Bus5Pb Business Analytics: Does The Assessment Answers

Answer:

Task A: Literature review

Decision making is completely dependent on the brain's cognitive functions. Between the different options, the brain chooses is the best option for us, by adding values to it. There are various theories that describe the level of cognitive functions of the brain and its Association with the decision making power of human being (Vlaev et al. 2011). One of the most important theories in the cognitive station making power of the brain is the value based theory. In this particular theory the brain adds value to different options available to us in any particular scenario, and allows us to decide the best option depending on the best value. According to the value based theory, the values that are decided in the brain are represented as real numbers that are then fed in to a decision making in the brain where the highest value is chosen by our subconscious to be the best option for us, irrelevant of the choice being mundane or serious one (Vlaev et al. 2011).

Another theory that is abundantly followed when discussing about the cognitive decision making prowess of the brain, is the comparison based theory; this theory is undoubtedly a more recent addition to the concept and is based on the comparison as the primitive notion in our brains rather than it being the values. According to this contemporary theory the brain determines the possible option for us by comparing different options and their benefit and viability in the situation as compared to its counterparts. This theory directly antagonizes the pre-established theory of value, by depicting that brain never marks different options based on different values in isolation, rather it makes the verdict by directly comparing different options at the same time (Zsambok and Klein 2014).

Vlaev and his co-authors have evaluated the efficacy of three such broad spectrum theoretical concepts and attempted to determine which type of theory fits the cognitive decision making phenomenon of the brain the best (Vlaev et al. 2011). The authors in this article have demonstrated value based theory to be founded on the perceptions of a more classical version, expected utility theory, which demonstrates that each element is numerically judged based on its utility in a particular scenario (Zadeh, Fu and Tanaka 2014). It has to be understood that the major contributing factor behind the viability of these theories is the fact that the concept of utility is stable, and this stability is not affected or altered by any other external factors until the choice environment changes. The cumulative prospect theory also speaks of the stability of the value based ranking where the chances of random fluctuations are minimal. Hence it can be concluded that this theory is the best fit when the choices are linear and are based on distinct values that are not affected by the external contexts in any manner. However it should not escape notice that in case of real world scenarios, there is always a kink in the fabric of reality and the choices are not always linear to be easily ranked (Vlaev et al. 2011).

Here comes the type two of decision based theories that depict the decision making phenomenon of the brain to be based on comparing the different choices coupled with value computation. In this theory the inequity aversion model by Fehr and Schmidt, generating a value for each choices on the basis of comparing them with other counterparts followed by the verdict depending on the highest rank or value (Woiceshyn 2011). This theory is easily the middle ground between the value based theory and comparison based theory and provides the best insight about the decision making phenomenon of the brain backed by neuroscientific data. The neuro economic researchers have shared their agreement on the comparative decision making coupled with value scale ranking in our brains. The Bayesian inference model suggests that the brain may not lack absolute values in case of decision making phenomenon, however the prevalence of noise and inherent uncertainty might play an important part that propels the individual to compare different options nod then assign them values depending on the comparative benefits (Toplak et al. 2010).

The class three of decision theories are based on the concept of comparison based decision making without the added element of value computation. The enthusiasts of this class of theories however completely strike out any possibility for ranking of option inside our brains in the midst of a decision making process (Vlaev et al. 2011). This theory has lost focus in the scenario as with the lack any stable value associated with the choices the equity balance in the brain will be lost and the choices can be lost to the noise of inherent uncertainty. Hence on a concluding note it can be concluded that the best fit theory to the cognitive decision making in the brain are associated with comparison and value based ranking both (Mintz 2016).

Task 2: 

Decision making is an important pursuit in all aspects of our daily life, starting from personal to professional, without proper decision making powers the progress will be halted. In the corporate scenario the importance of decision making is paramount for attaining success. The most important attribute for proper decision making is proper analytical power application of theoretical perceptions (Kool et al. 2010). Without properly analysing the different options and evaluating their prospect a corporate professional cannot attempt to engage in effective decision making at all. Along with that the different analysis tools like descriptive statistics, inferential analysis are also powerful tools involved in corporate decision making in general. On a more elaborative note, these techniques involves ranking the different options based on the statistical data based on the help of different analytical tools and the then the options are analysed before a valid corportae decision is taken (Hacklin and Wallnöfer 2012).

Now aside from the analytical point of view of corporate decision making, if we take the cognitive brain functions in this scenario, the analytical business process decision making inclines with the comparison based decision making coupled with the value scale ranking. It must not escape notice that the corporate decision making is much more influential and stressful hence the brain functions will be spiked for such scenarios as well. The analytical corporate decision making compares the different options much more critically in the subconscious and the ranking is much more diverse and complex. Although it can be stated that the analysis skills and tools available for use makes the progress of decision making much easier and scientifically reasonable (Glimcher and Fehr 2013).

Another influential factor in the process of decision making in business process scenario is the expectation of performance management. Taking into consideration the probability theories, the chances of a corporate decision being fruitful is fifty percent. The expectation associated with a decision made on the basis of a comparison based cognitive decisiveness can interfere with scientifically reasonable decision making. This is where the analytics comes into the scenario to remove the bias associated with personal expectations in corporate decision making and allowing the best plausible option to be chosen (Aharoni, Tihanyi and Connelly 2011).   

On a concluding note, it can be said, that despite there being a extensive decision making process in place for the human beings there still are loopholes in the form of bias and personal lapse of judgment. The business analytics can help in this context that can help the corporate professionals to take the best decisions devoid of any personal bias or any other external factors.

References: 

Aharoni, Y., Tihanyi, L. and Connelly, B.L., 2011. Managerial decision-making in international business: A forty-five-year retrospective. Journal of World Business, 46(2), pp.135-142.

Glimcher, P.W. and Fehr, E. eds., 2013. Neuroeconomics: Decision making and the brain. Academic Press.

Hacklin, F. and Wallnöfer, M., 2012. The business model in the practice of strategic decision making: insights from a case study. Management Decision, 50(2), pp.166-188.

Kool, W., McGuire, J. T., Rosen, Z. B., & Botvinick, M. M. (2010). Decision making and the avoidance of cognitive demand. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 139(4), 665.

Mintz, A. ed., 2016. Integrating Cognitive and Rational Theories of Foreign Policy Decision Making: The Polyheuristic Theory of Decision. Springer.

Toplak, M.E., Sorge, G.B., Benoit, A., West, R.F. and Stanovich, K.E., 2010. Decision-making and cognitive abilities: A review of associations between Iowa Gambling Task performance, executive functions, and intelligence. Clinical psychology review, 30(5), pp.562-581.

Vlaev, I., Chater, N., Stewart, N. and Brown, G.D., 2011. Does the brain calculate value?. Trends in cognitive sciences, 15(11), pp.546-554.

Woiceshyn, J., 2011. A model for ethical decision making in business: Reasoning, intuition, and rational moral principles. Journal of business ethics, 104(3), pp.311-323.

Zadeh, L.A., Fu, K.S. and Tanaka, K. eds., 2014. Fuzzy sets and their applications to cognitive and decision processes: Proceedings of the us–japan seminar on fuzzy sets and their applications, held at the university of california, berkeley, california, july 1-4, 1974. Academic press.

Zsambok, C.E. and Klein, G., 2014. Naturalistic decision making. Psychology Press.’