Advertisement

Discussion and Conclusions

  • Hassan Qudrat-Ullah
Chapter
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Complexity book series (BRIEFSCOMPLEXITY)

Abstract

With limited resources, the delivery of affordable and reliable healthcare is increasingly becoming a difficult task for all nations across the globe. Decision makers in the healthcare domain in Canada are faced with the issue of seeking a balance between HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment spending. Therefore, we used Canadian case data in this study. Here, we present key limitations of this study, our major findings, implications of dynamic decision making research, and implications of improving practice in dynamic tasks in various domains including computer simulation-based education and training, aviation, healthcare, and policymaking. Based on the results reported in Chap.  4, here we will specifically discuss and argue why debriefing-based SDILE was effective in improving users’ decision making and learning in dynamic tasks and why it did not help users to become “efficient decision makers.” We will also talk about how the users perceived the utility of SIADH-ILE in improving their decision making and learning in the dynamic task.

Keywords

Affordable and reliable healthcare Dynamic decision making Debriefing-based SDILE Efficient decision makers SIADH-ILE Feedback loops Time delays Incentives Decisional aid HIV/AIDS prevention Medical screening HAART Video arcade syndrome Structure-behavior graphs 

References

  1. Abdel-Hamid, T., Sengupta, K., & Swett, C. (1999). The impact of goals on software project management: An experimental investigation. MIS Quarterly, 23(4), 1–19.Google Scholar
  2. Alessi, A., & Kopainsky, B. (2015). System dynamics and simulation-gaming: Overview. Simulation and Gaming, 48(2–3), 223–229.Google Scholar
  3. Ashton, R., & Kramer, S. (1980). Students as surrogates in behavioral accounting research: Some evidence. Journal of Accounting Research, 18(1), 15.Google Scholar
  4. Beattie, J., & Looms, G. (1997). The impact of incentives upon risky choice experiments. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 14, 155–168.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Bell, B. S., Kanar, A. M., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2008). Current issues and future directions in simulation-based training in North America. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19(8), 1416–1434.Google Scholar
  6. Blazer, W. K., Doherty, M. E., & O'Connor, R. (1989). Effects of cognitive feedback on performance. Psychological Bulletin, 106(3), 410–433.Google Scholar
  7. Diehl, E., & Sterman, J. D. (1995). Effects of feedback complexity on dynamic decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 62(2), 198–215.Google Scholar
  8. Größler, A., Rouwette, E., & Vennix, J. (2016). Non-conscious vs. deliberate dynamic decision-making—A pilot experiment. Systems, 4(13), 1–13.  https://doi.org/10.3390/systems4010013.Google Scholar
  9. Krentza, H., & Gill, M. (2010). The five-year impact of an evolving global epidemic, changing migration patterns, and policy changes in a regional Canadian HIV population. Health Policy (Amsterdam), 90(2–3), 296–302.Google Scholar
  10. Kriz, W. C. (2003). Creating effective learning environments and learning organizations through gaming simulation design. Simulation and Gaming, 34(4), 495–511.Google Scholar
  11. Lakeh, B., & Ghaffarzadegan, N. (2015). Does analytical thinking improve understanding of accumulation? System Dynamics Review, 31(1–2), 46–65.Google Scholar
  12. Locke, E. A. (1986). Generalizing from laboratory to field settings: Research findings from organizational behavior and human resource management. Lexington, MA: Heath Lexington.Google Scholar
  13. Montaner, J., Lima, V., Barrios, R., Yip, B., Wood, E., Kerr, T., & Kendall, P. (2010). Association of highly active antiretroviral therapy coverage, population viral load, and yearly new HIV diagnoses in British Columbia, Canada: A population-based study. www.thelancet.com, 376, 532–539.
  14. Moxnes, E. (2004). Misperceptions of basic dynamics: The case of renewable resource management. System Dynamics Review, 20, 139–162.Google Scholar
  15. NTSA. (2011). President’s notes. Training Industry News, 23(4), 2–2.Google Scholar
  16. Paich, M., & Sterman, D. (1993). Boom, bust, and failures to learn in experimental markets. Management Science, 39(12), 1439–1458.Google Scholar
  17. Payne, J. W., Johnson, E. J., Bettman, J. R., & Coupey, E. (1990). Understanding contingent choice: A computer simulation approach. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 20, 296–309.Google Scholar
  18. Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Johnson, E. J. (1993). The adaptive decision maker. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Plate, R. (2010). Assessing individuals’ understanding of nonlinear causal structures in complex systems. System Dynamics Review, 28(1), 19–33.Google Scholar
  20. Qudrat-Ullah, H. (2007). Debriefing can reduce misperceptions of feedback hypothesis: An empirical study. Simulations and Gaming, 38(3), 382–397.Google Scholar
  21. Qudrat-Ullah, H. (2010). Perceptions of the effectiveness of system dynamics-based interactive learning environments: An empirical study. Computers and Education, 55, 1277–1286.Google Scholar
  22. Qudrat-Ullah, H. (2014). Yes we can: Improving performance in dynamic tasks. Decision Support Systems, 61, 23–33.Google Scholar
  23. Qudrat-Ullah, H., Saleh, M. M., & Bahaa, E. A. (1997). Fish Bank ILE: An interactive learning laboratory to improve understanding of ‘The Tragedy of Commons’; a common behavior of complex dynamic systems. Proceedings of 15th International System Dynamics Conference, Istanbul, Turkey.Google Scholar
  24. Schön, D. (1984). The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  25. Spector, J. M. (2000). System dynamics and interactive learning environments: Lessons learned and implications for the future. Simulation and Gaming, 31(4), 528–535.Google Scholar
  26. Sterman, J. D. (1989). Modeling managerial behavior: Misperceptions of feedback in a dynamic decision making experiment. Management Science, 35, 321–339.Google Scholar
  27. Sterman, J. D. (1994). Learning in and around complex systems. System Dynamics Review, 10, 291–323.Google Scholar
  28. Sterman, J. D. (2000). Business dynamics: Systems thinking and modeling for a complex world. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  29. Sternberg, R. J. (1995). Expertise in complex problem solving: A comparison of alternative conceptions. In P. Frensch & J. Funke (Eds.), Complex problem solving: The European perspective (pp. 3–25). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Google Scholar
  30. Te’eni, D. (1991). Feedback in DSS as a source of control: Experiments with the timing of feedback. Decision Sciences, 22(3), 644–655.Google Scholar
  31. Wright, W. F., & Abdul-Ezz, M. E. (1988). Effects of extrinsic incentives on the quality of frequency assessments. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 41, 143–152.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hassan Qudrat-Ullah
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Administrative StudiesYork UniversityTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations