DigitalSE Logo

Digital Engineering Implications on Decision-Making Processes

Abstract

Organizations are faced with decisions that are realized by the systems that support them. These decisions are tempered based on the value of the information that the system provides based on meeting mission. Digital Engineering has changed the way we approach systems, which impacts how we make decisions. Critical to the decision process is how data is presented, processed, and made available to the decision maker. This chapter highlights value creation research on methods, processes, and frameworks that support decision capabilities by advancing digital engineering approaches to system design.

Leads

Samuel Kovacic

Old Dominion University

Mustafa Canan

Naval Postgraduate School

Jiang Li

Old Dominion University

Andres Sousa-Poza

Old Dominion University

Publications

  1. Aerts, D. (2009). Quantum structure in cognition. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 53 (5): 314–348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmp.2009.04.005.

  2. Atmanspacher, H. (1997). Cartesian cut, Heisenberg cut, and the concept of complexity. World Futures 49 (3–4): 333–355. https://doi.org/10.1080/02604027.1997.9972639.

  3. Atmanspacher, H. (2000). Ontic and epistemic descriptions of chaotic systems. AIP Conference Proceedings 517: 465–478. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1291283.

  4. Atmanspacher, H. (2005). Epistemic and ontic quantum realities. AIP Conference Proceedings 750: 49–62. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1874557.

  5. Bar-Yam, Y. (2004). Multiscale variety in complex systems. Complexity 9 (4): 37–45. https://doi.org/10.1002/cplx.20014.

  6. Birnbaum, M.H. (2008). New paradoxes of risky decision making. Psychological Review 115 (2): 463–501. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.115.2.463.

  7. Boyd, J. (n.d.). OODA loop. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_loop (accessed 23 December 2021). Brewer Van, E. (2013). PRISM – a philosophical foundation for complex situations. In: Managing and Engineering in Complex Situations, 45–78. Dordrecht: Springer.

  8. Busemeyer, J.R. and Bruza, P.D. (2012). Quantum Models of Cognition and Decision. Cambridge University Press.

  9. Busemeyer, J.R. and Wang, Z. (2018a). Hilbert space multidimensional theory. Psychological Review 125 (4): 572–591. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000106.

  10. Busemeyer, J. and Wang, Z. (2018b). Data fusion using Hilbert space multi-dimensional models. Theoretical Computer Science 752: 41–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcs.2017.12.007.

  11. Busemeyer, J.R. and Wang, Z. (2019). Hilbert space multidimensional modelling of continuous measurements. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 377 (2157): 20190142. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2019.0142.

  12. Busemeyer, J., Zhang, Q., Balakrishnan, S.N., and Wang, Z. (2020). Application of quantum – Markov open system models to human cognition and decision. Entropy 22 (9): 990. https://doi.org/10.3390/e22090990.

  13. Canan, M. and Sousa-Poza, A. (2016). Complex adaptive behavior: pragmatic idealism. Procedia Computer Science 95: 73–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2016.09.295.

  14. Canan, M. and Sousa-Poza, A. (2019). Pragmatic idealism: towards a probabilistic framework of shared awareness in complex situations. In: 2019 IEEE Conference on Cognitive and Computational Aspects of Situation Management (CogSIMA), 114–121. https://doi.org/10.1109/COGSIMA.2019.8724208.

  15. Canan, M., Sousa-Poza, A., and Kovacic, S.F. (2016). Semantic shift to pragmatic meaning in shared decision making: situation theory perspective. In: WIT Transactions on State of the Art in Science and Engineering, 1e, vol. 1 (ed. G. Rzevski and C.A. Brebbia), 93–106. WIT Press https://doi.org/10.2495/978-1-78466-155-7/008.

  16. Canan, M., Demir, M., and Kovacic, S. (2022). A probabilistic perspective of human-machine interaction. Proceedings of the 55th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Hawaii. 2022.

  17. Definition of the International Council on Systems Engineering. (n.d.). International Council on System Engineering (INCOSE). https://www.incose.org/about-systems-engineering/system-and-se-definition/physical-and-conceptual (accessed 13 June 2022).

  18. Dzhafarov, E.N., Cervantes, V.H., and Kujala, J.V. (2017). Contextuality in canonical systems of random variables. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 375 (2106): 20160389. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2016.0389.

  19. Endsley, M.R. (1995). Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 37 (1): 32–64. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872095779049543.

  20. Grieves, M. (2014). Digital twin: manufacturing excellence through virtual factory replication. White Paper 1 (2014): 1–7.

  21. Hertwig, R., Pleskac, T.J., and Pachur, T. (2019). Taming Uncertainty. MIT Press.

  22. Jones, D., Snider, C., Nassehi, A. et al. (2020). Characterising the digital twin: a systematic literature review. CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology 29: 36–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirpj.2020.02.002.

  23. Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1979). On the interpretation of intuitive probability: a reply to Jonathan Cohen. Cognition 7 (4): 409–411. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(79)90024-6.

  24. Khrennikova, P., Haven, E., and Khrennikov, A. (2014). An application of the theory of open quantumsystems to model the dynamics of party governance in the US political system. International Journal of Theoretical Physics 53 (4): 1346–1360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10773-013-1931-6.

  25. Kovacic, S. (2005). General taxonomy of system [ic] approaches for analysis and design. In: 2005 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, vol. 3, 2738–2743. IEEE.

  26. Kozyreva, A., Pleskac, T. J., Pachur, T, Hertwig, R. Interpreting uncertainty: a brief history of not knowing, Chapter 18 (2019). Timothy J. Pleskac, Thorsten Pachur, Ralph Hertwig Taming Uncertainty. MIT Press 343.

  27. Kvam, P.D. and Pleskac, T.J. (2017). A quantum information architecture for cue-based heuristics. Decision 4 (4): 197–233. https://doi.org/10.1037/dec0000070.

  28. Kvam, P.D., Busemeyer, J.R., and Pleskac, T.J. (2021). Temporal oscillations in preference strength provide evidence for an open system model of constructed preference. Scientific Reports 11 (1): 8169. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-87659-0.

  29. Lord, R.G., Dinh, J.E., and Hoffman, E.L. (2015). A quantum approach to time and organizational change. Academy of Management Review 40 (2): 263–290. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2013.0273.

  30. Martínez-Martínez, I. and Sánchez-Burillo, E. (2016). Quantum stochastic walks on networks for decision-making. Scientific Reports 6 (1): 23812. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep23812.

  31. Osinga, F.P.B. (2006). Science, Strategy and War: The Strategic Theory of John Boyd. London, UK: Routledge.

  32. Pearl, J. (2000). Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference. Cambridge University Press.

  33. Pearl, J. and Mackenzie, D. (2018). The Book of Why: The New Science of Cause and Effect, 1e. Basic Books.

  34. Perrow, C. (1999). Normal Accidents: Living with High-Risk Technologies. Princeton University Press.

  35. Pothos, E.M., Lewandowsky, S., Basieva, I. et al. (2021). Information overload for (bounded) rational agents. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 288 (1944): 20202957. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2020.2957.

  36. Rescher, N. (2000). Process Philosophy: A Survey of Basic Issues. University of Pittsburgh Press.

  37. Rivas, Á. and Huelga, S.F. (2012). Open quantum systems. an introduction. ArXiv 1104.5242. [Cond-Mat, Physics:Math-Ph, Physics:Physics, Physics:Quant-Ph]. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-23354-8.

  38. Russell, S.J. (2020). Human Compatible: Artificial Intelligence and the Problem of Control. Penguin Books.

  39. Sergioli, G. (2020). Quantum and quantum-like machine learning: a note on differences and similarities. Soft Computing 24 (14): 10247–10255. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-019-04429-x.

  40. Sergioli, G., Giuntini, R., and Freytes, H. (2019). A new quantum approach to binary classification. PLoS One 14 (5): e0216224. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216224.

  41. Snow, L., Jain, S., and Krishnamurthy, V. (2022). Lyapunov based stochastic stability of human-machine interaction: a quantum decision system approach. ArXiv:2204.00059 [Cs, Econ, Eess, q-Fin]. http://arxiv.org/abs/2204.00059.

  42. Sousa-Poza, A. (2013). A narrative of [complex] situations and situations theory. In: Managing and Engineering in Complex Situations, 13–44. Dordrecht: Springer.

  43. Sousa-Poza, A. and Correa-Martinez, Y. (2005). Pragmatic idealism as the basis for understanding complex domains: the trinity and SOSE. In: 2005 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 3, Waikoloa, Hawaii, USA (10–12 October 2005), 2744–2750. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSMC.2005.1571565.

  44. Sterman, J. (2010). Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Engineering Systems Division.

  45. Stumborg, M., Brauner, S., Hughes, C., et al. (2019). Research and development implications for human-machine teaming in the U.S. Navy [Research Report]. CNA. Research Memorandum DRM-2019-U-019330-1Rev.

  46. Tversky, A., Slovic, P., and Kahneman, D. (1990). The causes of preference reversal. The American Economic Review 80 (1): 204–217.

  47. Von Neumann, J. and Morgenstern, O. (2007). Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, 60th anniversary ed. Princeton University Press.

  48. Von Neumann, J., Beyer, R.T., and Wheeler, N.A. (2018). Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, New ed. Princeton University Press.

  49. Whitehead, A.N. and Griffin, D.R. (1985). Process and Reality: An Essay in Cosmology, Corr. ed. Free Press.

  50. Wilhelm, J., Beinke, T., and Freitag, M. (2020). Improving human-machine interaction with a digital twin: adaptive automation in container unloading. In: Dynamics in Logistics (ed. M. Freitag, H.-D. Haasis, H. Kotzab, and J. Pannek), 527–540. Springer International Publishing https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44783-0_49.

  51. Zhang, Q., Nadendla, V.S.S., Balakrishnan, S.N., and Busemeyer, J. (2021). Strategic mitigation of agent inattention in drivers with open-quantum cognition models. arxiv:2107.09888 [Cs, Eess]. http://arxiv.org/abs/2107.09888.

SERC Logo

The Systems Engineering Research Center (SERC) was established in the Fall of 2008 as a government-designated University Affiliated Research Center (UARC). The SERC has produced 15 years of research, focused on an updated systems engineering toolkit (methods, tools, and practices) for the complex cyber-physical systems of today and tomorrow.


Follow us on

LinkedIn