Geri Dön

Grup kararları

Group decision making

  1. Tez No: 39861
  2. Yazar: ÖZCAN ATAÇ
  3. Danışmanlar: DOÇ.DR. FÜSUN ÜLENGİN
  4. Tez Türü: Yüksek Lisans
  5. Konular: Endüstri ve Endüstri Mühendisliği, Industrial and Industrial Engineering
  6. Anahtar Kelimeler: Belirtilmemiş.
  7. Yıl: 1993
  8. Dil: Türkçe
  9. Üniversite: İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi
  10. Enstitü: Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü
  11. Ana Bilim Dalı: Belirtilmemiş.
  12. Bilim Dalı: Belirtilmemiş.
  13. Sayfa Sayısı: 120

Özet

İnsanlar yapıları gereği yalnız yaşayamazlar. Birbirlerine daima muhtaçtırlar. Bu nedenle bir araya gelmek, yalnız başlarına yapamadıkları şeyleri, bir topluluk olarak halletmek zorundadırlar. Bu olgu ortaya“ GRUP ”kavramını çıkarmaktadır. Literatürde pek çok grup tanımı bulmak mümkündür. Ama genel olarak diyebiliriz ki. belirli bir amaç doğrultusunda bir araya gelmiş insanların oluşturduğu topluluğa, grup denir. Do§aldır ki, tüm insanlar aynı görüşleri paylaşamazlar. Aynı olaylar karşısında farklı hislere, aynı sorularda farklı cevaplara ve en önemlisi benzer durumlarda farklı kararlara sahiptirler. Bu doğaldır ve bir grup içerisinde bulunan bu insanlar tabii olarak bir müzakere ortamı yaratırlar. Bunun bir amacı vardır ve çok yapıcı sonuçlar doğurur. Bir konu hakkında bazen yüzlerce görüş ortaya çıkar. Her bir görüşün ayrı bir önemi vardır ve bu görüşler gerek bunu yaratan, gerekse beğenip makul sayan kimselerce desteklenir. Gruplar, bu ortamı yaratan en güzel olgulardır. Fakat bir, grup bütün bu fikir ve kararları değil, sadece birini benimser. Bu da o grubun kararını oluşturur. Peki ama bir çok insanın bir araya gelip bir grup oluşturması ve daha sonra ortak bir karara varmasının amacı nedir? Tabii ki en önemlisi ve bu araştırmanın da üzerine oturtulduğu temel,“ RİSK PAYLAŞIMI ”dır. Gerçek hayatta insanlar pek çok kazanma ve kaybetme durumu ile karşı karşıyadırlar. Kazanmak güzeldir ama kaybetmekte kaçınılmaz bir diğer seçenektir. Kaybetmenin zararını minumuma indirmek, kazanç değerinin bir kısmını diğer bireylerle paylaşmaktan geçer. Bu risk paylaşımının en iyi yapıldığı yer de gruptur. V

Özet (Çeviri)

SUMMARY GROUP DECISION MAKING The Humankind can not leave lonely since they are a part of their community. They always depend and need each- other. Therefore, they are forced to join and act collecti vely in order to succede a certain of matters which they can not realise on their own. This formation points out on“ Group or Community ”concept. Literatyral ly seen, it is possible to find or determine a various numbers of group concepts. But as generally ex pressed, a group means a group of Humankinds who came toget her for certain purposses» Actually, this group of Humankind are united to create a. social community for survival. Naturally, every person possesses his/ her own meaning and some disputes arise out of such different natures. Each individual person expresses his/her own meaning as well as- different answers to questions raised. They do also evalu ate things differently and decide on their own way. But, the most important matter is that they possess different decisi ons on the subjects concerned. The differences of meanings and evaluations between a community members are creating sometimes disputes and con flicts among them. But such disputes and levelled conflicts- shall be considered as normal. Certainly, the individuals within a community do discuss and evaluate different matters collectively and such undertakings have a certain target. Such discussions and different point of views, are serving for the advantage of a group. VIThere might be hundres of disputes or different points of views about one subject and each meaning has its own value and advantage thereon» Each idea has its individual value and such ideas are being adapted, supported, and approved by the creators or adherents thereof. The groups are the best sample of formation on such subjects» But an individual group does not accept, approve all of those ideas but only one of them. This situation des cribes the group decisions. Well, what is the most important aim and basic foundation of such a result is being based on sharing of.risk. In actual life, the Humankind or individuals are mostly faced with gains in abundance or losses. Gaining is a won derful 1 thing, but loosing is also the other face of the ga in. In order to minimise the losses, it is necessary to sha re a part of the gain with the others. It is possible to describe many of example releated with the detailed investi gations in Chapter 5. Chapter 3 is an Introduction. A conceptual framework is developed, basic terms are defined, and the question of how to asses the quality of both group factors that promote quality are discussed. As with many of the research's chap ters, Chapter 3 concludes with specific prescriptions to im prove their decisions. Chapter 4,“ Croups Mace Decisions ”, discusses, those factors that influence group decisions; member characteric- tics, nature of the task, group cohesiveness, size, channels of communication, and leadership. Prescriptions for impro ving group decision making, based on each of these factors, are discussed. Chapter 6,“ Group Decision Support Systems ”, is a very special part. The Alter classification of decision support system types is important since it recognises that the sup port provided by decision support systems can range from single informations elements to decisions that are made for the manager. VIIThe decision support system supports managers as they solve semistructured problems. The emphasis is on the ef fectiveness of the decisions rather than the efficiency of the decision making process. The decision support systems need not he interactive, although the vast majority are. Also, the manager need not personally operate the equipment. An intermediary can perform that task. The manager receives output from the decision support system in the same format as The Management Informatian Systems -periodic and special reports and similation results. The reports are most often used in problem definition, and the simulations contribute most the problem solution.. Both periodic and special reports can be prepared in either a detail or summary form management by exception can be incorporated into reports by using an ascending or descending sequence to highlight exceptions;, preparing re ports only when exceptioons occur, grouping exceptions toget her, and using varience columns. A mathematical model simulates an entity and can be sta tic or dynamic, probabilistic or deterministic and optimising or suboptimizing. Models are designed so that the manager can specify the scenario and then assign values to decision variables. A manager who engages in modeling can expect to learn from the modeling experience, be able to consider a larger number of alternatives, gain a certain predictive power, and possibly avoid the costs of bad decisions. Ho wever, the manager must recognize that the model is only an approximation, and the manager must prosess considerable mathemathical skill if model outputs are to be personally interpreted. IXAlthough computer graphics are prometed as a way to im prove decision making, research has not detected any advan tages that apply to all managers in all stiations» In gene ral graphs are best for making rather simple analyses, and certain types of graphs are better than others, depending on the task. A new class o-f software has been named 4SL (fourth-gene ration language). It enables both professional programmers and managers to process data and obtain information more ea sily than with a problem oriented language. Initia decision support system was directed at suppor ting the individual, but recently the needs of decision making groups have received attention. Host. Group Decision Support Systems activity thus far has been aimed at improving stimulating environmental settings. In Chapter 7, there are two examples about negotiations and group decisions as a final» These are“ The Panama Canal Negotiations ”and“ Philippine Military Base Negotiations ”. I could go on to analyze other examples of negotiations» eco nomic trade agreements, cartels, divorce mediation, global negotiations with developing countries, corporate, take overs, and so on. But these two examples give us the main aim in this research. Often disputants fail to reach an ag reement when, in fact, a comprimise does exist that could be to the advantage of all concerned. And the agreements they do make are frequently inefficient» they could have made others that they all would have preferred.lt is here that- systematic analysis can be of sevice to the negotiator, facilitator, mediator, arbitrator, and rules manupulator. We were interested in these in the first parts of this research» We are not thinking of any grandiose new kind of analysis specially devised for problems of negotion, but of simple prosaic analysis that, is part of the cirriculum of most schools of business and public policy. What are your alter natives'? What are your objectives? How do your objectives conflict? What are your value tradeoffs? Can you defer action and accumulate further information before you commit yourself?These questions and their action implications consti tute a fremework of throught that applies to roost decision problem » XI

Benzer Tezler

  1. Tez No

    839162

    The role of group's social status in children's fairness judgments

    Grup kararlarında çocukların grubun sosyal konumuna bağlı adalet değerlendirmeleri

    ÖZDEŞ ÇETİN

    Yüksek Lisans

    İngilizce

    İngilizce

    2023

    PsikolojiBoğaziçi Üniversitesi

    Psikoloji Ana Bilim Dalı

    DOÇ. DR. GAYE SOLEY WALLIN

  2. Tez No

    335804

    Birey ve grup kararlarının bilişsel yanılma eğilimleri açısından karşılaştırmalı analizi

    Comperative analysis of individual and group decision making in terms of cognitive biases and heuristics

    TUBA İSPİRDOĞAN

    Yüksek Lisans

    Türkçe

    Türkçe

    2013

    Endüstri ve Endüstri Mühendisliğiİstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi

    Endüstri Mühendisliği Ana Bilim Dalı

    YRD. DOÇ. DR. UMUT ASAN

  3. Tez No

    223601

    Web based group decision support systems in defence technologies

    Savunma teknolojilerinde web tabanlı grup karar destek sistemleri

    YAVUZ GÖSTERİŞLİ

    Yüksek Lisans

    İngilizce

    İngilizce

    2006

    Endüstri ve Endüstri Mühendisliğiİstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi

    Savunma Teknolojileri Ana Bilim Dalı

    DOÇ.DR. CENGİZ GÜNGÖR

  4. Tez No

    241744

    Bilgi teknolojisi tabanlı kararlar ve grup karar destek sistemleri uygulaması

    Decisions based on information technology and implication of group decision support systems

    DİDEM PAŞAOĞLU HAMŞIOĞLU

    Doktora

    Türkçe

    Türkçe

    2009

    İşletmeAnadolu Üniversitesi

    İşletme Bölümü

    PROF. DR. MEHMET ŞAHİN

  5. Tez No

    318231

    Bayesian aggregation methods for analytic hierarchy process and analytic network process in group decision making

    Çok kriterli karar problemlerinin çözümünde bayesci önceliklendirme metoduna dayalı analitik hiyerarşi süreci ve analitik serim süreci

    ZEYNEP FİLİZ EREN DOĞU

    Doktora

    İngilizce

    İngilizce

    2012

    İstatistikDokuz Eylül Üniversitesi

    İstatistik Ana Bilim Dalı

    PROF. DR. CAN CENGİZ ÇELİKOĞLU

Geri Dön