Publication | Open Access
A Cognitive Model of Planning*
1.2K
Citations
17
References
1979
Year
CognitionTask PlanningSocial SciencesCognitive ArchitectureCognitive DevelopmentManagementDecision TheoryPlanning ProblemCognitive ScienceStrategyExperimental PsychologyInteractive Decision MakingPlanning TheoryAi PlanningCognitive System EngineeringCognitive ModelCognitive ModelingDecision ScienceComputer Simulation
The model extends the Hearsay‑1 architecture and notes that specialist activities are not coordinated systematically. The paper introduces a cognitive planning model, details it through a thinking‑aloud protocol and simulation, and compares it to successive refinement models. Planning is modeled as a set of opportunistic cognitive specialists who suggest decisions about problem approach, relevant knowledge, action types, specific actions, and resource allocation at varying abstraction levels.
This paper presents a cognitive model of the planning process. The model generalizes the theoretical architecture of the Hearsay‐ll system. Thus, it assumes that planning comprises the activities of a variety of cognitive “specialists.” Each specialist can suggest certain kinds of decisions for incorporation into the plan in progress. These include decisions about: (a) how to approach the planning problem; (b) what knowledge bears on the problem; (c) what kinds of actions to try to plan; (d) what specific actions to plan; and (e) how to allocate cognitive resources during planning. Within each of these categories, different specialists suggest decisions at different levels of abstraction. The activities of the various specialists are not coordinated in any systematic way. Instead, the specialists operate opportunistically, suggesting decisions whenever promising opportunities arise. The paper presents a detailed account of the model and illustrates its assumptions with a “thinking aloud” protocol. It also describes the performance of a computer simulation of the model. The paper contrasts the proposed model with successive refinement models and attempts to resolve apparent differences between the two points of view.
| Year | Citations | |
|---|---|---|
Page 1
Page 1