of life in scientific domains where such definitions are used most (e.g., Synthetic Biology, Origins of Life, Alife, and Astrobiology). Rather than as classificatory tools for demarcation of natural kinds, we highlight the pragmatic utility of what we call operational definitions that serve as theoretical and epistemic tools in scientific practice. In particular, we examine contexts where definitions integrate criteria for life into theoretical models that involve or enable observable operations. We show how these definitions of life play important roles in influencing research agendas and evaluating results, and we argue that to discard the project of defining life is neither sufficiently motivated, nor possible without dismissing important theoretical and practical research

Schedules, Calendars and Agendas

Time management instruments such as schedules, calendars and agendas are obvious tools to organise individual and collective action. Besides being of great practical significance in the western world and beyond, these tools are remarkable in that they are rarely questioned by those who are governed by them. Yet, they are tools and as such they can be used by management in organisations. This paper will explore: -why these time instruments are much legs visible than the task itself, -to what extent they are knowingly used by management, and -if their effectiveness is somehow limited to certain activities. It is argued that the unobtrusiveness oftime instruments is related to the natural distinction between content and context. Tasks, intellectual or practical, lead the actors to focus on content. Time management instruments appear to belong to context instead. Hence, they are normally taken for granted, framing the problem.Time; management

Quantitative modelling of benchmarking process

In this paper, we consider the problem of establishing a quantitative model allowing, given a set of production units (enterprises, plants, banks, university departments, etc.), to determine those units that can be considered as benchmarks in terms of production efficiency and to evaluate for a unit, that is not a benchmark the gap that separates it from the benchmarks. A production unit is considered here as a transformation centre that consumes resources (input items) of different nature (information, human resources, energy, money, etc.) to deliver some products (output items) of different nature as well (manufactured products, services, information, energy, etc.). This benchmarking problem is, therefore, a multicriteria ranking problem that necessitates sensitivity analysis process to determine which items a given unit must improve in order to become as efficient as benchmark unit(s). We propose in this paper to formulate this problem using satisficing games, an evaluation method, that is, based on two measures namely selectability measure (that measures production level) and rejectability measure (that is, related to resources consumption) for each unit or alternative. Units for which the selectability measure exceeds the rejectability one will be considered as satisficing units and the benchmark units are those satisficing units that are not dominated

Evaluation model for multiattributes-multiagents decision making: satisficing game approach

This paper considers the evaluation step in a decision-making process that follows decision-making goals setting, feasible alternatives and attributes or criteria that characterize them determination steps. Evaluation step must establish a model or algorithm to evaluate alternatives taking into account their performances with regard to criteria as well as decision makers or stakeholders preferences. Though this problem is rather a classic one, researches related to evaluation model construction continue to be active to find models that cope with more realities or that fit well how human beings behave in group and proceed when facing the problem of choosing, ranking or sorting alternatives or options. The purpose of this paper is to construct an evaluation model that integrate the performances of alternatives with regard to attributes or criteria and decision makers or agents opinions with regard to the importance to assign to each criterion in order to obtain a value function. As any decision problem is almost always a matter of tradeoff, among attributes characterizing alternatives there will be those acting toward the achievement of decision makers goal (benefit) and those that decision makers would like to reduce as much as possible (cost); we will designate the first ones as positive attributes and the later ones as negative attributes. The process of dividing attributes into positive attributes and negative attributes is beyond the scope of this paper and this partition will be considered as a part of the problem specification. The model is constructed in two steps: firstly, satisfiability (selectability and rejectability) measures or functions are obtained for each alternative using attributes values (positive attributes will contribute to selectability measure whereas negative ones are used in the derivation of rejectability measure) and agents opinions in the framework of satisficing game theory and secondly a value function is built on that measures. Agents opinions with regard to attributes will be expressed locally by weighting them by category (positive/negative)