Rational models are based based on certain stereo type assumptions which have failed to look into the psychological, emotional aspect of decision making. My view is that no one can be 100% rational when its comes to practice even though theoretically rational behavior is possible to define.
On this question, I would recommend Daniel Kahneman's book, "Thinking, fast and slow". He suggests that people have two decision-making systems. One is fast and spontaneous, and involves instincts and emotions. It is more boundedly rational and susceptible to a variety of extra-rational influences (e.g., framing effects). The other is slower and more deliberative, but also more consistent and rational in the classical sense.
Rational decision making model is a useful tool to shape the decision infrastructure, the other models (bounded rationality, incremental, intuitive, political, bihevioral) are means you mend it with to take the shape or real-life decisions. Rational model is the genesis, the starting point, the preferred state of being, yet almost always there are discrepancies, which lead to behaviour which deviates from the rational model. BIases, anchoring, individual differences, financial and time limitations are some of the facets of irrtional decision making. I suggest you read SImon on bounded rationality.
Dear Tarak, Christian and Gentrit I claim that rationality is not only the homo economicus rationality, that seems to be as Gentrit said an ideal model to start up. I think that there are some kinds of rationality and also that they are not absolutely inconmensurable. This kinds of rationality are philosophical, economical, psychological, and 'neuroscience-based' I took my ideas from a very good paper of Hardy-Vallé that I attach to this post. Also I suggest to read Floris Heukelom whose PhD Thesis was about the subject and let him write about Simon, Kahneman and Gigerenzer as alternative frameworks to approach decision-making.