<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <front>
    <journal-meta />
    <article-meta>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>Managing Knowledge through Experimentation and Socialisation</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>Meliha Handzic School of Information Systems, Technology and Management The University of New South Wales Sydney</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>NSW 2052</addr-line>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <abstract>
        <p>This paper reports results of an empirical examination of the facilitating role of experimentation and socialisation in enhancing individual knowledge and performance in decision making. A laboratory experiment was conducted using 28 graduate students as voluntary subjects. Performance of actual subjects was compared with that of their nominal naive and optimal counterparts. Results indicate that both opportunities for independent experimentation and socialisation among subjects significantly facilitated individual knowledge enhancement and led to improved decision performance. Subjects encouraged to interact with others tended to make better quality decisions than those who individually experimented with the decision task. Both performed better than notional naive subjects who applied random walk decision strategy. However, the results indicate room for further improvement. Subjects failed to reach performance of notional optimal counterparts who used linear decision strategy. The results also suggest the need for a holistic approach to managing knowledge by combining and integrating various initiatives to create even higher levels of knowledge and performance.</p>
      </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>1 Introduction</title>
      <p>Knowledge management literature indicates a widespread
agreement among researchers and practitioners alike that
knowledge is the only sure source of lasting competitive
advantage or even economic survival for organisations
operating in a new-age economy [Dev99, Dru93, Ste97].
The copyright of this paper belongs to the paper’s authors.
Permission to copy without fee all or part of this material is granted
provided that the copies are not made or distributed for direct
commercial advantage.</p>
      <sec id="sec-1-1">
        <title>Proc. of the Third Int. Conf. on Practical Aspects of</title>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-1-2">
        <title>Knowledge Management (PAKM2000)</title>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-1-3">
        <title>Basel, Switzerland, 30-31 Oct. 2000, (U. Reimer, ed.)</title>
        <p>http://sunsite.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/Publications/CEUR-WS/Vol-34/
With this comes a growing recognition of the need to
determine ways to better cultivate, nurture and exploit
knowledge in modern organisations at different levels and
in different contexts. Yet, there is little understanding of
the nature of the knowledge-creating organisation and
how it should be managed.</p>
        <p>Western theorists generally view organisations as
information processing machines. They show central
preoccupation with hard and quantifiable “explicit”
knowledge embedded in organisational repositories as the
only useful kind of knowledge [Bax99, Non98]. Eastern
theorists, on the other hand, focus more on “tacit”
knowledge that people derive from their own experience
and through sharing [Non95, Non98]. The notable success
of Japanese companies suggests that any company that
wants to compete on knowledge should learn from their
examples, and master techniques for creating and sharing
tacit knowledge. Given that between 40% [Aao98] and
90% [Hew99] of the needed knowledge in organisations
is tacit, it is not surprising that there is currently a sense of
urgency felt among knowledge management researchers
to better understand how to tap the wealth of knowledge
in people’s heads.</p>
        <p>Some authors suggest that new knowledge always
begins with the individual, and that making personal
knowledge available to others is the central activity of the
knowledge-creating company [Non95]. The spiral
knowledge model assumes that the process of sharing will
result in the organisational amplification and exponential
growth of working knowledge. Others propose that in
order to build a learning organisation the first step should
be to foster the environment conducive to individual
learning, that is allow experimentation to gain experience,
and second, to open up boundaries and stimulate
exchange of ideas [Gar98]. However, given the current
infancy of the knowledge management research, there is
little empirical evidence regarding the ways in which tacit
knowledge is actually acquired and shared, and the impact
it has on performance.</p>
        <p>The main purpose of this study is to address the issue
by empirically investigating the potential of two specific
knowledge management initiatives (experimentation and
socialisation) to facilitate individual knowledge
enhancement and application in a judgemental decision
making task context. Decision making is an important and
knowledge intensive activity. Business decisions in
organisational environments can be made individually or
in groups. The literature suggests that the majority of
important decisions are made individually, but after
significant social interaction [Hea95]. Therefore, it is
important to address both individual and social factors
that influence knowledge and performance of
organisational decision makers.</p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-2">
      <title>2 Literature Review and Research Model</title>
      <sec id="sec-2-1">
        <title>2.1 Psychology of Judgement and Decision Making</title>
        <p>Decision making has been studied from normative and
descriptive perspectives. Normative (classical) decision
theory is the collection of axiomatic models of utility and
probability that describe the optimal decision making
under uncertainty [Bea93]. In its normative role, this
theory describes decisions of an ideal economic man who
would behave in accordance with the principle of benefit
maximisation. In its prescriptive role, the way that the
economic man would behave is assumed to be a uniquely
appropriate rational way.</p>
        <p>Empirical research has repeatedly demonstrated that
decision makers do not conform consistently to the logic
of normative theories [Tve74]. Instead, individuals use
heuristics or general rules of thumb to arrive at their
judgements. This leads to predictable biases or deviations
from normatively derived answers. Some of the best
known individual biases and errors include
representativeness, availability, and anchoring and
adjustment. Studies have shown that reliance on
representativeness leads people to ignore base rate
information which, in turn, leads to inaccurate
predictions. The availability heuristic can lead to critical
biases in judgement of probabilities and frequency
estimates. The effects of anchoring show that people
adjust insufficiently from anchor values regardless of the
topic. People also have difficulties in assessing
correlations among variables [Plo93].</p>
        <p>Because people are social by nature, their judgements
and decisions are subject to social influences. Much of the
earlier research into group interactions is devoted to a
groupthink phenomenon. According to Janis [Jan82]
members of the cohesive long-term groups strive for
unanimity and do not realistically appraise alternative
courses of action. This results in unfavourable outcomes.
In general, past research indicates that most
individuallevel biases and errors tend to operate with equal force in
groups [Plo93].</p>
        <p>While there is little doubt that people violate the
principles of normative theory, these violations do not
mean that people are irrational, or that the way people
make decisions is unreasonable. Simon [Sim90]
suggested that processing capabilities of the decision
maker interact with the complexity of the environment to
produce bounded rationality. The awareness of the
calculated rationality has led to several models that
emphasise the cognitive costs and benefits of various
strategies people might use in constructing preferences
and beliefs. The Beach and Mitchell [Bea78] model for
the selection of decision strategies represents a direct
extension of the bounded rationality concept. Selection of
which strategy to use in a particular decision problem is
contingent upon the demands of the task, environment
and the characteristics of a person. Most empirical studies
show that people adapt their behaviour to changes in task
and context in ways that seem reasonable given a concern
for both accuracy and effort [Pay88, Cre90]. These
studies also show that people adapt well enough to
satisfice, but do not in general optimise.</p>
        <p>In summary, most earlier research in the psychology of
human judgement and decision making is devoted to
individual and group biases and errors. Studies of flawed
reasoning are six times more often cited in journal articles
than studies of successful reasoning [Plo93]. However,
adaptive models of human behaviour offer a more
optimistic view. Beach and Mitchell [Bea78] have
identified a number of specific factors that lead to
decision behaviour in the direction suggested by the
normative models. Thus, greater uncertainty and
significance, lower complexity and constraints of the
decision task, as well as higher decision maker’s
knowledge, motivation and ability to learn are likely to
encourage the choice of a more analytical strategy and
lead to better performance.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-2-2">
        <title>2.2 Model of Knowledge Management</title>
        <p>Failures in judgement and decision making described by
“pessimists” and adaptive nature of decision making
emphasised by “optimists” are quite informative for
knowledge management research. They provide a basis
for its interventionist approach to knowledge processes, as
they identify points of concern and suggest adaptive
directions. It is argued here that a generic knowledge
management model [Aao98] with four major enablers
(technology, culture, leadership, measurement) that
facilitate knowledge processes can provide an appropriate
theoretical framework for studying knowledge
management in judgement and decision making. The
central task here is to identify those initiatives and
practices that would reduce the complexity and
uncertainty of the decision task, minimise environmental
constraints, and facilitate development of relevant
decision makers’ knowledge and skills to maximise
decision performance.</p>
        <p>The focus of the current study is on two knowledge
management initiatives, experimentation and
socialisation, both aimed at fostering working knowledge
of individual decision makers. These two initiatives have
been suggested as central activities of a knowledge
creating company [Gar98, Non95]. Organisational culture
encouraging experimentation is assumed to foster
individual learning, while socialisation is believed to
enable amplification and exponential growth of working
knowledge. The objective of this study is to empirically
test these two assumptions. More specifically, the study
will attempt to answer the following research questions:
(i) whether and how an opportunity for individual
experimentation and social interaction among decision
makers affect their working knowledge, and (ii) what
impact these two initiatives have on their subsequent
decision performance.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-2-3">
        <title>3.1 Experimental Task</title>
        <p>The experimental task for the current study was a
simulated production planning activity in which subjects
made decisions regarding daily production of fresh
icecream. The participants assumed the role of Production
Manager for an imaginary dairy firm that sold ice-cream
from its outlet at Bondi Beach in Sydney, Australia. The
company incurred equally costly losses if production was
set too low (due to loss of market to the competition) or
too high (by spoilage of unsold product). The
participants’ goal was to minimise the costs incurred by
incorrect decisions. During the experiment, participants
were asked at the end of each day to set production quotas
for ice-cream to be sold the following day. Subjects were
required to make thirty production decisions over a period
of thirty consecutive days. Before commencing the task,
participants had an opportunity to make five trial
decisions for practice purposes only.</p>
        <p>From pre-experimental discussions with actual store
owners at Bondi Beach, three factors emerged as
important in determining local product demand: the
ambient air temperature, the amount of sunshine and the
number of visitors at the beach. This important contextual
information was provided to the participants in addition to
past product demand to aid their decision making.
Subjects were free to use the available information as
much as they wished to, by making explicit request to the
computerised information system. All contextual factors
were artificially generated to provide similarly moderate
predictive power in estimating future sales. This was
achieved by setting correlation coefficients between
contextual and predicted variables to r=0.80.</p>
        <p>Subjects performed the task under different working
conditions. Half of the subjects were allowed to
experiment with their information to learn causal
relationships among contextual and demand variables.
They were expected to apply that knowledge in their final
individual production decisions. The other half were
encouraged to share their personal knowledge with others.
In particular, participants from this group were placed in
teams of two and instructed to discuss their ideas and
opinions before making final decisions. However, they
were not required to reach a consensual decision.</p>
        <p>At the beginning of the experiment, task descriptions
were provided to inform participants about the task
scenario and requirements. The given text differed with
respect to the working conditions prescribed. Throughout
the experiment instructions and feedback were provided
to each participant to analyse earlier performance and to
adjust future strategies.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-2-4">
        <title>3.2 Experimental Design and Variables</title>
        <p>A laboratory experiment with random assignment to
treatment groups was used in the current investigation
because it allows drawing of stronger causal inferences
due to high controllability. The only independent variable
was knowledge management initiative (experimentation
vs. socialisation). It was manipulated by providing the
subjects with an opportunity to either individually
experiment and learn the task by trial and error, or by
encouraging them to socially interact with each other and
share ideas and opinions while handling the task.</p>
        <p>The dependent variable was decision performance. It
was operationalised by symmetric absolute percentage
error (SAPE), chosen because it controls for scale. SAPE
is a popular accuracy measure suggested by the
forecasting literature [Mak93]. In this study, it was
obtained by dividing the absolute difference between
estimated and actually demanded units of product by an
average of the two values and multiplying by 100%. In
addition, the corresponding errors of nominal naive and
nominal optimal decision makers were calculated. These
are error scores that would have been obtained by
completely ignorant and ideally knowledgeable people
who produced their decisions using naive (random walk)
and optimal (linear) strategies respectively.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-2-5">
        <title>3.3 Subjects and Procedure</title>
        <p>The subjects were 28 graduate students enrolled in the
Master of Commerce course at The University of New
South Wales, Sydney. They participated in the study on a
voluntary basis and received no monetary incentives.
Generally, graduate students are considered appropriate
subjects for this type of research [Ash80, Rem96, Whi96].
Individuals were assigned randomly to one of the two
treatment groups by picking up a disk with an appropriate
version of the instrument. Then, they were directed to two
designated microcomputer laboratories where they were
briefed about the purpose of the study, read case
descriptions and performed the task. The session lasted
about one hour.</p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-3">
      <title>4 Results</title>
      <p>The collected data were analysed using a series of
statistical T-tests to compare decision performance
(SAPE) among four experimental groups of subjects
(notional naives, independent experimenters, social
interactives and notional optimals). Results are presented
graphically in Figure 1.</p>
      <p>Results of the analyses performed indicate significant
improvement in decision performance due to individual
experimentation. Independent experimenters tended to
make significantly smaller decision errors (SAPE) than
their notional naive counterparts (17.80% vs. 20.67%,
p&lt;0.05). There was a real drop in error by 14%. Results
also indicate significant further improvement in decision
performance due to socialisation. Social interactives
tended to make significantly smaller decision errors than
independent experimenters (11.42% vs. 17.80%, p&lt;0.05).
This meant a further drop in error by 31%, to a total of
45%.</p>
      <p>Furthermore, the results of the analyses indicate that
participants failed to achieve optimal performance. Both
independent experimenters and social interactives tended
to make significantly larger decision errors than their
notional optimal counterparts (17.80% or 11.42% vs.
6.25%, p&lt;0.05). These participants were able to acquire
and apply 20% and 64% respectively of the knowledge
possessed by an ideally knowledgeable decision maker on
the same task.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-4">
      <title>5 Discussion</title>
      <sec id="sec-4-1">
        <title>5.1 Main Findings</title>
        <p>In summary, the main findings of the present study
indicate that knowledge management initiatives aimed at
providing opportunities for experimentation and
socialisation were quite useful in enhancing individual
decision makers’ working knowledge and performance in
a judgemental decision making task. In addition,
socialisation was relatively more valuable than
experimentation. However, performance gains were less
than possible given an expert knowledge of the task.</p>
        <p>With respect to experimentation, the study
demonstrated that it had a significant positive impact on
individual knowledge and performance. Independent
experimenters were found to make significantly smaller
decision errors that notional naive decision makers. In
real terms their error scores dropped by 14%. This finding
suggests that subjects allowed time and opportunity to
experiment on their own were able to acquire enough
relevant knowledge of the decision problem and solving
strategies to improve performance. As a result they
significantly reduced decision errors.</p>
        <p>This finding provides a more optimistic view of human
ability to learn multivariate probabilistic judgement tasks
through experience than suggested by earlier research [for
review see Bre80]. It is possible that graphical
presentation of historic data used in this study enabled
subjects to easier identify the existence and direction of
relationships among various task variables. Such
proposition is consistent with the earlier finding by
Lawrence et al. [Law85] that graphical presentation form
enhances the accuracy of novice decision makers. It is
also possible that the subjects in this study were given
sufficient time for experimentation that enabled them to
appropriately adjust their strategies through task repetition
and from feedback. Klayman [Kla88] also reported that
people could learn reasonably well cue discovery over a
larger number of trials.</p>
        <p>The study also demonstrated a highly beneficial effect
of socialisation on individual decision making. Social
interactives were found to make significantly more
accurate decisions than independent experimenters. The
incremental drop in their error scores was 31%. This
finding suggests that subjects encouraged to interact with
others were able to enhance knowledge through exchange
of ideas and opinions and consequently improve
performance. Participants might have brought their
personal analysis and know-how to the task, acquired
information about their partner’s ideas and arguments and
considered both in making final decisions.</p>
        <p>The beneficial effect of socialisation evident in this
study is consistent with the theoretical propositions of the
knowledge management literature [Gar98, Non95]. It also
agrees with frequent anecdotal evidence from the real
world organisations [Hew99]. However, such findings are
contrary to a large number of earlier studies on group
decision making that emphasise negative aspects of
decision making in groups such as groupthink [Jan82,
Plo93]. One potential reason for the discrepancy may be
due to the nature of the group decision process used in
this study. The study encouraged participants to interact,
but did not require them to reach consensual decisions.
Thus, it might have avoided a potential negative effect of
groupthink. In addition, subjects in this study were
provided with continuous performance feedback that
might have enabled them to evaluate their own ideas
against those of their partners and adjust future strategies
accordingly. Earlier empirical research indicated
beneficial effect of objective feedback on performance
[Kop86]. In short, generating and sharing personal
knowledge coupled with the opportunity to test its
contribution to performance might have enhanced
knowledge and resulted in greater accuracy.</p>
        <p>An important additional finding of the study is a
substantially larger positive effect of socialisation than
experimentation on decision making. Social interactives
tended to make more than twice as many accurate
decisions as independent experimenters. This finding
appears to agree with the proposition of the spiral
knowledge model [Non95] suggesting that sharing
personal knowledge results in amplification and
exponential growth of working knowledge. Some reports
indicate that a number of large western companies (eg.
British Airways) have already realised this and have built
an appropriate infrastructure (eg. a coffee village) to
facilitate social interaction and knowledge sharing among
its employees [Hew99].</p>
        <p>With respect to overall performance, the study revealed
serious deviations from optimal performance irrespective
of the knowledge management initiative implemented.
Both independent experimenters and social interactives
were found to make significantly larger decision errors
than they could have. Further analysis revealed that, on
average, they acquired and applied 20% and 64% of the
knowledge assets of an expert decision maker through
experimentation and socialisation respectively.</p>
        <p>One potential explanation for the failure to achieve
optimal performance may be the difficulty of learning
optimal functional forms among given variables.
According to Klayman [Kla88] people can learn
reasonably well the existence and direction of a
cuecriterion relationship, but have difficulties in learning its
shape. As a result they tend to perform sub-optimally.
Alternatively, the failure could be attributed to the
moderately predictive power of contextual factors. Hoch
and Schkade [Hoc96] have proved theoretically that
pattern matching strategy can not produce good results in
environments that are not highly predictive. Finally, the
participants in the study were not expert decision makers,
but novices. Garvin [Gar98] suggests that to become an
expert each individual must pass through a number of
stages of knowledge. In this context experimentation and
socialisation might have helped push participants from
lower to higher stages. However, examples from literature
suggest that for maximum effectiveness other initiatives
including transfer of knowledge through education and
training programs are essential.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-4-2">
        <title>5.2 Limitations and Implications</title>
        <p>While the current study provides a number of interesting
findings, some caution is necessary regarding their
generalisability due to a number of limiting factors. One
of the limitations refers to the use of a laboratory
experiment that may compromise external validity.
Another limitation relates to artificial generation of
information that may not reflect the true nature of real
business. The participants chosen for the study were
students and not real life decision makers. The fact that
they were mature graduates may mitigate the potential
differences. No monetary incentives were offered to the
participants for their effort in the study. Consequently,
they could find the study tiring and unimportant and
would not try as hard as possible. Most decisions in real
business settings have significant consequences.</p>
        <p>Although limited, the findings of the current study may
have some important implications for organisational
knowledge management strategies. Firstly, they provide
information about two valuable knowledge management
initiatives (experimentation and socialisation) that
facilitate knowledge creation and improve performance of
organisational knowledge workers. Secondly, they point
to the need to consider relative importance and limitations
of these initiatives in planning knowledge management
strategies to prevent unrealistic expectations. Finally, they
suggest the need for additional initiatives (eg. knowledge
transfer through education and training) to enable even
higher levels of knowledge and performance. According
to Davenport and Prusak [Dev97] only by taking a
holistic approach it is possible to realise the full potential
of knowledge ecology.</p>
        <p>Future research is necessary to empirically investigate
the potential of other various individual or combined and
integrated knowledge management initiatives to further
enhance knowledge and enable optimal performance. One
possible direction for future research is to explore the
potential contribution of instruction (eg. coaching and
mentoring) to enhancing individual tacit know-how.
Future research may also examine the role of explicit
analytical and procedural knowledge embedded in
organisational repositories. Technology may play an
important role in capturing and distributing organisational
knowledge, as well as in promoting human interaction
and knowledge sharing. Therefore, future research may
examine the potential of various information and
telecommunication technologies to enable and facilitate
knowledge processes. Finally, future research may look at
how different knowledge management initiatives interact
to create potential synergy effects. These suggested
directions are neither prescriptive nor exhaustive, but
represent only a small selection of issues that are
currently of interest to the author.</p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-5">
      <title>6 Conclusions</title>
      <p>The main objective of this study was to investigate
whether and how the opportunity for individual
experimentation and socialisation with others may affect
decision makers’ working knowledge and performance in
a specific judgemental decision task. The findings of the
study indicate that both experimentation and socialisation
were beneficial in enhancing decision makers’ working
knowledge and subsequent decision performance. The
opportunity to experiment led to enhanced decision
accuracy compared to naive strategy, while encouraged
social interaction led to further significant improvement
in accuracy over and above that achieved through
independent experimentation. However, optimal
performance was not achieved. These findings indicate
room for improvement. They also suggest that non-expert
professional knowledge workers in judgement and
decision making tasks could benefit from other additional
knowledge management initiatives. Therefore, further
research is necessary to systematically address various
combined and integrated initiatives in different tasks and
contexts and among different knowledge workers if a
better understanding of the field is to be achieved.
12-5</p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>
          <article-title>[Aao98] AAOTE. BC Knowledge Management</article-title>
          .
          <source>Arthur Andersen Office of Training and Education</source>
          , Arthur Andersen,
          <year>1998</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <mixed-citation>
          [Ash80]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>R.H.</given-names>
            <surname>Ashton</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>S.S.</given-names>
            <surname>Kramer</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Students as Surrogates in Behavioural Accounting Research: Some Evidence</article-title>
          .
          <source>Journal of Accounting Research</source>
          ,
          <volume>18</volume>
          (
          <issue>1</issue>
          ):
          <fpage>1</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>15</lpage>
          ,
          <year>1980</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref3">
        <mixed-citation>
          [Bax99]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
            <surname>Baxter</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>W.F.</given-names>
            <surname>Chua</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Now and the Future</article-title>
          .
          <source>Australian Accounting Review</source>
          ,
          <volume>9</volume>
          (
          <issue>3</issue>
          ):
          <fpage>3</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>14</lpage>
          ,
          <year>1999</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref4">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Extrapolation</surname>
          </string-name>
          of Time Series.
          <source>International Journal of Forecasting</source>
          ,
          <volume>1</volume>
          :
          <fpage>25</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>35</lpage>
          ,
          <year>1985</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref5">
        <mixed-citation>
          [Bea78]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>L.R.</given-names>
            <surname>Beach</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>T.R.</given-names>
            <surname>Mitchell</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>A contingency model for the Selection of Strategies</article-title>
          .
          <source>Academy of Management Review</source>
          ,
          <volume>3</volume>
          :
          <fpage>439</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>449</lpage>
          ,
          <year>1978</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref6">
        <mixed-citation>
          [Mak93]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
            <surname>Makridakis</surname>
          </string-name>
          . Accuracy Measures: Theoretical and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Practical</given-names>
            <surname>Concerns</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <source>International Journal of Forecasting</source>
          ,
          <volume>9</volume>
          :
          <fpage>527</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>529</lpage>
          ,
          <year>1993</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref7">
        <mixed-citation>
          [Bea93]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>L.R.</given-names>
            <surname>Beach</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
            <surname>Lipshitz</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Why Classical Decision Theory Is an Inappropriate Standard for Evaluating and Aiding Most Human Decision Making</article-title>
          . In G.A.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Klein</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Orasany</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Calderwood</surname>
            and
            <given-names>C.E.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>Zsambok (eds) Decision Making in Action: Models and Methods</article-title>
          , Ablex Publishing Corporation,
          <fpage>21</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>36</lpage>
          ,
          <year>1993</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref8">
        <mixed-citation>
          [Bre80]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>B.</given-names>
            <surname>Brehmer</surname>
          </string-name>
          . In One Word:
          <article-title>Not from Experience</article-title>
          .
          <source>Acta Psychologica</source>
          ,
          <volume>45</volume>
          :
          <fpage>223</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>241</lpage>
          ,
          <year>1980</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref9">
        <mixed-citation>
          [Cre90]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>E.H.</given-names>
            <surname>Creyer</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.R.</given-names>
            <surname>Bettman</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.W.</given-names>
            <surname>Payne</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>The Impact of Accuracy and Effort Feedback and Goals on Adaptive Decision Behaviour</article-title>
          .
          <source>Journal of Behavioural Decision Making</source>
          ,
          <volume>3</volume>
          (
          <issue>1</issue>
          ):
          <fpage>1</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>16</lpage>
          ,
          <year>1990</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref10">
        <mixed-citation>
          [Dav97]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>T.H.</given-names>
            <surname>Davenport</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>L.Prusak. Information</given-names>
            <surname>Ecology</surname>
          </string-name>
          . Oxford University Press, Oxford,
          <year>1997</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref11">
        <mixed-citation>
          [Dev99]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>K.</given-names>
            <surname>Devlin</surname>
          </string-name>
          . Infosense: Turning Information into
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Knowledge. W.H.</given-names>
            <surname>Freeman</surname>
          </string-name>
          and Company, New York,
          <year>1999</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref12">
        <mixed-citation>
          [Dru93]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>P.F.</given-names>
            <surname>Drucker</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <string-name>
            <surname>Post-Capitalist Society</surname>
          </string-name>
          . Harper Business, New York,
          <year>1993</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref13">
        <mixed-citation>
          [Gar98]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>D.A.</given-names>
            <surname>Garvin</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Building a Learning Organisation</article-title>
          .
          <source>Harvard Business Review on Knowledge Management</source>
          , HBR Press, Boston,
          <year>1998</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref14">
        <mixed-citation>
          [Hea95]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>C.</given-names>
            <surname>Heath</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
            <surname>Gonzales</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Interaction with Others Increases Confidence but not Decision Quality: Evidence against Information Collection Views of Interactive Decision Making. Organisational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes</article-title>
          ,
          <volume>61</volume>
          (
          <issue>3</issue>
          ):
          <fpage>305</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>326</lpage>
          ,
          <year>1995</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref15">
        <mixed-citation>
          [Hew99]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
            <surname>Hewson</surname>
          </string-name>
          . Start Talking and Get to Work.
          <source>Business Life</source>
          ,
          <fpage>72</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>76</lpage>
          ,
          <year>November 1999</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref16">
        <mixed-citation>
          [Hoc96]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>S.J.</given-names>
            <surname>Hoch</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>D.A.</given-names>
            <surname>Schade</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>A Psychological Approach to Decision Support Systems</article-title>
          . Management Science,
          <volume>42</volume>
          (
          <issue>1</issue>
          ):
          <fpage>51</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>65</lpage>
          ,
          <year>1996</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref17">
        <mixed-citation>
          [Jan82]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>I.L.</given-names>
            <surname>Janis</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy decisions and fiascoes</article-title>
          .
          <source>Houghton Mifflin</source>
          . Boston,
          <year>1982</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref18">
        <mixed-citation>
          [Kla88]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
            <surname>Klayman</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Learning from Experience</article-title>
          . In B.Brehmer and
          <string-name>
            <surname>C.R.B.Joyce</surname>
          </string-name>
          (eds) Human Judgement.
          <source>The SJT View</source>
          . North Holland, Amsterdam,
          <year>1988</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref19">
        <mixed-citation>
          [Kop86]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>R.E.Kopelman. Objective</given-names>
            <surname>Feedback</surname>
          </string-name>
          . In E.A.Locke (ed), Generalising from Laboratory to Field Settings.
          <source>Lexington Books</source>
          ,
          <year>1986</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref20">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>[Law85] M.Lawrence</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>B.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Edmundson and M.O'Connor</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>An Examination of Accuracy of Judgemental [Non95] I.Nonaka</article-title>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>H.</given-names>
            <surname>Takeuchi</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <source>The KnowledgeCreating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation</source>
          . Oxford University Press, New York,
          <year>1995</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref21">
        <mixed-citation>
          <source>[Non98] I.Nonaka. The Knowledge-Creating Company. Harvard Business Review on Knowledge Management. Harvard</source>
          Business School Press, Boston,
          <year>1998</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref22">
        <mixed-citation>
          [Pay88]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.W.</given-names>
            <surname>Payne</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.R.</given-names>
            <surname>Bettman</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>E.J.</given-names>
            <surname>Johnson</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Adaptive Strategy Selection in Decision Making</article-title>
          .
          <source>Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition</source>
          ,
          <volume>14</volume>
          (
          <issue>3</issue>
          ):
          <fpage>534</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>552</lpage>
          ,
          <year>1988</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref23">
        <mixed-citation>
          [Plo93]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
            <surname>Plous</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>The Psychology of Judgement and Decision Making. McGraw-Hill, Inc</article-title>
          ., New York,
          <year>1993</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref24">
        <mixed-citation>
          [Rem96]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>W.</given-names>
            <surname>Remus</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Will Behavioural Research on Managerial Decision Making Generalise to Managers</article-title>
          .
          <source>Managerial and Decision Economics</source>
          ,
          <volume>17</volume>
          :
          <fpage>93</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>101</lpage>
          ,
          <year>1996</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref25">
        <mixed-citation>
          [Sim90]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>H.A.</given-names>
            <surname>Simon</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Alternative Visions of Rationality</article-title>
          . In P.Moser (ed) Rationality in Action: Contemporary Approaches. Cambridge University Press,
          <year>1990</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref26">
        <mixed-citation>
          [Ste97]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>T.A.</given-names>
            <surname>Stewart</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <source>Intellectual Capital: The New Wealth of Organisations. Doubleday</source>
          , New York,
          <year>1997</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref27">
        <mixed-citation>
          [Tve74]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
            <surname>Tversky</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
            <surname>Kahneman</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Judgement under Uncertainty: Heuristics and biases</article-title>
          .
          <source>Science</source>
          ,
          <volume>185</volume>
          :
          <fpage>1124</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>1130</lpage>
          ,
          <year>1974</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref28">
        <mixed-citation>
          [Whi96]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>S.M.</given-names>
            <surname>Whitecotton</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>The Effects of Experience and a Decision Aid on the Slope, Scatter and Bias of Earnings Forecasts</article-title>
          .
          <source>Organisational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes</source>
          ,
          <volume>66</volume>
          (
          <issue>1</issue>
          ):
          <fpage>111</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>121</lpage>
          ,
          <year>1996</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>