Page 1 of 23

Group Number: 2

Analytical Thinking & Decision Making (ATDM)

Group Project

Application of Decision Trees to determine Optimal Sequence of

Decisions to Maximise Profits for
UWS Technical Services

Student Name Banner number

Chan Kin Peng B01653049
Dennis Chong Peng Wah B01665609
Gurpreet Kaur B01653051
Jason Kendrene Chai B01665620
Puspakala Namachiwayan B01730702
Terence Dinesh B01653043

2,168 words excluding references. 18th April 2024

 Page 2 of 23

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 3
Q1: VALUE OF DECISION ANALYSIS FOR ORGANISATIONS .......................................... 4
Challenges faced during Decision Making ......................................................................... 4
Decomposition of Decision Problems (DP) ........................................................................ 4
Decision Analysis in Organisations .................................................................................... 5
Decision Analysis Components ......................................................................................... 5
Approach to Decision Analysis .......................................................................................... 5
Q2: CHALLENGES FACED BY UWS TECHNICAL SERVICES ........................................... 6
Managerial Decision Making .............................................................................................. 6
Making Probability Estimates (PE)..................................................................................... 6
Project Management ......................................................................................................... 6
Managing Cost .................................................................................................................. 6
Availability of Resources ................................................................................................... 6
Q3: DECISION ANALYSIS AND DECISION TREE ............................................................... 7
Decision Tree Architecture ................................................................................................ 7
Decision points and variables ............................................................................................ 7
Cashflow Outcomes .......................................................................................................... 8
Q4: BEST APPROACH WITH ROLLBACK & EXPECTED VALUE ....................................... 9
What’s a Rollback? ............................................................................................................ 9
How to calculate EVs?....................................................................................................... 9
How to apply Rollback on Decision Trees........................................................................ 10
Recommendation ............................................................................................................ 11
Q5: DISCUSS STRENGTH & WEAKNESS OF THE ANALYSIS ........................................ 12
Strengths ......................................................................................................................... 12
Limitations ....................................................................................................................... 12
Q6: IMPACT OF REVISING PROBABILITY ESTIMATES ................................................... 13
What is a Probability Estimate (PE)? ............................................................................... 13
Evaluating PE influence through Sensitivity Analysis (SA) ............................................... 13
Identifying the Turnover Point (TP) .................................................................................. 14
Influence of Probability Estimate Revisions on Decision Tree .......................................... 14
CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................... 15
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 16
 Page 3 of 23

INTRODUCTION

UWS Technical Services (UWS) generates income by building customised software &
providing technical support to its clientele.

Throughout operations, UWS may pursue numerous software projects to accumulate revenue
for the organisation.

However, not all deals are worth pursuing because proposals not only cost money, but also
possess the latent risk of failure or being unprofitable (Pedersen & Ritter, 2024).

Whilst these decisions are complex, to gain a strategic competitive advantage UWS must
improve its ability to estimate its odds of success whilst determining which strategic options
maximise potential returns to determine if it’s still sensible to proceed (Cote, 2020).

This paper aims to evaluate the benefits & challenges of leveraging a Decision Analysis (DA)
tool like a Decision Tree (DT) to ascertain the most optimal series of choices a firm can make
to maximise their returns whilst balancing the risk of uncertainty.
 Page 4 of 23

Q1: VALUE OF DECISION ANALYSIS FOR ORGANISATIONS

Challenges faced during Decision Making

Doing business requires Decision Makers (DM) to allocate resources to execute strategies
that optimise profits to sustain operations and fuel growth whilst minimising depletion of
resources (Reed & Baird, 2019).

Unfortunately, DMs regularly encounter challenges that are tough to decipher where it’s
difficult to determine the best course of action due to incomplete information (Kida et al., 2010).

Decomposition of Decision Problems (DP)

Starting with a Problem Statement, DPs can be further refined to identify the DM together with
their Goals to map suitable Strategic Options that consider the impact of each choice for
evaluation (Keeney, 1982).

Subsequently, recommendations can be tabled based on factors like cost & profit whilst also
respecting DM preferences & appetite for risk (Pratt et al., 1964).
 Page 5 of 23

Decision Analysis in Organisations

DA is used to guide DMs to make informed decisions by distilling multifaceted issues into
straightforward problems that can be addressed in isolation before they are reconstituted in
the bigger picture (Rodrigo et al., 2024).

Furthermore, they assist to pinpoint relevant alternatives together with their payoffs so that
DMs may describe why selected options were considered advantageous for the firm (Daniel
& Terrell, 1978).

Decision Analysis Components

Undertaking DA requires DMs to firstly introduce a framework to define the problem statement,
together with the situational factors influencing it (Morgan & Sonquist, 1963).

Next, it should provide a method to define possible alternatives together with the benefits &
perils of each approach.

Lastly, DA should assist to ascertain the strongest options available based DM priorities and
appetite for risk (Kumar, 2014).

Approach to Decision Analysis

When dealing with convoluted issues, DTs are because they visually narrate complex
scenarios whilst articulating the logical choices together with the consequences of each option
for the DM to deliberate on (Thompson et al., 2017).

Furthermore, DTs are capable of modelling risks and payoffs into scenarios, making them
invaluable when tackling issues involving uncertainty where results may fall across a spectrum
of attractiveness (Selby & Porter, 1988).
 Page 6 of 23

Q2: CHALLENGES FACED BY UWS TECHNICAL SERVICES

Managerial Decision Making

During Software Development (SD), Pacheco & Tovar (2007) observe that DMs may need to
consider interests from multiple stakeholders.

Sales will typically prioritise factors influencing revenue and costs whilst the Project
Management & Developers will focus more on time & manpower (Klotins et al., 2018).

Making Probability Estimates (PE)

Whilst UWS is confident in delivering Package A, DMs may possess insufficient experience to
extend reliable PEs to appraise success when developing Packages B - D (Schroeder, 1991).

Moreover, potential access to fresh insights may result in PE revisions and reformulation of
their optimal approach based on new evidence (Maglio & Polman, 2016).

Project Management
Throughout SD, Niazi et al. (2013) observes that the duration required to code & debug
programs may often be misjudged, causing delays & reduced software quality.

Furthermore, to mitigate risks related to potential failure during development, contingency

plans may need to be introduced which consumes time & additional resources (Moreno et al.,
2021).

Availability of Resources
Next, budgetary constraints may restrain UWS’s ability to allocate the experienced developers
during SD, which may reduce odds of success (IEEE, 2024).

Additionally, when programmers juggle many projects, their availability is frequently

overestimated, which may result in conflict when timelines overlap (Baek, 2023).

Managing Cost
Lastly, Atkinson (1999) observes that SD costs are directly proportionate to the amount of
people assigned to the project & the time spent, which accrue into salaries & fixed overheads.

This means unforeseen delays due to software quality or failure to complete will inevitably
drive expenses up due to extended timelines or redevelopment (Austin, 2001).
 Page 7 of 23

Q3: DECISION ANALYSIS AND DECISION TREE

Decision Tree Architecture

DTs are logical representations of a scenario inclusive of all possible strategic options
available to a DM (Morgan & Sonquist, 1963).

Blank boxes in DTs represent Decision Nodes (DN) that reflect possible choices whereas each
circle symbolises a Chance Node (CN) which narrates the probability of a scenario occurring
(Taddy et al., 2023).

Decision points and variables

From the DT, the DM must first decide to bid for or decline the project, where submitting a
proposal incurs GBP 30k in return for a 50% chance at GBP 500k.

Secondly, they need to choose between developing a web application which will cost GBP
10k or a mobile application amounting to GBP 30k.

Lastly, they must select which Software Package to develop, with Software Package A
earmarked as a backup plan which is activated should the first Software Package fail.
 Page 8 of 23

Cashflow Outcomes
Cashflow refers to the incoming or outgoing trajectory of funds for an organisation (Jury, 2012). Based on potential revenue & costs incurred in
the DT, the net position under different decisions is simulated by considering how much money is left should they succeed the first time around
with what funds remain should development of their first software package fail, thus triggering the need to activate Package A to save the project.

Without considering likelihood of success, findings suggest that that Website Software Package C may potentially generate the highest payoff at
GBP 410k.
 Page 9 of 23

Q4: BEST APPROACH WITH ROLLBACK & EXPECTED VALUE

What’s a Rollback?

The Rollback is a method that applies lexicographic policies against the Expected Values (EV)
of each decision starting from the leaf node whilst working its way backwards towards the root
of the DT to determine the most optimal series of choices for a DM (Magee, 1964).

To optimise monetary payoff, a policy of maximising profit and likelihood of success whilst
minimising cost should be made at each DN in the DT to best achieve organisational
objectives (Thompson et al., 2017).

How to calculate EVs?

Huettig (2020) opines that EVs are computed by multiplying the probability of an event
happening with the potential value of each choice.

In the example below, we document that the EV of developing Software Package B is GBP
350k & this process is iteratively calculated for Packages A-D across both permutations to
build on Web or Mobile App.
 Page 10 of 23

How to apply Rollback on Decision Trees

Upon calculating EVs from software package options, these are entered into circles on the DT
where they are then compared against peers by examining the tree from right to left and from
the top to the bottom (Burnard, 2022).

Each time a higher EV coming from another option is encountered, the branch with the lower
EV is eliminated from the DT & this is denoted by placing two bars on that node.

In the example below, this leads to Website Software Package C (WSPC) being the winning
choice at GBP 390k, which we now place into the rectangle representing the Decision Node
(DN) with the optimal option.
 Page 11 of 23

Decision Tree Recommendation

By applying the Rollback on the DT, observations indicate that the winning option at DN1 is
the WSPC with an EV of GBP 390k, whilst the optimal candidate at DN2 is represented by the
App version of Software Package B (ASPB) at GBP 365k.

Next, as we traverse from right to left & compare DN1 and DN2 side-by-side, DN2 is eliminated
from the race and the value of GBP 390k is carried backwards into DN3.

Subsequently, we move further down the DT to observe GBP 180k as the EV for submitting a
proposal & GBP 0 resulting from declining the project, where we can conclude that the option
to bid is clearly more beneficial.

Lastly this results in DN4 being populated with GBP 180k at the root of the DT, which
terminates this process as there are no more nodes to explore.

This suggests that submitting the proposal and selecting WSPC is the most effective route to
maximise the monetary payoff.
 Page 12 of 23

Q5: DISCUSS STRENGTH & WEAKNESS OF THE ANALYSIS

Strengths
DTs can easily accommodate variables representing classifications & numbers which adds
more colour during DA (Witten et al., 2011).

Categorical data denote variables such as Software Package types whereas numeric
information refer to elements like Revenue, Cost and Probability Estimates (PE).

Throughout the DA process, DTs were also instrumental in decomposing complex DPs into
multi-stage choices that allow DMs to weigh the pros & cons of each choice at each given
juncture (Kumar, 2014).

This was especially evident when DTs made it clear that the DM had the choice of pursuing
or dropping the project and to select between Software Packages A-D to develop to fulfil
project obligations.

Lastly, DTs clearly depicted the consequences of each decision and the probabilities of
achieving them so that the most beneficial sequence of decisions could be ascertained
(ACCA, 2023).

This was demonstrated through the DT Rollback, which calculated the EV of all options whilst
considering the probabilities of success and failure to determine the best choices to match DM
policies.

Limitations
Whilst DTs are useful, evidence suggests that DTs are unfortunately prone to
oversimplification (Ho et al., 2020).

This implies it may fail to include other criteria that may also influence the choices of the DM,
such as the impact of having programmers with differing capabilities assigned to the project.

Additionally, Kaminski et al. (2017) observe that DT recommendations may be volatile

because mutations in input variables may lead to different results.

For example, although the DT currently concludes that WSPC is the strongest choice, should
PEs be revised, this may cause other options to become more favourable.
 Page 13 of 23

Q6: IMPACT OF REVISING PROBABILITY ESTIMATES

What is a Probability Estimate (PE)?

Chawla & Cieslak (2006) define PEs as a hypothesis on the odds of an event occurring based
on evidence or assumptions made at a specific Chance Node (CN) in a DT.

Should UWS revise their initial PEs, this may alter not only the accuracy of the DT but also
trigger different recommendations due to fluctuating EVs computed during the Rollback (Lin
et al., 2020).

Evaluating PE influence through Sensitivity Analysis (SA)

To ascertain the impact of altering PEs in a DT, a SA can be undertaken to determine how
significant this variable is towards the DT’s final recommendation (Kaminski et al., 2017).

In this instance, we apply SA to the PE for software development success by substituting the
PE with 0 – 100% for each Software Package & calculating the rollback results from the DT
for DN3.
 Page 14 of 23

Identifying the Turnover Point (TP)

Data indicates that revising the PEs for Web Software Package C (WSPC) from 0 – 100%
causes its EV to fall across a range of GBP 310k – 410k.

Computations allude that the TP for WSPC lies at a PE of 55%, meaning that this is where the
EV for WSPC & App Software Package B (ASPB) achieves an equilibrium at GBP 365k.

Influence of PE Revisions on a Decision Tree

SA documents that when WSPC’s PE exceeds the TP, it consistently dominates all other
strategic options with DN3 populated with an EV of GBP 370 – GBP 410k.

However, whenever the PE is below the TP, ASPB becomes the stronger choice, populating
DN3 with an EV of GBP 365k.

Findings conclude that altering PEs within a certain range will cause DT recommendations to
change because they ultimately also impact the attractiveness of the option.
 Page 15 of 23

CONCLUSION
DTs are invaluable in demystifying UWS’s scenario into elements that are simpler to interpret
so that optimal alternatives can be enunciated for DM consideration (Baye & Prince, 2022).

Findings reveal that building Web Software Package C (WSPC) will likely result in the most
profitable outcome with GBP 390k at DN3.

However, evidence from SA demonstrate that adjusting PEs may cause the EVs to change,
thus influencing the DT’s recommended approach (Barron & Schmidt, 1988).

At DN3, WSPC wins against ASPB whenever its PE was above the Turning Point (TP) of 55%,
but loses its advantage to APSB when PEs are revised below the TP.

Nevertheless, these conclusions are predicated on the flawlessness of PEs provided, which
in real life is unlikely to be perfect (Edwards et al., 2021).

Should the accuracy of fresh PEs be provided in the future, it may be beneficial to further
examine the Expected Value of Imperfect Information to ascertain how valuable the revised
PEs are despite knowing that they could be wrong (Goodwin & Wright, 2013).
 Page 16 of 23

REFERENCES

PHYSICAL BOOKS READ

Baird, B. (1989). Managerial decisions under uncertainty. Wiley. New York.

Baye, M. & Prince, J. (2022). Managerial Economics & Business Strategy. 10ed. McGraw Hill.
Blacksmith, N. & McCusker, M. (2024). Data driven Decision Making in Entrepreneurship. Taylor & Francis.
Bourne, M. B. P. (2013). Handbook of Corporate Performance Management. University of West Scotland.
Burnard, K. (2022). Analytical Thinking and Decision Making Workbook. University of West Scotland.
Burns, P. (2018). New Venture Creation. 2ed. London, Palgrave.
Ceberio, M. & Kreinovich, V. (2023). Uncertainty, Constraints and Decision Making. Switzerland, Springer.
Chakraborti, A. et al. (2023). Quantum Decision Theory and Complexity Modelling in Economics and Public Policy. Springer.
Chen, M. et al. (2010). Frontiers of Statistical Decision making and Bayesian Analysis. New York, Springer.
Goodwin, P. & Wright, G. (2013). Decision Analysis for Management Judgement. University of West Scotland.
Hilary, G. & McLean, D. (2023). Handbook of Financial Decision Making. Edward Elgar.
Witten, I. et al. (2011). Data Mining: Practical Machine Learning Tools and Techniques. 3ed. Morgan Kauffman.
Ingram, T. et al. (2006). Sales Management Analysis & Decision Making. 6th Edition. Thomson South Western.
Keeney, R. & Raiffa, H. (1976). Decisions with multiple objectives: Preferences and value tradeoffs., Cambridge University Press.
Kondratenko, Y. et al. (2023). Artificial Intelligence in Control and Decision-making Systems. Springer.
Leaflang, P. et al. (2015). Modeling Markets, Analyzing Marketing Phenomena and Improving Marketing Decision Making. Springer.
Lopez, L. et al. (2023). Multi criteria decision making sorting methods. Academic Press.
Murphy, D. & Longo, D. (2009). Encyclopedia of Psychology of Decision Making. New York, Nova Science.
Nilsson, M. G. F. (2023). Intuitive Expertise and Financial Decision making. Routledge New York.
Porter, M. (1985). Competitive Advantage. Creating & Sustaining Superior Performance. Free Press.
Reed, P. & Baird, M. (2019). Strategic Marketing Decision Making & Planning. 5ed. Cengage Learning Australia.
Ross, S. (2024). Introduction to Probability Models. 13ed. Academic Press.
Roy, S. (2016). Decision Making and Modelling in Cognitive Science. Springer.
Simon, H. (1947). Administrative Behaviour - A Study of Decision making processes in Administrative Organisation. New York, MacMillan.
Simon, H. et al. (1992). Economics, Bounded Rationality and the Cognitive Function. Edward Elgar, Massachusetts.
Spoull, B. (2018). The problem solving problem prevention and decision making guide. Taylor & Francis.
Taddy, M. et al. (2023). Modern Business Analytics. McGraw Hill.
Wheelen, T. & Hunger, D. (2012). Strategic Management & Business Policy. 13ed. New Jersey., Pearson Education.
 Page 17 of 23

ONLINE REFERENCES

ACCA. (2023). Decision trees & multi-stage decision problems [Online]. Association of Chartered & Certified Accountants. [Accessed 22 March 2024].

Ahlawat, P. et al. (2022). The Real Rules of Growth and Profits in Software [Online]. Boston Consulting Group. Available at: https://www.bcg.com/publications/2022/rules-of-growth-and-profit-
margins-in-software-industry [Accessed 22 March 2024].

Aleem, I. et al. (2008). What is a clinical decision analysis study? [Online]. Indian J Orthop. 2008 Apr;42(2):137-9. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759613/ [Accessed
23 March 2024].

Ali, I. et al. (2021). Optimal Decision Making in Operations Research and Statistics [Online]. CRC Press. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/2974700/optimal-decision-making-in-operations-
research-and-statistics-methodologies-and-applications-pdf [Accessed 17 January 2024].

Ali, N. & Lai, R. (2021). Global Software Development: A Rewview of its practices [Online]. Malaysian Journal of Computer Science. Vol. 34(1), 2021. p82-129. Available at:
https://ejournal.um.edu.my/index.php/MJCS/article/download/28581/12887/65296 [Accessed 24 March 2024].

Anderson, D. et al. (2017). Introduction to Probability [Online]. Cambridge University Press. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/4220752/introduction-to-probability-pdf [Accessed 13 March
2024].

Andreis, F. (2020). A theoretical approach to effective decision making [Online]. Open Journal of Applied Sciences, Vol.10 No.6, 2020. Available at:
https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=100896 [Accessed 14 February 2024].

ASC. (2024). Basic Probability Rules [Online]. National University. Available at: https://resources.nu.edu/statsresources/BasicProbabilityRules [Accessed 7 February 2024].

Atkinson, R. (1999). Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, its time to accept other success criteria [Online]. International Journal of Project
Management. Volume 17, Issue 6, December 1999, p337-342. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0263786398000696 [Accessed 28 February 2024].

Austin, R. (2001). The Effects of Time Pressure on Quality in Software Development: An Agency Model [Online]. Information Systems Research. Vol. 12, No. 2 (2001), p195-207. Available at:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/23011079 [Accessed 11 March 2024].

Baek, D. (2023). Understanding competign commitments to overcome resistance to change [Online]. University of Oxford. Available at: https://www.sbs.ox.ac.uk/oxford-experience/blogs/david-
sehyeon-baek/understanding-competing-commitments-overcome-resistance-change [Accessed 25 March 2024].

Banasiewicz, A. (2019). Evidence based decision making. 1ed [Online]. Taylor and Francis. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/1557707/evidencebased-decisionmaking-how-to-leverage-
available-data-and-avoid-cognitive-biases-pdf [Accessed 15 January 2024].

Barron, H. & Schmidt, C. (1988). Sensitivity Analysis of Additive Multiattribute Value Models [Online]. Operations Research. Vol. 36, No. 1 (Jan. - Feb., 1988), p122-127. Available at:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/171383 [Accessed 23 January 2024].
 Page 18 of 23

Bazerman, M. & Moore, D. (2012). Judgment in Managerial Decision Making. 8ed. [Online]. Wiley. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/3866105/judgment-in-managerial-decision-making-pdf
[Accessed 9 February 2024].

Belford, N. (2021). Contingency Planning Amidst a Pandemic [Online]. Journal of Cybersecurity Education, Research & Practice. (2021), Vol 1, Article 3. Available at:
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1338315.pdf [Accessed 12 March 2024].

Blume, L. et al. (1991). Lexicographic Probabilities and Choice Under Uncertainty [Online]. Econometrica. Vol. 59, No. 1 (Jan., 1991), p61-79. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2938240
[Accessed 15 February 2024].

Borgonovo, E. & Rabitti, G. (2023). Screening: From tornado diagrams to effective dimensions [Online]. European Journal of Operational Research. Volume 304, Issue 3, 1 February 2023, p 1200-
1211. Available at: https://researchportal.hw.ac.uk/en/publications/screening-from-tornado-diagrams-to-effective-dimensions [Accessed 19 March 2024].

Botechia, V. et al. (2018). Estimating the chance of success of information acquisition for the Norne benchmark case [Online]. Oil & Gas Science and Technology - Rev. IFP Energies nouvelles.
Volume 73, 2018. Available at: https://ogst.ifpenergiesnouvelles.fr/articles/ogst/full_html/2018/01/ogst180145/ogst180145.html?mb=0 [Accessed 23 February 2024].

Bowen, S. et al. (2009). The Real Challenges in Promoting Evidence-Informed Decision-Making [Online]. Healthcare Policy. Vol.4 No.3. p87-102. Available at:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2653695/pdf/policy-04-087.pdf [Accessed 9 January 2024].

Brown, C. (2017). Achieving Evidence-Informed Policy and Practice in Education [Online]. Emerald Publishing Limited. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/520023/achieving-
evidenceinformed-policy-and-practice-in-education-pdf [Accessed 21 March 2024].

Cambridge. (2024). Meaning of decision-maker in English [Online]. Cambridge Dictionary. Available at: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/decision-maker [Accessed 13 January
2024].

Canova, F. (1995). Sensitivity Analysis and Model Evaluation in Simulated Dynamic General Equilibrium Economies [Online]. International Economic Review , May, 1995, Vol. 36, No. 2 (May,
1995), p477-501. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2527207 [Accessed 25 February 2024].

Chawla, N. & Cieslak, D. (2006). Evaluating probability estimates from decision trees [Online]. University of Notre Dame. Available at:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228965727_Evaluating_probability_estimates_from_decision_trees [Accessed 17 January 2024].

Chilman, C. & Hawks, D. (2024). Sensitivity Analysis | Definition, Formula & Examples [Online]. Study.com. Available at: https://study.com/academy/lesson/sensitivity-analysis-definition-uses-
importance.html# [Accessed 3 April 2024].

Cinelli, M. et al. (2014). Analysis of the potentials of multi criteria decision analysis methods to conduct sustainability assessment [Online]. Ecological Indicators. Volume 46, November 2014, p138-
148. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1470160X14002647 [Accessed 25 January 2024].

Cont, R. et al. (2010). Robustness and sensitivity analysis of risk measurement procedures [Online]. Quantitative Finance, Vol. 10, No. 6, June–July 2010, p593–606. Available at:
https://rama.cont.perso.math.cnrs.fr/pdf/RobustRisk.pdf [Accessed 13 January 2024].

Corner, J. & Kirkwood, C. (1991). Decision Analysis Applications in Operations Literature Review [Online]. Operations Research. Vol 39, p206-219. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/171098
[Accessed 16 February 2024].

Costaa, E. et al. (n.d.). Estimating Prediction Certainty in Decision Trees [Online]. Radboud University Nijmegen. Available at: https://lirias.kuleuven.be/retrieve/234195 [Accessed 13 March 2024].
 Page 19 of 23

Cote, C. (2020). How to determine profitability and drive strategic decisions [Online]. Harvard Business School. Available at: https://online.hbs.edu/blog/post/how-to-determine-profitability [Accessed
26 March 2024].

Daniel, W. & Terrell, S. (1978). An introduction to Decision Analysis [Online]. The Journal of Nursing Administration. Vol. 8, No. 5 (May 1978), p20-28. Available at:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/26806869 [Accessed 11 February 2024].

Drabikova, E. & Skrabulakova, E. (2017). Decision trees - a powerful tool in mathematical and economic modeling [Online]. 2017 18th International Carpathian Control Conference (ICCC). Available
at: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7970367 [Accessed 12 February 2024].

Drucker, P. (1967). The effective decision [Online]. Harvard Business Review. Available at: https://hbr.org/1967/01/the-effective-decision [Accessed 15 February 2024].

Drucker, P. (1985). How to make people decisions [Online]. Harvard Business Review. Available at: https://hbr.org/1985/07/how-to-make-people-decisions [Accessed 12 January 2024].

Duta, L. et al. (2003). Determination of the Optimal Disassembly Sequence Using Decision Trees [Online]. Valahia State University. Available at:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258220388_Determination_of_the_Optimal_Disassembly_Sequence_Using_Decision_Trees [Accessed 22 March 2024].

Edwards, A. et al. (2021). A Simulation Study on the Performance of Different Reliability Estimation Methods [Online]. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 2021, Vol. 81(6) p1089–1117.
Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8451020/ [Accessed 22 March 2024].

Edwards, W. (1954). Theory of decision making [Online]. Psychological bulletin [Psychol Bull] 1954 Jul; Vol. 51 (4), p380-417. Available at:
https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cmedm&AN=13177802&site=ehost-live [Accessed 15 January 2024].

Edwards, W. (1977). How to Use Multiattribute Utility Measurement for Social Decisionmaking [Online]. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, vol. 7, no. 5, p326-340. Available at:
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/4309720 [Accessed 20 January 2024].

Edwards, W. & Hutton, B. (1994). SMARTS and SMARTER: Improved Simple Methods for Multiattribute Utility Measurement [Online]. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes.
Volume 60, Issue 3, December 1994, p306-325. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0749597884710879 [Accessed 19 January 2024].

Elbanna, S. et al. (2020). A Literature Review of the Strategic Decision-Making Context: A Synthesis of Previous Mixed Findings and an Agenda for the Way Forward [Online]. Management, 2020/2
(Vol. 23), p42-60. Available at: https://www.cairn.info/revue-management-2020-2-page-42.htm [Accessed 23 January 2024].

Eschenbach, T. (1992). Spiderplots versus Tornado Diagrams for Sensitivity Analysis [Online]. Interfaces 22(6):p40-46. Available at: https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/inte.22.6.40

Forsyth, E. & Boyd, N. (2023). Probability Theory in Decision-Making, Marketing & Business [Online]. Study.com. Available at: https://study.com/academy/lesson/making-business-decisions-using-
probability-information-economic-measures.html [Accessed 25 March 2024].

Galak, O. (2010). Management Decision Making [Online]. University of Vienna. Available at: https://www.academia.edu/6694912/Research_Paper_Management_Decision_Making [Accessed 11
February 2024].

Garlick, A. (2017). Estimating Risk [Online]. Taylor and Francis. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/1573786/estimating-risk-a-management-approach-pdf [Accessed 24 March 2024].

Ghandi, P. et al. (2022). Data Driven Decision Making using Analytics [Online]. CRC Press. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/3040772/data-driven-decision-making-using-analytics-pdf
[Accessed 14 February 2024].
 Page 20 of 23

Gnanasambandam, C. et al. (2024). Every company is a software company: Six ‘must dos’ to succeed [Online]. McKinsey & Company. Available at:
https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/mckinsey-digital/our-insights/every-company-is-a-software-company-six-must-dos-to-succeed [Accessed].

Gomes, M. & Martins, N. (2022). Mathematical Models for Decision Making with Multiple Perspectives. 1ed [Online]. CRC Press. . Available at:
https://www.perlego.com/book/3534313/mathematical-models-for-decision-making-with-multiple-perspectives-an-introduction-pdf [Accessed 12 January 2024].

Goodwin, P. & Wright, G. (2002). Enhancing Strategy Evaluation in Scenario Planning: a Role for Decision Analysis [Online]. Journal of Management Studies, 38: 1-16. Available at:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1467-6486.00225 [Accessed 14 February 2024].

Green, P. et al. (1981). Estimating Choice Probabilities in Multiattribute Decision Making [Online]. Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 8, No. 1 (Jun., 1981), p76-84. Available at:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2488845 [Accessed 26 March 2024].

Greer, R. et al. (2022). The Circular Decision‑Making Tree: anOperational Framework [Online]. Circular Economy and Sustainability (2023)Vol 3, p693–718. Available at:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363712060_The_Circular_Decision-Making_Tree_an_Operational_Framework [Accessed 24 March 2024].

Gressel, S. et al. (2021). Management Decision-Making, Big Data and Analytics. 1ed [Online]. SAGE Publications. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/3013427/management-
decisionmaking-big-data-and-analytics-pdf [Accessed 13 January 2024].

Ho, S. et al. (2020). Avoid Oversimplifications in Machine Learning: Going beyond the Class-Prediction Accuracy [Online]. Patterns (N Y). 2020 May 8. Available at:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7660406/ [Accessed 23 February 2024].

Hodgkinson, G. & Starbuck, W. (2008). The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Decision Making [Online]. Oxford University Press. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199290468.001.0001 [Accessed 12 February 2024].

Huettig, A. (2020). Portfolio for Bachelor of Science in Mathematics [Online]. Indiana University East. Available at: https://iu.pressbooks.pub/abigailehuettig/chapter/decision-trees-and-expected-
value/ [Accessed 13 February 2024].

Idefelt, J. & Danielson, M. (2007). A Note on Tornado Diagrams in Interval Decision Analysis [Online]. Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering 2007. Available at:
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=0c40d51d80d3336f9b6c16bd5f77a997b6ca9186 [Accessed 21 March 2024].

IEEE. (2024). Software Engineering Economics and Declining Budgets [Online]. Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers. Available at: https://www.computer.org/resources/software-
engineering-economics [Accessed 15 March 2024].

Jury, T. (2012). Cash Flow Analysis and Forecasting. 1st edn. [Online]. Wiley. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/1001290/cash-flow-analysis-and-forecasting-the-definitive-guide-to-
understanding-and-using-published-cash-flow-data-pdf [Accessed 2012 31 January 2024].

Kaminski, B. et al. (2017). A framework for sensitivity analysis of decision trees [Online]. Central European Journal of Operations Research. Volume 26, p135–159, (2018). Available at:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10100-017-0479-6 [Accessed 14 March 2024].

Kaplan, R. & McMillan, D. (2021). Reimagining the Balanced Scorecard for the ESG Era [Online]. Harvard Business Review. Available at: https://hbr.org/2021/02/reimagining-the-balanced-
scorecard-for-the-esg-era [Accessed 15 January 2024].
 Page 21 of 23

Keeney, R. (1982). Decision Analysis - An Overview [Online]. Operations Research, Vol 30, Issue 5, p 803-838. Available at: https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/10.1287/opre.30.5.803 [Accessed 17
January 2024].

Keeney, R. (1996). Value-focused Thinking: a Path to Creative Decisionmaking [Online]. European Journal of Operational Research. Volume 92, Issue 3, 9 August 1996, p537-549. Available at:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0377221796000045 [Accessed 23 February 2024].

Kida, T. et al. (2010). Investment decision making: Do experienced decision makers fall prey to the paradox of choice? [Online]. Journal of Behavioral Finance, 11(1), p21–30. Available at:
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2010-04494-003 [Accessed 15 January 2024].

Kim, N. (2018). Judgement & Decision Making. 1ed [Online]. Bloomsbury Publishing. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/2996745/judgment-and-decisionmaking-in-the-lab-and-the-world-
pdf [Accessed 23 January 2024].

Klotins, E. et al. (2018). Software engineering in start-up companies: An analysis of 88 experience reports [Online]. Empirical Software Engineering. Volume 24, p68–102. Available at:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10664-018-9620-y [Accessed 23 February 2024].

Koller, G. (2000). Risk Modeling for Determining Value and Decision Making. 1ed. [Online]. CRC Press. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/1712284/risk-modeling-for-determining-value-
and-decision-making-pdf [Accessed 25 January 2024].

Kotler, P. & Armstrong, G. (2012). Principles of Marketing 14ed [Online]. Pearson. [Accessed].

Krogerus, M. & Tschappeler, R. (2023). The Decision Book [Online]. Profile Books. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/852035/quantitative-modelling-in-marketing-and-management-
second-edition-pdf [Accessed 21 March 2024].

Kumar, A. (2014). Design & application of Decision Trees [Online]. Available at: https://typeset.io/papers/design-and-applications-of-decision-trees-3fzusfp81f [Accessed 23 January 2024].

Lin, W. H. et al. (2020). Context effects on probability estimation [Online]. PLoS Biol. 2020 Mar 5;18(3). Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7077880/ [Accessed 22 March
2024].

Longford, N. (2021). Statistics for Making Decisions [Online]. CRC Press. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/2096362/statistics-for-making-decisions-pdf [Accessed 23 January 2024].

Magee, J. (1964). Decision Trees for Decision Making [Online]. Harvard Business review. Available at: https://hbr.org/1964/07/decision-trees-for-decision-making [Accessed 13 February 2024].

Maglio, S. & Polman, E. (2016). Revising probability estimates: Why increasing likelihood means increasing impact [Online]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 111, no. 2, pp141–
158. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000058 [Accessed 11 March 2024].

Margineantu, D. & Dietterich, T. (n.d.). Improved Class Probability Estimates from Decision Tree Models [Online]. Oregon State University. Available at:
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=4d738d6d674e66fc5c6eef305de8eae2affe0ce9 [Accessed 25 March 2023].

McKinsey. (2024). Make faster, better decisions [Online]. McKinsey & Company. Available at: https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/people-and-organizational-performance/our-insights/make-
faster-better-decisions [Accessed 13 February 2024].
 Page 22 of 23

Middleton, M. (1994). Decision Tree Notes [Online]. University of San Francisco. Available at:
https://edisciplinas.usp.br/pluginfile.php/3795706/mod_folder/content/0/Tomada_de_decisao/TREENOTE.docx?forcedownload=1#:~:text=Rollback%20Method,-
If%20we%20have&text=The%20rollback%20algorithm%2C%20sometimes%20called,rollback%20values%20for%20each%20node. [Accessed 13 March 2024].

Milkman, K. et al. (2008). How can decision making be improved? [Online]. Harvard Business School. Available at: https://www.hbs.edu/ris/Publication%20Files/08-102_1670bc7e-dc3c-49c8-bc5f-
1eba2e78e335.pdf [Accessed 16 February 2024].

Mittal, K. et al. (2017). An insight into Decision Tree Analysis [Online]. World wide journal of multidisciplinary research and development. p111-115. Available at:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322568957_An_Insight_into_Decision_Tree_Analysis [Accessed 23 March 2024].

Moreno, W. et al. (2019). Challenges and Solutions of Project Management in Distributed Software Development [Online]. 2019 XLV Latin American Computing Conference (CLEI). Available at:
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9089043 [Accessed 22 February 2024].

Morgan, J. & Sonquist, J. (1963). Problems in the Analysis of Survey Data, and a Proposal [Online]. Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol. 58, No. 302 (Jun., 1963), p415-434.
Available at: http://cda.psych.uiuc.edu/statistical_learning_course/morgan_sonquist.pdf [Accessed 24 March 2024].

Moutinho, L. & Huarng, K. (2015). Quantitative Modelling In Marketing And Management. 2nd Edition [Online]. World Scientific Publishing Company. Available at:
https://www.perlego.com/book/852035/quantitative-modelling-in-marketing-and-management-second-edition-pdf [Accessed 25 March 2024].

NCI. (2024). Types of Cancer Treatment [Online]. National Cancer Institute. Available at: https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/types [Accessed 3 March 2024].

Newton, K. (2024). Bayes' Theorem: Definition, Formula & Usage [Online]. Study.com. Available at: https://study.com/academy/lesson/bayes-theorem-definition-formula-usage.html [Accessed 5
March 2024].

Niazi, M. et al. (2013). Challenges of Project Management in Global Software Development: Initial Results [Online]. Science and Information Conference (SAI), 2013. Available at:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260391036_Challenges_of_Project_Management_in_Global_Software_Development_Initial_Results [Accessed 27 February 2024].

Osterwalder, A. & Pigneur, Y. (2013). Business Model Generation. [Online]. Wiley. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/1007692/business-model-generation-a-handbook-for-visionaries-
game-changers-and-challengers-pdf [Accessed 15 October 2023].

Pacheco, C. & Tovar, E. (2007). Stakeholder Identification as an Issue in the Improvement of Software Requirements Quality [Online]. International Conference on Advanced Information Systems
Engineering, 2007: Advanced Information Systems Engineering p370–380. Available at: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-540-72988-4_26 [Accessed 13 March 2024].

Pannel, D. (1997). Sensitivity analysis of normative economic models: theoretical framework and practical strategies [Online]. Agricultural Economics. Volume 16, Issue 2, May 1997, p139-152.
Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169515096012170 [Accessed 19 February 2024].

Pedersen, C. & Ritter, T. (2024). Firing the Right Customers Is Good Business [Online]. Massachussets Institute of Technology. Available at: https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/firing-the-right-
customers-is-good-business/ [Accessed 25 March 2024].

PMC. (2021). Sensitivity Analysis using Tornado Diagrams [Online]. PMC Lounge. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ojHXG27w-s [Accessed 12 March 2024].

Pratt, J. et al. (1964). The Foundations of Decision under Uncertainty: An Elementary Exposition [Online]. Journal of the American Statistical Association. Volume 59, 1964 - Issue 306. p353-375.
Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01621459.1964.10482164 [Accessed 24 February 2024].
 Page 23 of 23

Riedel, G. P. S. (1984). The content and structure of value tree representations [Online]. Acta Psychologica. Volume 56, Issues 1–3, August 1984, p 59-70. Available at:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0001691884900076 [Accessed 15 January 2024].

Rodrigo, S. et al. (2024). The Decision Analysis Approach to Decision Making in Business [Online]. Study.com. Available at: https://study.com/academy/lesson/the-decision-analysis-approach-to-
decision-making-in-business.html [Accessed 19 March 2024].

Rokach, L. & Maimon, O. (2014). Data mining with Decision Trees [Online]. World Scientific Publishing Company. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/851363/data-mining-with-decision-
trees-theory-and-applications-2nd-edition-theory-and-applications-pdf [Accessed 18 January 2024].

Schmalensee, R. (1984). Imperfect Information and the Equitability of Competitive Prices [Online]. The Quarterly Journal of Economics. Vol. 99, No. 3 (Aug., 1984), p441-460. Available at:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1885959 [Accessed 31 March 2024].

Schroeder, B. (1991). Estimation issues on software project management [Online]. Project Management Journal (1991), p5-10. Available at: https://www.wcu.edu/pmi/1998/J91MAR05.PDF
[Accessed 25 March 2024].

Selby, R. & Porter, A. (1988). Learning from examples: generation and evaluation of decision trees for software resource analysis [Online]. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering ( Volume: 14,
Issue: 12, December 1988). p1743-1757. Available at: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/9061 [Accessed 23 February 2024].

Shlomi, Y. & Wallsten, T. (2010). Subjective recalibration of advisors probability estimates [Online]. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 17, p492–498. Available at:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/PBR.17.4.492 [Accessed 27 March 2024].

Thompson, A. et al. (2017). Using the Payoff Time in Decision-Analytic Models: A Case Study for Using Statins in Primary Prevention [Online]. Medical Decision Making. 2017 Oct; 37(7): p759–769.
Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5580784/ [Accessed 25 March 2024].

Tiffery, S. (2011). Data mining & statistics for Decision Making. 1ed. [Online]. Wiley. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/1014290/data-mining-and-statistics-for-decision-making-pdf
[Accessed 22 January 2024].

Triantaphyllou, E. & Sanchez, A. (1997). A sensitivity analysis approach for Deterministic Multi-criteria Decision Making [Online]. Decision Sciences, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp151-194. Available at:
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=d40efea1124b92e6102e1748a110abfb1966b785 [Accessed 19 February 2024].

Wang, T. et al. (2015). Sensitivity Analysis of Model Input Dependencies Using Copulas [Online]. Colorado State University. Available at:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2676316 [Accessed 11 March 2024].

White, A. & Liu, W. Z. (1994). Bias in Information-Based Measures in Decision Tree Induction [Online]. Machine Learning, 15, p321-329. Available at:
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1023/A:1022694010754.pdf [Accessed 17 March 2024].

Whyte, G. (1991). Decision Failure - Why They Occur and How to Prevent Them [Online]. The Executive , 1991, Vol. 5, No. 3. p23-31. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4165019 [Accessed
13 January 2024].

Zorman, M. et al. (1997). The Limitations of Decision Trees and Automatic Learning in Real World Medical Decision Making [Online]. Journal of Medical Systems 21, 403–415 (1997). Available at:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1022876330390 [Accessed 22 February 2024].