Decision Making and Learning in Dynamic Tasks

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


Successful decision making is a necessary and sufficient condition for effective and efficient management of any business or organization. In this chapter, we introduce the concept of “dynamic task” and explain why learning and decision making in dynamic tasks is hard, what are the key challenges to decision making and learning in dynamic tasks, and why system dynamics-based interactive learning environments (SDILEs) are an effective tool to improve people’s (In this book the words, people, users, learners, and decision makers are used interchangeably.) decision making in dynamic tasks. Why is the incorporation of debriefing into the design of an SDILE critical? Through such questions and assertions, the objective of this introductory chapter is to entice the reader for the following material in this book.


Aviation Causal understanding Cognitive ability Correlational heuristics Decisional aid Dynamic complexity Debriefing Dynamic task Efficacy of SDILEs Feedback loops System Dynamics 


  1. Diehl, E., & Sterman, J. D. (1995). Effects of feedback complexity on dynamic decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 62(2), 198–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Edwards, W. (1962). Dynamic decision theory and probabilistic information processing. Human Factors, 4, 59–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Fischer, H., & Gonzalez, C. (2016). Making sense of dynamic systems: How our understanding of stocks and flows depends on a global perspective. Cognitive Science, 40(2), 496–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Forrester, J. W. (1961). Industrial Dynamics. Cambridge, MA: Productivity Press.Google Scholar
  5. Garris, R., Ahlers, R., & Driskell, J. E. (2002). Games, motivation, and learning: A research and practice model. Simulation & Gaming, 33(4), 441–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Größler, A., Rouwette, E., & Vennix, J. (2016). Non-conscious vs. deliberate dynamic decision-making—A pilot experiment. Systems, 4(13), 1–13. Scholar
  7. Lane, D. C. (1995). On a resurgence of management simulations and games. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 46, 604–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Qudrat-Ullah, H. (2010). Perceptions of the effectiveness of system dynamics-based interactive learning environments: An empirical study. Computers and Education, 55, 1277–1286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Qudrat-Ullah, H. (2014). Yes we can: Improving performance in dynamic tasks. Decision Support Systems, 61, 23–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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
  11. Spector, J. M. (2000). System dynamics and interactive learning environments: Lessons learned and implications for the future. Simulation and Gaming, 31(4), 528–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Sterman, J. D. (1989). Modeling managerial behavior: Misperceptions of feedback in a dynamic decision making experiment. Management Science, 35, 321–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Sterman, J. D. (1994). Learning in and about complex systems. System Dynamics Review, 10, 291–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Sterman, J. D. (2000). Business dynamics: Systems thinking and modeling for a complex world. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  15. Sterman, J. D., & Dogan, G. (2015). I’m not hoarding, I’m just stocking up before the hoarders get there. Behavioral causes of phantom ordering in supply chains. Journal of Operations Management, 39–40, 6–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Sterman, J. D., & Sweeney, B. (2007). Understanding public complacency about climate change: Adults’ mental models of climate change violate conservation of matter. Climatic Change, 80(3–4), 213–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. USDOA. (1993, August 31). US Department of the Army, Military Operations: U.S. Army Operations Concept for Combat Identification, TRADOC Pam 525-58 (p. 1). Fort Monroe, VA: Training and Doctrine Command.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