JAPANADVANCED INSTITUTE OFSCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY1990

COE NEWS

Newsletter of the Center for Strategic Development of Science andTechnology, Japan Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (JAIST)

Vol. 2 No. 2

Autumn 2005

Technology and Change – the Role ofTechnology in Knowledge Civilization
Era

Guest Column:
What are the Goals of the Decision
Making Process?

Andrzej P. Wierzbicki
Research Professor at COE-Center, JAIST
andrzej@jaist.ac.jp

Mordecai I. Henig
Professor at Faculty of Management
Tel Aviv University, ISRAEL
henig@post.tau.ac.il

A paper under this title, presented at the I-st
World Congress of IFSR in Kobe, November
2005, described both a contemporary definitionof technology (acceptable to a technologist –there are many definitions of technology in theliterature, but most are not acceptable topractitioners of this field) and a reflection on
the future role of technology. However, we
present here only some selected topics from thispaper: the relation of technology proper to hardscience and to socio-economic applications oftechnology and the renewing and strengthening
of Heidegger’s warning about social fascination
with technology.
Hard, basic science and technology
influence each other through the intellectual
heritage of humanity. But this influence forms a
positive feedback loop, see Fig. 1; technologicaldevelopment stimulates basic science, scientifictheories are applied technologically.
Hard and Basic Science

Have you ever thought profoundly why amethod to handle the process of decision
making is needed? Probably not. And thereason seems obvious. A method is required tofacilitate the location of the best alternative.
What else?
You are probably not the only one who has
not given a thought to this matter. To my best
knowledge, no discussion on such goals exists
in the literature. Several paradigms for thedecision making process are suggested;
Normative (von Neumann-Morgenstern) andprescriptive. Soft systems (Checkland) versus
hard systems. From one objective to multicriteria (MCDM), with or without certainty.
Some of the paradigms are represented by a fairnumber of methods. A small sample from the
MCDM literature includes Goal Programming(Charnes & Cooper), Interactive Programming(e.g., Zionts-Wallenius), Compromise Programming (Zeleny), Reference Point Optimization(Wierzbicki), AHP (Saaty), Decision Aid (Roy),and Value Focused Thinking (Keeney).

Technology

Socio-economic
Applications of?

?

Soft and Social Sciences
Fig. 1. Two positive feedback loops
Continued on page 2

Continued on page 4

Inside this Issue
page 5:A Bird’s Eye Report of the IFSR
page 8:♦ Upcoming Events♦ COE Center NewsJAIST-COE News
Strategic Development of Science and Technology

Autumn, 2005

Technology and Change … (con’t)

practice radio-astronomy from Earth surface,that it is the reason of moving radio-telescopes
into cosmic space? And this is a relatively
modest adverse effect; what if an avalanche-likeadoption of a technological hit would result intruly disastrous effects? After all, a nuclear
power station is also based on avalanche-likeprocesses that must be carefully controlled – bynegative feedback systems of control
engineering – to be safe; but if such systems fail(or are tampered with for fun by irresponsible
people, like in the Chernobyl case), the disastercan have no limits.

The positive feedback loop between
technology and science works slowly:
technological stimulations are analyzed byscience with much delay, technology also does
not reply instantly to new scientific theories.
The second positive feedback loop is
between technology and the systems of its
socio-economic applications. The distinction
between technology proper and its socioeconomic applications is not stressedsufficiently by social sciences, though it should
be obvious for at least two reasons. The first isthat technologists often work on a technologicalproblem quite long (e.g., almost fifty years in
the case of digital television) before their results
are broadly socially applied. The second issimple: technologists do not make much money,
technology brokers do, similar as art brokers
make more money than artists. By technology
brokers we understand here entrepreneurs,
managers, bankers, etc.: all our socio-economic
systems turn around applications of technology.
If a technological product or service, such as
mobile telephony, produces much revenue, thenmore money is available for its further
technological development; this leads to truly
avalanche-like processes of social adoption oftechnological hits.
But these processes have also strange
dynamic properties, socio-economic acceptanceof novelties is slow, there is usually a large
delay time between purely technologicalpossibility and the start of an avalanche of its
broad socio-economic applications (this delay
time amounted also to almost 50 years in thecase of cellular telephony). This delay has manycauses: the necessity to develop suchtechnological versions that are inexpensive
enough for an average customer; an initialsocial distrust turning into a blind social
fascination once a technological hit becomesfashionable. Once it starts to work, the second
positive feedback loop is much stronger andfaster than the first one.

The answer to the question of Mesthene: why it isso that many people perceive technology as analienating force, enslaving, degrading, anddestructive of man’s most cherished values, might
be the following: the essential reason of it is theintuitive perception of such danger of a social
infatuation with technology leading to avalanchelike process of adoption of technological hits withdiverse resulting threats and possible catastrophic
results.

Being intuitive, the perception needs not be
rationally correct and the diagnosis can be
wrong; we must analyze it critically. Thus, we
encounter here crucial questions:
1) What mechanisms limit and stabilize theavalanche-like processes of socio-economic
adoption of technological hits?
2) Who is responsible for overseeing that thesemechanisms work effectively?
The one mechanism that at least safely
prevents any economic excesses is the market
economy; people tried to replace market byhuman intervention in the communist system
without success. However, it is only a robust
mechanism, it does not solve many problems.
For example, because knowledge-based
economy sharply decreases marginal production
costs, prices on high technology markets have
today no relation to (actually, are over hundred
times higher than) marginal production costs;
an ideal, free market simply does not work in
knowledge-based economy, an monopolistic or
oligopolistic behavior is typical. Who willoversee such globalized markets?
As to the responsibility, obviously it should
be borne first by the technology brokers.
However, to be effective on the market, theymust be motivated by profit, let us only hopethat the motivation will be tempered by ethics.
Ethics results from education; who educates

This blind social fascination is actually theautonomous force incorrectly attributed by social
philosophy to technology proper, it is precisely thesource of the Heideggerian danger that man exalts
himself and postures as the lord of the earth.

For example: how many people are awarethat mobile telephony makes it very difficult to2

JAIST-COE News
Strategic Development of Science and Technology
technology brokers? Not technologists proper,
but social, economic, management scientists.
They should not only educate well technology
brokers ethically, but also help them tounderstand their future jobs by analyzing themechanisms of social demand for technology,
of infatuation with technological hits, together
with their dangers.

Autumn, 2005
creativity of misapplications is boundless(against stupidity, the gods themselves contend
in vain).
As perceived by Martin Heidegger alreadyin Die Technik und die Kehre (1957), thedanger lies in us, humans fascinated by thepossibilities
oftechnology
andnotunderstanding the threats of such fascination. In
all the possibilities, complexity and diversity ofthe beginning knowledge civilization era, there
is also a general danger and we must thus also
repeat a renewed version of Heidegger’s
warning. In particular, the seemingly
unbounded technological possibilities mightsuggest to people – particularly to technology
brokers – that human intellectual heritage isrich and boundless enough to privatize it
without restraint. The modified Heidegger’s
warning is:Thus, the responsibility for socio-economic
applications of technology, for overseeing theeffective limitations of blind social fascination
with technological hits lies at technology brokers,
but also at social sciences.

Unfortunately, they do not perform well inthis respect. This is indicated by the question
marks in Fig. 1: while the role of hard, basic
sciences and technology proper versus its socioeconomic applications is clear, social sciences
do not seem to even understand their role.
This does not mean that technology proper
is not co-responsible and should not at least try
to work together with social scientists onlimiting such dangers. However, a technologist
usually considers carefully possible future
impacts of technology developed by him;
moreover, he knows that the blame for any
possible misapplications will be put on him. On
the other hand, the responsibility oftechnologists
will
notprevent
allmisapplicationsoftechnology.
Human

In the industrial civilization era, people havebecame blinded by their seemingly unlimited
power over nature given to them by the industrial
technology, what has led to many degradations of
natural environment. We must take care in theknowledge civilization era not to become blindedby the seemingly unlimited possibilities of
products and services offered by technology, inparticular –we must take care to preserve ourintellectual environment, the intellectual heritageof humanity.

Introducing the On-going Research by Research Assistants at the COE Center
1. Locharoenrat Kitsakorn (PhD candidate attheSchoolofMaterials
Science;kitsakor@jaist.ac.jp)

2. Masaya Arai (PhD candidate at the Schoolof Materials Science; m-arai@jaist.ac.jp)
Title: Control of Metal Elemental Compositionin Nanometer-sized Metal Coordination
Polymers Stabilized with Alkylamino Ligands

Title: Motivation: International Students versus
Japanese Students at JAIST

Abstract: This work focuses on synthesizing
nanopolymer of Prussian blue analogue (Fe/CrCN-Co) by water-in-oil microemulsion
technique, and investigating its physical andchemical properties.

Abstract: Career goals can be realized when we
understand and take control of the forces that
resides within us. This case study aims at
obtaining insights of the difference inmotivation between Japanese students andforeign students.

3

JAIST-COE News
Strategic Development of Science and Technology

Autumn, 2005

What are the Goals… (cont’d)

answer is negative. Many researchers (cf. Nutt)
noticed that these methods are not adequate forthe decision makers' needs and their behavior.
Most practitioners do not use any normative orprescriptive method and revert to, what is
termed as, descriptive methods which arecontext-dependent, tend to be holistic and noncompensatory. In other words, practitioners do
not buy scientific methods either because they
do not like their (implicit) goals or they areconvinced that they do not attain them. Morescientifically, rationality of common procedures
for making decisions has been found (Tversky& Kahneman) to be inconsistent with humanbehavior. Some researchers (Roy) even argue
that preference system does not actually exist.
Above all, why do we need a method forselecting the “best” alternative, in the first
instance? As Descartes indicates in his
Discourse: “… the power of judging aright andof distinguishing truth from error, which isproperly what is called good sense or reason, is
by nature equal in all men…”. We do not needa method. Imagine you have two clear
alternatives (a method may be required to makethe alternatives with all the outcomes andchances clear to you). Do you need a method toselect one of them? So, it seems that a method
is needed solely when there are many
alternatives, but this is a technical issue.
Buchanan, Corner and the undersigned (seereferences below) believe that the decision
making process is not about selecting analternative but about facilitating comprehensionof the preferences and expansion of the set ofalternatives.
Comprehension is much more thanrepresentation which is only a mathematicalimage of one's mind concerning preferences.
These methods are useful only when there aremany similar decisional problems in a shorttime and we want to be consistent and efficient.
Operations research methods and most MCDM
approaches tend to simplification andcompactness: concealing preferences rather
than confronting them and closing the set ofalternatives rather than opening it.
“Why the goals of comprehension andexpansion?” was the question I was asked
frequently. I used to say that these goals are
postulates devoid of explanation. Neither I nor
the asker was satisfied by this answer. I waslooking for some super-goal from which the

You would presume that every method will start
off with a declaration of its goals but they donot.
Why declaring the goals is important? To
me it is clear that the quality of the proposed
process can be judged only vis-à-vis its goals, if
they are achieved and how efficient are themethod to get them implemented. Many
methods require, and are used by, analysts toassist in operating them. Thus, such goals are
related to the analyst's tasks in advisingdecision makers.
My claim that no goals are mentioned issomewhat exaggerated. The main exception is
the literature in decision theory where thetraditional goal is a mathematical representationof the preferences. But does representation haveany practical goal in decision making? Other
methods, mainly in MCDM are frequently
compared according to speed of convergence,ease of operating and other technical features.
However, these, clearly, are not the goals. Somemethods indicate what seems to be a worthy
goal: satisfaction, or even happiness related tothe decision maker (and that is partially attainedby ease and speed). This goal can be understoodas satisfying the preferences of the decision
maker. This is an abstract and not an
operational goal. Scientists need objective goals
to direct them in designing methods to handle
the decision making process. Indeed there exists
no method that explicitly describes it as its goal.
Notwithstanding, many applications end with astatement that “the decision maker was satisfied
with our method”. To me, it indicates, usually,another ad hoc method in decision making.
Nevertheless, one can infer from themethods about their goals. In fact, most of themconclude with ranking the alternatives or
selecting a “preferred” alternative. Hence, as
stated in the opening paragraph, we can inferthat this is the goal. This includes, in myopinion the representation methods as well; theutility function (which is the ranking of all
hypothetical alternatives) is maximized toobtain the optimal alternative.
Another, and more practical question is; dothese methods achieve the goal? Is indeed theselected alternative (and there is always one)the best? The answer to this question is, clearly,
not so simple. There are apparent signs that the4

JAIST-COE News
Strategic Development of Science and Technology
goals can be derived. At least to satisfy mycuriosity, as a scientist, and not, necessarily, as
an operational goal.
Recently I came to the conclusion that thesuper-goal is, perhaps, “satisfying the decision
maker preferences”. The reader may wonder
now. Is it not the goal which many methods
assume, perhaps implicitly, in the first place,and even mentioned in the fourth paragraphabove? Though the wording may be the samethe meaning is avowedly different and is rooted
in the meaning of “preferences”.
My understanding of “preferences” is not
something related to the wishes of the decision
maker but a word used to express theknowledge related to the decision opportunity(or problem) s/he is facing. So the preferences
are not those interpreted by the decision makerand certainly not those “photographed” byrepresentation methods. It is assumed that
before applying the process the decision maker“does not know” what s/he wants and what s/heis able to get. It is the process that assists thedecision maker in attaining the goal ofsatisfying the preferences. The process
overrules what the decision maker “may think”

Autumn, 2005
as his or her preferences. Only by applying theprocess, the consultant and the decision makercan be sure, to some degree, that thepreferences were satisfied.
Explaining all this I still face the question:
whywill theoperational
goals of“comprehension and expansion” attain the
abstract super-goal of “satisfying the decision
maker preferences”? For now the only
explanation is my belief.
----The references mentioned above can befound in my following papers:
1. Solving MCDM Problems: Process
Concepts. Journal of Multi-Criteria
Decision Analysis 5, 1996, (with J.
Buchanan).
2. Objectivity and Subjectivity in theDecision Making Process. Annals of
Operations Research 80, 1998, (with J.
Buchanan and E. Henig).
3. Dynamic Decision Problem Structuring.
Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision
Analysis, 10, 2001, (with J. Corner and J.
Buchanan).

A Bird’s Eye Report of the IFSR
In order to promote the synergy between
Knowledge Sciences and Systems Sciences, the
IFSR - the International Federation for Systems
Research, with the support from numerous
international organizations and universities
have convened in the First World Congress of
the International Federation for Systems
Research took place from November 14-17,
2005 in Kobe Convention Complex located in
Port Island, Kobe, Japan.
A total of 180 papers authored by some 330
authors from 21 countries have been presented
during the proceeding of the Congress, followedwith discussion on concrete research topics
including knowledge management, technology
management,
varioustechnologies
ofinformation, communication networking, etc. insearch of ways to achieve sustainable economicand ecologic development, which is an urgent
need common to all human beings. Many of thepapers also addressed the interplay between
technology, human individuals and the impact
on our society.
At the end of the gathering, the audiencehas greatly accepted the generous offer from
Polish delegation to organize the Second World
Congress of the International Federation for
Systems Research scheduled for 2007.
Best Paper Awardees:
Five student’s papers representing five out ofseven Symposia have been chosen as Best
Paper. They are:Continued on page 6

5

JAIST-COE News
Strategic Development of Science and Technology

Autumn, 2005
A Bird’s Eye … (con’t)

1. Takashi Yoshinaga; E-mail: tyoshina@jaist.ac.jp
Institution: School of Knowledge Science, Japan Advanced Institute of
Science and Technology
Topic: Organizational R&D Concept Creating Activities Using Six-Lenses
Model
Category: Technology Creation Based on Knowledge Science
2. Norimasa Kobayashi; E-mail: nkoba@valdes.titech.ac.jp
Institution: Graduate School of Decision Science and Technology, Tokyo
Institute of Technology
Topic: Consulting as Outsourcing of Decision Making
Category: Creation of Agent-Based Social Systems Sciences

3. Xuan Hieu Phan; E-mail: hieuxuan@jaist.ac.jp
Institution: School of Knowledge Science, Japan Advanced Institute of
Science and Technology
Topic: Co-training of Conditional Random Fields for Segmenting Sequence
Data
Category: Data/Text Mining from Large Databases
4. Tomohiro Hayashida; E-mail: hayashida@hiroshima-u.ac.jp
Institution: Hiroshima University
Topic: Network structures in a society composed of individuals with utilities
depending on their reputation
Category: Vision of Knowledge Civilization

5. Vesna Kolenc; E-mail: vesna.kolenc@iedc.si
Institution: Postgraduate Studies, IEDC-Bled School of Management,
University of Maribor
Paper Title: Holistic approach to Innovating and Excellence - Application to
Business School
Category: Foundations of the Systems Sciences

6

JAIST-COE News
Strategic Development of Science and Technology
Faces in the Congress

7

Autumn, 2005

JAIST-COE News
Strategic Development of Science and Technology

Autumn, 2005

COE Center News♦ Dr. Boumsoung Kim left the Center to join Kobe University as postdoctoral researcher as ofDecember 1, 2005.
♦ Dr. Quamrul Hasan left the Center as of November 2005
♦ Dr. Saburo Ogata, Senior Researcher at the Institute for Future Technology joined the Center
for a 2 years term until March 2007.
♦ Dr. Kosaka Michitaka, Senior Researcher at Hitachi System Development Research Centerjoined the COE Center as Visiting Professor from June 1st 2005 and will stay until March 31,
2006.

JAIST-COE News is published by the Center for Strategic Development of Science andTechnology, Japan Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, 1-1 Asahidai, Nomi, Ishikawa
923-1292, Japan.
Questions, comments, article proposals and for more information about the JAIST-COE News,
contact Totok Hari Wibowo at totoku@jaist.ac.jp, tel. +81-761-51-1790 or go to the link:www.jaist.ac.jp/coe/index.htm
Articles in this newsletter are based on a variety of sources. Signed articles reflect the views of theauthor. Unsigned articles are prepared by the editorial staff, which is solely responsible for theircontent.

8