|
Web News |
Give a Laptop, get one, plus free T-mobile wifi
There has been so much excitment and speculation about One Laptop Per Child (OLPC), the non-profit organization started by MIT's Nicholas Negroponte which is devoted to creating and providing laptop computers...
IBM buying up Cognos
Canada's largest software company, Cognos Inc., said Monday it has agreed to a $5-billion US friendly takeover by IBM. The U.S. computing giant will pay $58 US...
Virgin Mobile Canada to launch postpaid plans next year
Virgin Mobile Canada to launch postpaid plans next year. Virgin Mobile Canada has announced that they would change their current policy to offer only prepaid connections in this market. The company now...
CMP buys technology analysis firm Portelligent...
Technology marketing firm CMP said Monday it will pay an undisclosed amount to buy Portelligent, which delivers in-depth analyses of personal electronics for industry professionals. The agreement will combine CMP's...
|
|
|
11.15.07
Satisficing, Bounded Rationality & Search
 By Gord Hotchkiss
Herbert Simon came up with some pretty interesting concepts, among them satisficing, bounded rationality and chunking.
 Before Simon, we commonly believed that humans came to optimal decisions in a rational manner, based on the information provided. We took all the data that was accessible, weighed pros and cons and used our cortexes to come to the best possible outcome.
Simon, in effect, said that this placed to high a load on us cognitively. In many cases, there was simply too much information available, so we had to make choices based more on heuristics, cutting the available information down to a more manageable level. He called this "satisficing", a blend of satisfy and suffice. And Simon started saying this a half century ago. Imagine how this translates to the present time.
We have never had more information available. At the click of a mouse, we can access huge amounts of information. There's simply no way we can process it all and come to rational decisions. And this brings us to another concept, that of bounded rationality. We're more rational about some decisions than others. It depends on a number of factors, including risk, emotional enjoyment and brand self identification. Think of it as a chart with three axes. One axis is risk. We put more rational thought into decisions that expose us to greater risk. In consumer decisions, risk usually equates with cost, but in B to B decisions, it could also include professional reputation (related to but not always directly tied to cost). We're going to put a lot more thought into the purchase of a car or house than that of a candy bar. Another axis is emotional enjoyment. This is a risk/reward mechanism to most decisions, and if the reward is one that is particularly appealing to us, we tend to be swayed more by emotion than rational decision. If we're planning a holiday, we may make some irrational decisions (or at least, they might appear that way to an outsider) based on a sense of rewarding ourselves. We'll treat ourselves to a few nights in a 5 star resort, when the 3 star resort would offer greater overall value. The final factor, and one that is usually buried somewhere in our subconscious, is how we use brands or products to define who we are. Now, no one usually admits to being defined by a brand, but we all are, to some extent. This touches on the cult-like devotees that some brands develop. Harley Davidson, Rolex, BMW, Apple and Nike all come to mind. Is a Rolex a rational choice? No. But a Rolex defines, to some extent, the person wearing it. It says something about the person.
Bounded rationality says that there are boundaries to the amount of rational thought that we can and we want to put into decisions. The amount we decide is sufficient depends on the three facts discussed.
Continue reading this article
About the Author:
Gord Hotchkiss is the President and CEO of Enquiro, whose goal is to push the search engine optimization industry forward both in terms of measurable results and client satisfaction.
|
