Simulation of Preference Information in an Interactive Reference Point‐Based Method for the Bi‐Objective Inventory Routing Problem

In the research area of multiple criteria decision making, very few publications exist that explicitly design the simulation of a decision maker (DM) in an interactive approach. For this reason, we outline some methods widely used in the literature to identify common assumptions of simulating the DM's responses and the required input preference information. Our paper aims at covering the identified gap by introducing experimental concepts. Such concepts are used for theoretical analyses of a combined search‐and‐decision‐making procedure. Simulating the DM is a fruitful idea because the algorithm can be tested without integrating a human decision maker. Finally, we conduct experiments based on the proposed settings for a multiobjective inventory routing problem, which is a relevant and challenging logistic problem. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

When is Death Bad,When it is Bad?

Philosophia - On a view most secularists accept, the deceased individual goes out of existence. How, then, can death be a bad thing for, or harm, the deceased? I consider the doctrine of...     

Postphenomenological Method and Technological Things Themselves

Human Studies - We live in a world where it is impossible to exist without, and beyond, technologies. Despite this omnipresence, we tend to overlook their influence on us. The vigorously developing...     

Entrepreneurial Passion: A Review,Synthesis, and Agenda for Future Research

The present study undertakes a comprehensive and critical review of the body of empirical work on entrepreneurial passion. In particular, we document how the “first generation” of research on entrepreneurial passion and work passion in entrepreneurs has gained growing attention in various sub-fields of entrepreneurship research including entrepreneurial management, psychology, and finance. We provide an overview over theories used, definitions and measurements adopted, research methods utilized (e.g., qualitative vs. quantitative, survey-based vs. experimental/intervention), the thematic focus of studies, and unit of investigation (e.g., individual vs. team). We not only flag the problems of inconsistencies and limitations with respect to theory use, the making of causal inferences, and the conceptualization and measurement of entrepreneurial passion in existing studies (e.g., jingle fallacies), but also review the antecedents and outcomes of entrepreneurial passion identified in prior work and work where it had been examined as a moderator. Following this, we offer a research agenda with concrete suggestions to act as a foundation for the “second generation” of entrepreneurial passion research that proactively addresses the issues and gaps identified in our review. Finally, we also highlight how insights from the entrepreneurial passion literature can inform scholarship on passion more broadly.