tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5948141587422980338.post7326654247151438210..comments2023-07-29T14:44:21.646+02:00Comments on The Tester's Headache: The Certainty Effect and InsuranceSimon Morleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10629592766073538811noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5948141587422980338.post-25179964802871714082011-04-18T00:46:40.812+02:002011-04-18T00:46:40.812+02:00Henrik,
Two negatives - interesting thought!
The...Henrik,<br /><br />Two negatives - interesting thought!<br /><br />These papers are partly describing situations where the framing of the problem affects the choice - it's the framing and not the riskiness that affects the preference.<br /><br />It's the relative attractiveness of options that varies when they're presented in different ways (framed differently).<br /><br />Comparing a positive and negative alternative is done with a known reference point from which to determine that one is positive and one is negative - if both are negative then a different reference point might apply - so I don't know if the same theory would apply.<br /><br />In terms of how to manage the planning and reporting - spontaneous thoughts - managing expectations and understanding the frames in which you report the information and the frames in which the stakeholder is receiving and interpreting the information (far from easy...) <br /><br />More thought necessary...Simon Morleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10629592766073538811noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5948141587422980338.post-89788369433491163402011-04-18T00:40:07.530+02:002011-04-18T00:40:07.530+02:00Henrik,
Examples with insurance might be anything...Henrik,<br /><br />Examples with insurance might be anything connected with test results, problems or perceived product risks.<br /><br />With results/problems, then a root cause analysis could be an example (from the stakeholder viewpoint). Root cause analysis - common in "process friendly" organizations - a need to understand or help highlight potential improvements in activities based on customer feedback, but:<br /><br /> • Sometimes this goes too far - "ok this type of fault must be caught by us" - which can result in types of problems being chased<br /><br /> ⁃ Can also lead to frame blindness - a focus on the symptom and a willingness to insure (paying some premium with some excess (självrisk) ) to prevent the same severity occuring<br /> ⁃ Can lead to focus on (or reacting to) severity rather than the problem<br /><br />In the case of looking at risks that can affect a product then depending how this is done can result in a skewed focus - insuring to the extent of eliminating risk:<br /><br /> • Common for risk management is to come up with a risk list and then a mitigation strategy - although this is implicitly a risk reduction strategy, stakeholders can use these lists as items to check-off, and then they can become risk elimination objects.<br /> • Then an effect call <a href="http://testers-headache.blogspot.com/2010/12/risk-compensation-and-assumptions.html" rel="nofollow">risk compensation</a> comes into play - one chases risks and loses the big picture.<br /><br />Hope this helps.Simon Morleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10629592766073538811noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5948141587422980338.post-77743872480249706692011-04-18T00:28:36.807+02:002011-04-18T00:28:36.807+02:00James,
Thanks for the link.
The paper on Framing...James,<br /><br />Thanks for the link.<br /><br />The paper on Framing of Decisions states that the certainty effect is typically seen in comparisons where the move away from certainty is by a given factor - in the above example a reduction of probability by .66 in both cases. Other examples include reduction of probabilities by one quarter or one tenth.Simon Morleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10629592766073538811noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5948141587422980338.post-12013919898199926362011-04-15T15:46:53.130+02:002011-04-15T15:46:53.130+02:00Thanks James for the paper!
This is intriguing.
...Thanks James for the paper!<br /><br />This is intriguing. <br />I especially found it interesting with the discovered pattern of risk aversion for positive prospects and risk seeking for negative ones. <br />That to me suggests that a stakeholder would choose the most risky option if two negative prospects are presented.<br />But that does not mean entirely risk elimination; it would only mean the most risky of two negative options.<br /><br />How can we manage this in test planning/reporting? Any strategies?<br />Matchmake risks according to this? :-)Henrik Emilssonhttp://www.thetesteye.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5948141587422980338.post-72819424879471207822011-04-15T09:10:11.776+02:002011-04-15T09:10:11.776+02:00Here's a link to the paper
http://www.hss.cal...Here's a link to the paper<br /><br />http://www.hss.caltech.edu/~camerer/Ec101/ProspectTheory.pdf<br /><br />The paper points out that A/B becomes C/D by "eliminating a .66 chance of winning 2400 from both prospects under consideration". Seeing how the experiments were related helped me to understand why the comparison was useful.James Lyndsayhttp://workroom-productions.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5948141587422980338.post-46582153937308991872011-04-15T07:00:11.418+02:002011-04-15T07:00:11.418+02:00Interesting Simon!
I almost get it, but still stru...Interesting Simon!<br />I almost get it, but still struggle with the Insurance part (it's early in the morning and the coffee hasn't kicked in yet...)<br />Can you give some more examples on Insurance applied to testing?<br />Cheers,<br />HenrikHenrik Emilssonhttp://www.thetesteye.comnoreply@blogger.com