Johannes Siebert

Category: Blog-en

  • Fifty years of decision analysis in operational research: A review

    Fifty years of decision analysis in operational research: A review

    We review the development of research in Decision Analysis (DA) over the past fifty years. After presenting the axiomatic foundations and discussing the DA process, we start with value-focused thinking as a problem structuring method. We then analyze the model building phase, with a focus on graphical models for decision-making under uncertainty: belief networks, decision trees, and influence diagrams. Next, we analyze how DA research has dealt with uncertainty focusing on the areas of elicitation, aggregation, and evaluation. We then discuss sensitivity analysis, describing local and global techniques, from one-way sensitivity analysis to the value of information. Finally, we review the literature on information acquisition and discuss the role of information value in this context

    Borgonovo, Emanuele; José, Victor, R. R, Shachter, Ross; Siebert, Johannes U; Ulu, Canan. “Fifty Years of Decision Analysis in Operational Research: A Review” (Invited Review on occasion of the celebration of the 50th Anniversary of EURO (the European association of Operational Research Societies), European Journal of Operational Research) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2025.05.023

  • Deciding for a Secure Tomorrow: Proactive Decision-Making and Retirement Financial Planning Behavior

    Deciding for a Secure Tomorrow: Proactive Decision-Making and Retirement Financial Planning Behavior

    Retirement financial planning behavior (RFPB) encompasses the concrete actions individuals take to prepare financially for retirement. We examine RFPB from an Operational Research (OR) perspective using Decision Analysis (DA) principles—decision quality and value-focused thinking—operationalized via proactive decision-making (PDM), which integrates DA-grounded proactive cognitive skills (PCS) with proactive personality traits derived from the organizational behavior literature. Using cross-sectional survey data from 457 UK adults and structural equation modelling with systematic model comparisons and multigroup tests, we assess whether PDM influences RFPB through four psychological traits—propensity to plan, confidence in financial information search, willingness to accept investment risk, and general self-efficacy—and whether relationships differ by financial literacy and numeracy. Results show that PDM affects RFPB entirely through these psychological traits (full mediation), with PCS—the trainable, DA-grounded decision-analytic skills—serving as the operative mechanism, while proactive personality traits are non-significant in this pathway. The mediated model explains 57.1% of RFPB variance and outperforms partial-mediation, traits-only, and reverse-causality alternatives. Multigroup analyses indicate that the indirect structure holds across financial literacy and numeracy groups, with patterns suggesting a compensatory role of PCS under lower financial literacy. Together, the evidence links DA-grounded decision-analytic skills to RFPB. Our findings highlight the potential of PCS-focused decision-analytic competence training as an OR-relevant mechanism to promote RFPB, complementing financial literacy and numeracy programs. Additionally, our study complements optimization-focused OR approaches to retirement financial planning by identifying PCS as a decision-analytic lever that strengthens RFPB—the behavioural precondition for adopting such optimized prescriptions in practice.

    Siebert, Jana; Siebert Johannes U., Blösl, Florian; “Deciding for a Secure Tomorrow – Examining Proactive Decision-Making and Retirement Planning Behavior”, European Journal of Operational Research) (in press), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2025.10.021

  • ChatGPT vs. Experts: Can GenAI Develop High-Quality Organizational and Policy Objectives?

    ChatGPT vs. Experts: Can GenAI Develop High-Quality Organizational and Policy Objectives?

    This paper explores the efficacy of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) for value-focused thinking, specifically its ability to generate high-quality sets of objectives for organizational and policy decisions. Overall, we find that while most GenAI-generated objectives are individually viable, the objective sets as a whole exhibit substantial shortcomings. They often include nonessential considerations, omit important objectives, and lack structure due to redundancy and poor decomposability. A key issue is the tendency of GenAI to include means objectives, even when explicitly instructed not to do so.

    At the same time, we show that the quality of objective sets can be significantly improved by applying best practices in prompting and incorporating decision analysis (DA) expertise. The findings highlight the importance of a human-in-the-loop approach: GenAI is useful for generating initial objective ideas, but expert input from decision analysts is essential before using the results to support real-world decision making.

    To operationalize this, we present and demonstrate a four-step approach that combines the complementary strengths of GenAI and decision analysts.

    Simon, Jay; Siebert, Johannes U. ChatGPT vs. Experts: Can GenAI Develop High Quality Organizational and Policy Objectives? Decision Analysis (in press). https://doi.org/10.1287/deca.2025.0387

  • Linear Transformation of One-Dimensional Utility Functions: Empirical Study on the Impact on the Final Ranking of Alternatives in Personal Decisions

    Linear Transformation of One-Dimensional Utility Functions: Empirical Study on the Impact on the Final Ranking of Alternatives in Personal Decisions

    Determining one-dimensional utility functions for each objective in multiattribute utility theory (MAUT) requires substantial time and cognitive effort from decision makers. They must account for decreasing or increasing marginal utility as well as their individual risk attitudes, often resulting in nonlinear utility functions. This assessment process is prone to errors and distortions.

    In this study, we analyze the extent to which a linear transformation of one-dimensional utility functions compromises decision quality. Specifically, we examine three aspects: the use of (non)linear utility functions, their impact on the ranking of alternatives, and the stability of the best alternatives depending on utility differences under the assumption of linearity.

    Our analysis is based on 2,536 carefully modeled personal decisions conducted by students using the decision support tool Entscheidungsnavi. The results show that 95.9% of participants used at least one nonlinear utility function, and 76.4% of all objectives were evaluated nonlinearly. Simplifying preference-accurate utility functions through linearization led to a rank reversal of the best alternative in 15.5% of the decisions. The set of the top three alternatives changed in 14% of the cases. However, in 98.8% of the decisions, the best alternative remained within the top three under the assumption of linear utility functions.

    Based on these findings, we recommend determining utility functions as preference-accurately as possible, including nonlinearities, especially for important decisions. However, no rank reversal of the best alternative was observed when the absolute utility difference between the best and second-best alternative exceeded 0.27 under linearity. In such cases, assuming linear utility functions can be a useful simplification to save time and effort.

    Tönsfeuerborn, Mendy; von Nitzsch, Rüdiger; Siebert, Johannes U. “Do Non-Linear Utility Functions Matter? Analyzing the Impact of Non-Linear Utility Functions on the Final Ranking with the Entscheidungsnavi”, Decision Analysis, 23(1), 46–64. https://doi.org/10.1287/deca.2024.0317
     

  • Decision scientist Johannes Siebert: School over – now what? How young people find the right career

    Decision scientist Johannes Siebert: School over – now what? How young people find the right career

    What comes after school? Choosing a career and course of study is one of the first significant decisions young people make in life—and often one of the most challenging. Decision scientist Prof. Johannes Siebert explains why it is more than just a “compulsory program” and what opportunities it offers.

    Many young people are currently asking themselves: “What am I going to do after school?” Why is this decision so important?

    For many of them, choosing a career or course of study is one of the first significant decisions they must make independently. It not only influences their professional career, but also their self-confidence and their prospects. In short: their lives. It is often possible to change the initial decision to study or do vocational training without a great deal of bureaucracy.

    However, as surveys show, this often results in considerable individual psychological stress for young people – not to mention the overall economic consequences, such as an increased shortage of skilled workers and lower economic productivity due to delayed career entry.

    Read the full article here (in German): https://www.focus.de/familie/ausbildung/entscheidungswissenschaftler-johannes-siebert-schule-vorbei-und-jetzt-wie-junge-menschen-den-passenden-beruf-finden_22435455-3583-4c2a-8981-3b80dd727a0b.html

    Please stay current and do not miss any of my contributions on Focus Online. Follow me and network with me for exciting insights and current discussions. I look forward to exchanging ideas with you! https://www.linkedin.com/in/johannes-siebert/

  • Lies and manipulation on the internet: expert shows you two effective ways to protect yourself against fake news

    Lies and manipulation on the internet: expert shows you two effective ways to protect yourself against fake news

    Fake news is deliberately spread to manipulate opinions and, thus, elections. Fact checks alone are powerless against their public effectiveness. However, in combination with other tools, resistance to false claims can be strengthened in the long term.

    “You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time,” declared US President Abraham Lincoln more than 150 years ago. Even though he was already vividly aware of the influence of fake news on public opinion back then, he was confident enough to believe that the truth would prevail in the end – at least for most people. Can we still share this optimism in the age of internet media that is prone to manipulation and its global networking?

    Despite prominent experiences to the contrary, resignation is clearly out of place. A large number of scientific studies have recently examined the effects of fake news and developed effective countermeasures. The results are cause for concern, but they also show that we are by no means defenseless against the seductive power of fake news. Perhaps just reading this article can help you react more consciously and resiliently in the future to campaigns that aim to persuade you to believe something you would never think on your own.

    Read the full article here (in German): https://www.focus.de/experts/profi-zeigt-zwei-methoden-wie-sie-sich-effektiv-gegen-fake-news-wappnen-koennen_id_260161530.html

    Please stay current and do not miss any of my contributions on FOCUS Online. Follow me and network with me for exciting insights and current discussions. I look forward to exchanging ideas with you! https://www.linkedin.com/in/johannes-siebert/

  • How to become your own decision architect and make better career decisions

    How to become your own decision architect and make better career decisions

    The only way that you can purposefully influence anything in your life is by your decisions. The rest of your life happens. This article offers practical concepts and proper procedures, empowering you to become your own decision architect and make systematically better decisions, ultimately improving your life. Additionally, specific tips for making career decisions are provided.

    Note: This article is based on the TEDxInnsbruck “Give yourself a nudge: How you can make better decisions”, 2021 (available at https://www.ted.com/talks/johannes_siebert_nudge_yourself_to_make_better_decisions). It also offers specific guidance on making informed career decisions.

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374631691_How_to_become_your_own_decision_architect_and_make_better_career_decisions

  • Enhancing misinformation correction: New variants and a combination of awareness training and counter-speech to mitigate belief perseverance bias

    Enhancing misinformation correction: New variants and a combination of awareness training and counter-speech to mitigate belief perseverance bias

    Belief perseverance bias refers to an individual’s tendency to persist in holding biased opinions even after the misinformation that initially shaped those opinions has been retracted. This study contributes to research on reducing the negative impact of misinformation by mitigating the belief perseverance bias. The study explores the previously proposed awareness-training and counter-speech debiasing techniques, further developing them by introducing new variants and combining them. We investigate their effectiveness in mitigating the belief perseverance bias after the retraction of misinformation related to a real-life issue in an experiment involving 876 individuals, of whom 364 exhibit the belief perseverance bias. The effectiveness of the debiasing techniques is assessed by measuring the difference between the baseline opinions before exposure to misinformation and the opinions after exposure to a debiasing technique. Our study confirmed the effectiveness of awareness-training and counter-speech debiasing techniques in mitigating the belief perseverance bias, finding no discernible differences in effectiveness between the previously proposed and new variants. Moreover, we observed that the combination of awareness training and counter-speech is more effective in mitigating the belief perseverance bias than the single debiasing techniques.

    Siebert, Jana, Siebert, Johannes U. “Enhancing misinformation correction: New variants and a combination of awareness training and counter-speech to mitigate belief perseverance bias”. PLoS ONE 19(2): e0299139, 2024, 1-15, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0299139

  • Generation A – Making decisions easier for young people

    Generation A – Making decisions easier for young people

    BAYREUTH. Can young people even make decisions for themselves – and make good decisions for themselves? Of course, says Prof. Johannes Siebert, and has a task for the audience: a young person wants to play computer games with his friends on the weekend. The young people call it “gaming”. However, he has not performed the best at school in the past year, and there is a critical math exam just after the gaming weekend. Should parents allow it or not? The listeners clearly say no. What happens in a family? The parents say, if you promise to cram for at least two hours every day until the Zock weekend, then we’ll allow it. But who makes the decision? “The parents,” says Siebert. But there is a way for young people to gain control over the decision themselves. They can suggest that they study until Thursday before the gambling weekend – and then have their parents listen to them. If he has mastered the material, he can take a risk. If not, no gambling.

    Johannes Siebert works at the Management Center Innsbruck and is a private lecturer at the University of Bayreuth. He advises the Pentagon and is a columnist for Focus magazine. At the University of Bayreuth, he is responsible for the “Klug entscheiden!” research project. He says that making smart decisions can change your life. That’s why he wants to strengthen young people’s decision-making skills. Put simply, if young people can make good decisions, they can also make better decisions in their educational pursuits. This leads to fewer young people dropping out of training, fewer failures, and they become happier.

    Fewer options desired

    Sounds simple and is easier than expected. The project is already being implemented in many schools, and there will soon be two “lighthouse schools” in Kulmbach. Pupils break down complex decisions into small steps. Problem: The kids are “bombarded” with options for action, such as tens of thousands of study options. “But if they don’t have the skills,” warns Siebert, “all the options go nowhere, come to nothing.” The principle is similar to that of online shoe retailer Zalando: the more criteria you specify, the smaller the selection. Until the right shoe comes out……

    The complete, excellent article by chief reporter Otto Lapp from the Nordbayerischen Kurier can be found here: https://www.kurier.de/inhalt.generation-a-lost-am-handy-oder-was.210c70c8-81d9-4def-a5a3-b36ea31fb743.html

  • From wish to reality: Find happiness! If you follow 6 steps, you will make good decisions

    From wish to reality: Find happiness! If you follow 6 steps, you will make good decisions

    We can actively shape our lives through our decisions ─ both professionally and personally. But how do we make decisions that are likely to influence our lives in the way we want them to? Decision scientist Johannes Siebert provides answers.

    We often invest a lot of time and energy in important decisions. Nevertheless, sometimes we are dissatisfied with ourselves afterward. But when is self-criticism justified? What makes a good decision anyway?

    Only when we are clear about how we can make good decisions can we increase our own life satisfaction through our actions.

    First of all, a key point: the results of our decisions are not a criterion for their quality. Although we can influence the future, it is never entirely up to us how it turns out. There is always a residual uncertainty.

    Imagine we decide to travel to a destination known for its white sandy beaches and reliably sunny weather in the summer months. Then, we experience heavy rain showers, cold winds, or tanker accidents that pollute the beach.

    Did we make a wrong decision because of this? No, because we could neither foresee nor influence any of this when we made our decision.

    Instead, the quality of our decisions depends on six elements that are primarily within our own control and that interlock like the links in a chain. The following applies: the decision can never be better than the weakest link in the chain. It is, therefore, worth striving for the highest possible quality in all of the following six elements!

    Read the full article here (in German): https://www.focus.de/experts/vom-wunsch-zur-wirklichkeit-yes-we-can-mit-diesen-6-schritten-finden-sie-ihr-persoenliches-glueck_id_259842310.html

    Please stay current and not miss any of my contributions on FOCUS Online. For exciting insights and current discussions, follow me and network with me. I look forward to exchanging ideas with you! https://www.linkedin.com/in/johannes-siebert/