Intuitive decisions and heuristics – an alternative rationality

Two ways of making a decision are objectively using formal analysis and subjectively using intuition. Psychological research has shown that the latter leads to better decisions in complex situations. Intuitive decision-making uses simplified rules of thumb heuristics. In engineering terms, complexity implies complex systems. A set of rules and principles – heuristics – is presented as a guide for making subjective decisions in complex system contexts, one aspect of which is to provide quality control and guard against bias and error. An extended practical example of the use of these heuristics is given involving assessment of the safety of nuclear-powered ships.

[1]  Colin B. Brown,et al.  Engineering decisions: framework, process and concerns , 2013 .

[2]  R. Stickgold,et al.  Sleep-dependent memory triage: evolving generalization through selective processing , 2013, Nature Neuroscience.

[3]  Colin B. Brown,et al.  Systems Approach to Civil Engineering Decisions , 2012 .

[4]  Colin B. Brown,et al.  Professional decisions: responsibilities , 2012 .

[5]  Colin B. Brown,et al.  Professional decisions: the central role of models , 2012 .

[6]  D. Kahneman.  Thinking, Fast and Slow , 2011 .

[7]  Christine Clavien,et al.  Gut Feelings : Short Cuts to Better Decision Making , 2008 .

[8]  Robert E. Melchers,et al.  Assessing and achieving structural safety , 2008 .

[9]  Spike Cramphorn.  Blink: The Power of Thinking without Thinking / Strangers to Ourselves: Discovering the Adaptive Unconscious , 2006, Journal of Advertising Research.

[10]  Rick B. van Baaren,et al.  On Making the Right Choice: The Deliberation-Without-Attention Effect , 2006, Science.

[11]  Katherine McCoy,et al.  Information and Persuasion: Rivals or Partners? , 2000, Design Issues.

[12]  David Blockley,et al.  Doing it Differently: Systems for Rethinking Construction , 2000 .

[13]  David Elms.  Risk management - general issues , 1998 .

[14]  C. Jennings.  Tales of the unexpected , 1992, Nature.

[15]  R. Hepburn.  Metaphysics as a Guide to Morals , 1995 .

[16]  D. G. Elms.  Consistent Crudeness in System Construction , 1992 .

[17]  R. J. Bogumil,et al.  The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action , 1985, Proceedings of the IEEE.

[18]  Louis L. Bucciarelli,et al.  Reflective practice in engineering design , 1984 .

[19]  John B. Kidd,et al.  Judgement under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biasses , 1983 .

[20]  D. Schoen,et al.  The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action , 1985 .

[21]  David I Blockley,et al.  The nature of structural design and safety , 1980 .

[22]  T. L. Saaty.  A Scaling Method for Priorities in Hierarchical Structures , 1977 .

[23]  Ludwig Wittgenstein,et al.  Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus: The German Text of Ludwig Wittgenstein's Logisch-philosophische Abhandlung , 1962 .

[24]  D. Bernoulli.  Exposition of a New Theory on the Measurement of Risk , 1954 .

[25]  H. Carr.  Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus , 1923, Nature.