<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><xml><records><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>10</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Marko A. Hofmann</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Reasoning beyond predictive validity: the role of plausibility in decision-supporting social simulation</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">WSC '15 Proceedings of the 2015 Winter Simulation Conference</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2015</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">December 06 - 09</style></date></pub-dates></dates><pub-location><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Huntington Beach, California</style></pub-location><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2728-2739</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>10</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Marko A. Hofmann</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Reasoning beyond predictive validity: the role of plausibility in decision-supporting social simulation</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Proceedings of the 2015 Winter Simulation Conference</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2015</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2015-12-06</style></date></pub-dates></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">IEEE Press Piscataway, NJ, USA ©2015</style></publisher><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2728-2739</style></volume><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Marko A. Hofmann</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Heiko Hahn</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Is it Apprpopriate to Use the Objective, Rational Decision- Making Framework as a Foundation for Modelling Social Systems?</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Information &amp; Security: An International Journal</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Heuristics.</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Objectivity</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Rational-Analytic Decision Making Framework</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Social Systems</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Transparency</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2007</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2007</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">22</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">17-27</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">In general, the developers of Decision Support Systems (DSS) look for objectivity and the support of the rational choice. These guiding principles are rarely reflected upon because they are so successful for technical problems and within the humanities. However, the majority of DSS for military purposes—especially in the context of the new tasks related to transformation of the armed forces—have to deal with social systems. These systems differ significantly from systems with no human interaction. First, there is an irreducible amount of uncertainty about the cause-effect-relations in such systems, which leads to unpredictability of many phenomena. Second, there is also a non-negligible amount of uniqueness in each event that makes it extremely hard to find general rules, which may help to find reproducible behavior. Third, most events cannot be evaluated from an objective point of view since every evaluation depends on subjective criteria. In the quest for objectivity and using the Rational Analytical Decision-Making Framework (RADMF) easily leads to erroneously take personal assumptions for apodictic postulations, which are originally based on prejudice and dogmatism. It also often results in lack of critical discussion because an objectively-best solution can only be questioned outside the decision framework. Therefore, this article ad¬vises on the use of transparency instead of objectivity and of heuristic decision frameworks instead of the RADMF.</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Marko A. Hofmann</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Tobias LEHMANN</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">On Simulation-based Wargaming: Comparison of Two Different Methodological Approaches</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Information &amp; Security: An International Journal</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Assumption-based Planning</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Intuition-based Decision-making</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Operational Wargaming</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">simulation</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Tactical Wargaming</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Wargaming</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2007</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2007</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">22</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">64-72</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;Wargaming has been neglected within the German Forces for almost fifty years. Only within the last two years, two so-called &amp;ldquo;Leitfaden&amp;rdquo; (codes of best practice) have been developed. The first one, elaborated by members of the General Staff Academy, is intended for operational wargaming and fully rests on the tradi&amp;shy;tional analytical comparison of different Courses of Action (CoA). Own and enemy CoAs are played against each other on the foundation of a game between two staff groups. Within this paradigm, simulations are used as evaluation tools. The rea&amp;shy;soning is based on the premise that simulation systems are valid representations of reality. A successful simulation run is considered a corroboration of a particular course of action. The second &amp;ldquo;Leitfaden,&amp;rdquo; developed at the University of the Fed&amp;shy;eral Armed Forces, is intended for so-called &amp;ldquo;tactical wargaming.&amp;rdquo; The two central concepts of this approach are intuition-based decision-making and assumption-based planning. The core rationale of this method is that all military planning and decision making is liable to what is called the &amp;ldquo;fog of war.&amp;rdquo; The irresolvable unpre&amp;shy;dictability of future developments in all military operations is considered an insur&amp;shy;mountable obstacle to all analytical approaches. This approach rests on the claim that pattern recognition and mental simulation of these patterns are the most valu&amp;shy;able cognitive functions of expert decision makers. Within this paradigm, simula&amp;shy;tions are used to support creativity, enhance imagination and trigger self-critical thinking. Simulation systems of complex systems are not necessarily regarded to be valid. This article discusses the pros and cons of the two approaches (&amp;ldquo;Leitfaden&amp;rdquo;) from both theoretical and practical perspective.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record></records></xml>