Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 543

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Types of Organizational Decision Processes

Nutt, Paul C.·1984·Administrative Science Quarterly

Abstract

Seventy-eight case studies of decision making were profiled to identify the nature of the process. Analysis revealed evaluative, historical model, off-the-shelf, search, and nova process types. These processes differ in their approach to idea generation, the guarantors applied, and process-management rationale. Variations in each type are described to lay out the distinctions between the processes. The study found that managers do not use the normative methods prescribed by scholars for good decision making. Most decision processes were found to be solution centered, which seemed to restrict innovation, limit the number of alternatives considered, and perpetuate the use of questionable tactics.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/2393033

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Nutt, P. C.
Venue
Administrative Science Quarterly
Publisher
JSTOR
Published
1984-09
Volume
29
Issue
3
Pages
414
ISSN
0001-8392 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2016851049
Cited by
543
References
1
FWCI
17.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.