# The Concept of Objectives

Chapter

- 48 Downloads

## Abstract

Managerial decisions as well as decisions in politics or daily life may be interpreted as results of choice-making processes; in this context, to decide means to choose amongst known opportunities of action - alternatives.- The idea of externally given selection opportunities being submitted to a subjective procedure of choice-making turns out to be true in a world of perfect information only, perfect regarding every real and possible dimension; here the decision maker is informed of all past, present, and future relevant events, all possible activities, and can describe them in every important detail.

## Keywords

Decision Maker Utility Function Environmental Response Decision Situation Side Condition
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

## Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

## References

- 1).Cf. the remarks made by Krümmel [1969, pp. 72–73].Google Scholar
- 1).) Schneeweiß, [1967, p. 8], Radner [1964., p. 179].Google Scholar
- 2).) Cf. Riemenschnitter [1972, p. 72] especially for the problems of so -called “dead knots” (“tote Knoten”) within decision trees.Google Scholar
- 1).) For these problems we refer to Albach [1969, pp. 720–727] and the references given there.Google Scholar
- 2).) For a definition of a measurable space and for all probability theoretic material we refer to Neveu [1969], here p. 27.Google Scholar
- 1).) This classification of decision situations is due to Knight [1921, P. 233].Google Scholar
- 2).) Cf. Keynes [1950, pp. 13–14], Carnap and Stegmüller [1959]. Axiomatical treatments of these problems may be found as a context of developing the expected-utility-hypothesis in Savage [1954], Pfanzagl [1968, pp. 195–196] and in Rabusseau and Reich [1972].Google Scholar
- 4).The basic model of decision theory assumes Ω
_{a}=Ω,*A*_{a}=A, µ_{a}=µ for all a ε A, Cf. Schneeweiß [1967, p. 12].Google Scholar - 3).) For this terminology we refer to Klahr [1969, p. 596]Google Scholar
- 1).Hence, regarding points of view the following holds like before: different points of view may establish the same equivalence relation on the data-dimension space of (inline). Nevertheless in cases no confusion may arise we identify points of view and their corresponding equivalence relations.Google Scholar
- 1).For the notion of a
*universe*we refer to Schubert [1970, p. 16]. For all topological notions not defined here or in the following and for all statements on topological material not proved here or in the following see Bourbaki [1965]. For the notion of the*interval topology*we refer to definition 1.8. to be found in our excursus on the Bernoulli-principle as well as to Pfanzagl [1968, p. 6l]. For an arbitrary ordered set M, by*J*_{M}[we denote the corresponding interval topology.Google Scholar - 2).Order-homomorphisms are mappings g: G + G’ with the property: for all a,bεG we have a≤γ⇒b => g(a)≤g(b); cf. definition 1.11.Google Scholar
- 3).) For the concept of a category cf. Schubert [1970] or Lang [1965, p.Google Scholar
- 25].Google Scholar
- 3).) For the notion of a utility function is refered to Debreu [1959, p.55]. Regarding the terms
*ordinal*and*cardinal*see Pfanzagl [1968, p. 74]. In our context these terms above all have respect to the isomorphisms of the category in question. Utility functions are special faithful order-homomorphisms (cf. def. 1.11.); continuous utility functions exist, if and only if the topology of G is separable (Pfanzagl [19685, p. 75], 4.2.3. Theorem).Google Scholar - 1).)α
^{*}_{/z}, is an abbreviation for the quotient set which is generated by z and the equality relation in R (cf. p. 8, footnote 1).Google Scholar - 1).) Cf. p. 12, footnote 1. For an example take the utility function of a consumer, Debreu [1959, pp. 55–57].Google Scholar
- 1).) Heinen D-966] has made similar remarks in differing between so-called side conditions of type A and type B. This specification is of some importance to the problem of the so-called “goal-programming” also: here the problem is discussed that by setting “goals” (= side conditions of type B) the set of feasible actions may become empty. A first approach may be found in Balderstone [i960]. For further references we refer to p. 63 of these notes.Google Scholar
- 1).) Simon [1957, p. 246]Google Scholar
- 2).) Sauermann and Selten [1962, p. 577]Google Scholar
- 1).) Simon [1957, pp. 250–252]Google Scholar
- 2).) Accordingly, Sauermann and Selten [1962] try to develop a theory of adjusting the levels of aspiration to new decision situations and new information respectively.Google Scholar
- 3).An approach to derive levels of aspiration within the framework of the chance-constrained programming may be found in Naslund [1967, pp. 17–20]; opportunities of substituting objective-achievements by security aspirations are considered in Albach and Schiller [1970].Google Scholar
- 1).) For references we refer to Schneeweiß [1967].Google Scholar
- 3).) The first axiomatical treatment of the Bernoulli-principle is to be found in the fundamental work of von Neumann and Morgenstern [1946].Google Scholar
- 1).) For a definition we refer to Neveu [1969, p. 4l], Definition 1.6.1.Google Scholar
- 2).) Neveu [1969, p. 27], Definition 1.4.2.Google Scholar
- 1).) Neveu [1969, p. 4l], Satz 1.6.1.Google Scholar
- 2).) Neveu [1969, p. 41].Google Scholar
- 1).) Bourbaki [1965, chap. 1, § 1, No 2].Google Scholar
- 2).) Lenz [1961, p. 44].Google Scholar
- 1).) Lenz [1961, p. 44]; gap = “Lttcke”, step = “Sprung”, cut = “Schnitt”.Google Scholar
- 2).Pfanzagl [1968, p. 62].Google Scholar
- 3).) Pfanzagl [1968, p. 62], 3.4.5. Lemma.Google Scholar
- 1).) Pishburn [1970, p. 112 and p. 138], theorem 8.4 and lemma 10.5.Google Scholar
- 1).) Fishburn [1970, pp. 111–112], theorem 8.3, c 1 and c 2.Google Scholar
- 1).) Bourbaki [1958, chap. 9, § 1, No 2]Google Scholar
- 1).) This is the problem of statistical decision theory. Additionally, the problem of decision making under uncertainty (i.e. the lack of objective probabilities) used to be attacked by some autors in that way; cf. Hart [1942, pp. 110–118].Google Scholar
- 1).) For the general form of those approaches we refer to Aumann [1964, P. 219].Google Scholar
- 2).) Cf. def. 1.7..Google Scholar
- 1).)
*AusgleiehsaktivLtäten*in the sense of Riemenschnitter [1972, pp. 65–66].Google Scholar - 1).) These cases are called
*dead knots (tote Knoten)*by Riemenschnitter [1972, p. 72].Google Scholar - 2).) In flexible planning models the
*actions*in the sense of stiff planning models are replaced by*strategies*. A strategy is a sequence of actions in the sense of stiff planning, each of them related to certain events (Riemenschnitter C1972, p. 47]).Google Scholar - 1).) This makes sense if it is assumed that the planning horizon is fixed at that point, and no additional information is available after wards. For this assumption we refer to Krümmel [1964, p. 194].Google Scholar
- 4).) We give the following references: Heinen [1966], Schmidt-Sudhoff [19 67], Bidlingmayer [1968]. Based on empirical investigations Kaplan, Dirlam and Lanzilotti [19581 and Raia [1965] have catalogued managerial objectives while at the same time pursuing real decisions.Google Scholar
- 2).) Another important example consists of the conflict among the objectives of the heads of different departments. Planning the product range the production manager oftenly intends to reduce the number of different products, whereas the head of the marketing department looks for chances to sell a greater amount of products because of a manifold assortment of products he can supply, cf. Gutenberg [1968, Vol.1, pp. 153–154].Google Scholar
- 1).) Cf. Krümmel [1964, p. 194].Google Scholar
- 2).) “… it is possible to measure certain present characteristics of firms which are likely to influence their profit potential”, White [1960, p. 186].Google Scholar
- 3).) As an example from an extensive literature we refer to Wundt [1965].Google Scholar

## Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin · Heidelberg 1975