Skip navigation

putin IS MURDERER

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://oldena.lpnu.ua/handle/ntb/41304
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorDanylovych-Kropyvnytska, M.-
dc.contributor.authorLimański, A.-
dc.date.accessioned2018-05-31T08:20:35Z-
dc.date.available2018-05-31T08:20:35Z-
dc.date.created2017-
dc.date.issued2017-
dc.identifier.citationDanylovych-Kropyvnytska M. Rationality in decision-making within interorganisational networks / M. Danylovych-Kropyvnytska, A. Limański // Economics, Entrepreneurship, Management. — Lviv : Lviv Politechnic Publishing House, 2017. — Vol 4. — No 2. — P. 9–14.-
dc.identifier.issn2312-3435-
dc.identifier.urihttps://ena.lpnu.ua/handle/ntb/41304-
dc.description.abstractA networking structure is a natural phase in the evolution of organisational forms. An organisational form of a network is a set of interconnected structures and technological elements, i.e. individual economic agents, cultural and social values that arrange inter-organisational relations in a certain order and make network processes operate in a systemlike fashion. Effective joint work in inter-organisational networks suggests a need for a common goal, which is perceived to be a critical factor for joint activities. The paper studies the rationality of decisionmaking for inter-organisational networks. The analysis of behaviour within inter-organisational networks that consist of agents, like firms, entrepreneurs, governmental authorities, scientific centres, proves that group decisions are not always an optimal method to achieve a goal. There are certain tasks and circumstances when an authoritarian approach to problem solving is more sensible. It analyses a formalized model for joint choice, prevailing practice and rationality of group decisionmaking in order to reach a strategic balance within a network. The study summarizes key advantages and drawbacks in case a decision is made by a group.-
dc.format.extent9-14-
dc.language.isoen-
dc.publisherLviv Politechnic Publishing House-
dc.relation.ispartofEconomics, Entrepreneurship, Management, 2 (4), 2017-
dc.subjectinter-organisational networks-
dc.subjectrationality-
dc.subjectdecision-making procedures-
dc.subjectstrategic balance-
dc.subjectcooperative game-
dc.subjectcoalition-
dc.titleRationality in decision-making within interorganisational networks-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.rights.holder© Національний університет "Львівська політехніка", 2017-
dc.contributor.affiliationLviv Polytechnic National University-
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Silesia in Katowice (Poland)-
dc.format.pages6-
dc.identifier.citationenDanylovych-Kropyvnytska M. Rationality in decision-making within interorganisational networks / M. Danylovych-Kropyvnytska, A. Limański // Economics, Entrepreneurship, Management. — Lviv : Lviv Politechnic Publishing House, 2017. — Vol 4. — No 2. — P. 9–14.-
dc.relation.references1. Levine, J. M. & Moreland, R. L (1998). Small groups. The Handbook of Social Psychology, 4th ed., Vol. 2, P. 415–469.-
dc.relation.references2. Bornstein, G. & Yaniv, I. (1998). Individual and group behaviour in the ultimatum games: are groups more “rational” players. Experimental Economics, Vol. 1, P. 101–108.-
dc.relation.references3. Cox, J. C. (2002). Trust, reciprocity and otherregarding preferences: groups vs. individuals and males vs. females. Avoidances in Experimental Business Research, Vol. 108, P. 331–350.-
dc.relation.references4. Blinder, A. S. & Morgan, J. (2005). Are two heads better than one? An experimental analysis of group vs. individual decision making. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Vol. 7, P. 183–191.-
dc.relation.references5. Cason, T. N. & Mui, V.-L. (1997). A laboratory study of group polarisation in the team dictator game. Economic Journal, Vol. 107, P. 1465–1483.-
dc.relation.references6. Kozeletsky, Iu. (1979). Psychological theory of decisions. Moscow: Progress.-
dc.relation.references7. Diev, V. S. Joint decisions: pros & cons. Retrieved from www.philosophy.nsc.ru.-
dc.relation.referencesen1. Levine, J. M. & Moreland, R. L (1998). Small groups. The Handbook of Social Psychology, 4th ed., Vol. 2, P. 415–469.-
dc.relation.referencesen2. Bornstein, G. & Yaniv, I. (1998). Individual and group behaviour in the ultimatum games: are groups more "rational" players. Experimental Economics, Vol. 1, P. 101–108.-
dc.relation.referencesen3. Cox, J. C. (2002). Trust, reciprocity and otherregarding preferences: groups vs. individuals and males vs. females. Avoidances in Experimental Business Research, Vol. 108, P. 331–350.-
dc.relation.referencesen4. Blinder, A. S. & Morgan, J. (2005). Are two heads better than one? An experimental analysis of group vs. individual decision making. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Vol. 7, P. 183–191.-
dc.relation.referencesen5. Cason, T. N. & Mui, V.-L. (1997). A laboratory study of group polarisation in the team dictator game. Economic Journal, Vol. 107, P. 1465–1483.-
dc.relation.referencesen6. Kozeletsky, Iu. (1979). Psychological theory of decisions. Moscow: Progress.-
dc.relation.referencesen7. Diev, V. S. Joint decisions: pros & cons. Retrieved from www.philosophy.nsc.ru.-
dc.citation.issue2-
dc.citation.spage9-
dc.citation.epage14-
dc.coverage.placenameLviv-
dc.subject.udc65.012.123-
Appears in Collections:Economics, Entrepreneurship, Management. – 2017. – Vol. 4, No. 2

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
2017v4n2_Danylovych-Kropyvnytska_M-Rationality_9-14.pdf153.45 kBAdobe PDFView/Open
2017v4n2_Danylovych-Kropyvnytska_M-Rationality_9-14__COVER.png364.97 kBimage/pngView/Open
Show simple item record


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.