The nature of decision making
Download
1 / 32

THE NATURE OF DECISION MAKING - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 138 Views
  • Updated On :

THE NATURE OF DECISION MAKING. DECISION MAKING The act of choosing one alternative from among a set of alternatives. DECISION-MAKING PROCESS Recognize and define the nature of a decision situation Identify appropriate alternatives Choose and justify the best alternative (Recommend)

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'THE NATURE OF DECISION MAKING' - avi


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
The nature of decision making l.jpg
THE NATURE OF DECISION MAKING

DECISION MAKING

The act of choosing one alternative from among a set of alternatives.

DECISION-MAKING PROCESS

Recognize and define the nature of a decision situation

Identify appropriate alternatives

Choose and justify the best alternative (Recommend)

Evaluated on basis of feasibility, effectiveness, and consequences

Implement the recommendation (Put it into practice)

EFFECTIVE DECISIONS

Effective decisions optimize some set of factors: e.g. maximize profits, sales, market share or satisfaction, or minimize costs, waste, turnover, or unhappiness.


Preconditions for decision making is there a problem we really must address l.jpg
PRECONDITIONS FOR DECISION MAKINGIS THERE A PROBLEM WE REALLY MUST ADDRESS?

IS THERE A PERFORMANCE GAP?

Assumes there are standards to judge

Assumes there is monitoring and feedback

IS THE DECISION MAKER AWARE OF THIS GAP?

Consciousness of the gap

Significance to the organization

DOES THE DECISION MAKER HAVE THE RESOURCES TO ACT?

Knowledge and ability to fix the problem

Budgets, personnel, power

IS THE DECISION MAKER MOTIVATED TO ACT ON THE GAP?

Rewards and risks weighed

Risk-averse or risk-seeker?


Types of decisions l.jpg
TYPES OF DECISIONS

ROUTINE (Programmed)

COMMON PROBLEMS WITH WELL-DEFINED SOLUTIONS

: Rules, procedures, computer software packages

There is an obvious “best” solution or alternative

ADAPTIVE

A COMBINATION OF MODERATELY UNUSUAL AND ONLY PARTIALLY-KNOWN PROBLEMS AND ALTERNATIVES

Incremental changes or modifications of past decisions and practices

Selecting from a set of known alternatives, but unsure of the outcomes

INNOVATIVE (Non-Programmed)

UNUSUAL OR AMBIGUOUS PROBLEMS WHICH REQUIRE UNIQUE OR CREATIVE ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS

Emphasizes radical change, innovation, brainstorming

Not sure what the alternatives are, not sure whether any will work


Rational decision making model l.jpg
RATIONAL DECISION MAKING MODEL

DEFINE AND DIAGNOSE THE PROBLEMS

SEPARATE SYMPTOMS FROM CAUSES

CLARIFY THE OBJECTIVES TO BE ACHIEVED

IDENTIFY CRITERIA TO BE USED

SEARCH FOR ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS

WE MUST HAVE OPTIONS FOR EACH PROBLEM

COMPARE AND EVALUATE ALTERNATIVES

EXPECTED RESULTS, COSTS, POTENTIAL SIDE EFFECTS?

RECOMMENDED SOLUTIONS

JUSTIFY WHY THIS CHOICE…WHY NOT THE OTHERS?

IMPLEMENTATION

STEPS AND PROCEDURES TO FOLLOW TO ENSURE SUCCESS

MONITORING AND CONTROL

ARE THINGS GOING AS EXPECTED? IS FURTHER INTERVENTION NEEDED?


Rational model assumptions l.jpg
RATIONAL MODEL ASSUMPTIONS

PROBLEM CLARITY

The problem is clear and unambiguous. The decision maker is assumed to have complete information regarding the decision situation.

KNOWN OPTIONS

The decision maker can identify all the relevant criteria and can list all the viable alternatives. Furthermore, the decision maker is aware of all the possible consequences of each alternative.

CLEAR PREFERENCES

The criteria and alternatives can be ranked and weighted to reflect their importance.

CONSTANT PREFERENCES

The decision criteria are constant and the weights assigned are stable.

NO TIME OR COST CONSTRAINTS

The decision maker can obtain full information about criteria and alternatives because it is assumed there are no time or cost constraints.

MAXIMUM PAYOFF

The rational decision maker will choose the alternative that yields the highest perceived value.


Bounded rationality simon 57 l.jpg
BOUNDED RATIONALITYSIMON (57)

BASED ON A LIMITED PERSPECTIVE

SOME IMPORTANT CRITERIA ARE NOT IDENTIFIED

NOT ALL ALTERNATIVES ARE CONSIDERED

SEQUENTIAL EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES

CONSIDER OPTIONS ONE AT A TIME

MAY ONLY COMPARE AND CONTRAST TWO OPTIONS

SATISFICING

IS THE OPTION UNDER CONSIDERATION “OK” or “GOOD ENOUGH?”

SELECTION OF THE FIRST TOLERABLE OPTION

JUDGMENTAL HEURISTICS AND BIASES

OVERCONFIDENCE – “I’m 70% sure”…more like 50/50

ANCHORS -- Get stuck on some initial info…$15-$50 mill…”Primacy Effect”

CONFIRMATION – Bias that remembers only data that supports your predisposition

AVAILABILITY– Information that is readily available and vivid, we don’t dig deeper

ESCALATION OF COMMITMENT – More investment in a bad decision


Decision making l.jpg
DECISION MAKING

UNDER CONDITIONS OF:

CERTAINTY

RISK

UNCERTAINTY

AMBIGUITY

LEADS TO SOLUTIONS THAT ARE:

OPTIMIZED

SATISFICED


Four decision making conditions l.jpg
FOUR DECISION MAKING CONDITIONS

CERTAINTY

DECISION MAKERS KNOW WHICH OBJECTIVES THEY WANT TO ACHIEVE

ALTERNATIVES ARE CLEARLY DEFINED

KNOWLEDGE OF OUTCOMES IS COMPLETE

ALL INFORMATION NEEDED IS FULLY AVAILABLE

RISK

DECISION MAKERS KNOW WHICH OBJECTIVES THEY WANT TO ACHIEVE

ALTERNATIVES ARE CLEAR

LIKELIHOOD OF OUTCOMES IS SUBJECT TO CHANCE

GOOD INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE

UNCERTAINTY

DECISION MAKERS KNOW WHICH OBJECTIVES THEY WANT TO ACHIEVE

ALTERNATIVES ARE INCOMPLETE

LIKELIHOOD OF OUTCOMES IS NOT UNDERSTOOD

INFORMATION IS INCOMPLETE

AMBIGUITY

OBJECTIVES TO BE ACHIEVED ARE NOT CLEAR

ALTERNATIVES ARE DIFFICULT TO DEFINE

INFORMATION ABOUT OUTCOMES IS UNAVAILABLE


Decision styles thompson tuden 59 l.jpg
DECISION STYLESTHOMPSON & TUDEN (59)

CLEAR PREFERENCES

REGARDING OUTCOMES

YES, We Agree NO Agreement

Known with Certainty Not Known

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

YES, We Know

What To Do

CLEAR UNDERSTANDINGCOMPUTATIONAL COMPROMISE

OF CAUSE / EFFECT- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

RELATIONSHIPSJUDGMENTAL BLUE-SKY

(Inspirational)

NO, We Don’t

Know What to Do - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

DO YOU KNOW WHAT OUTCOMES YOU WANT AND WHAT TO DO TO GET THEM?


Three rational decision processes compensatory conjunctive disjunctive l.jpg
THREE “RATIONAL”DECISION PROCESSESCOMPENSATORY, CONJUNCTIVE, DISJUNCTIVE

COMPENSATORY PROCESS (CLASSICAL)

ALL IMPORTANT CRITERIA ARE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED

CRITERIA ARE WEIGHTED ACCORDING TO IMPORTANCE

ALL ALTERNATIVES CAN BE MATHEMATICALLY MODELED

EXPECTED VALUE IS CALCULATED FOR EACH OPTION

THE “BEST” EXPECTED VALUE IS THE OPTIMAL CHOICE

USE OF EXPECTED VALUES ALWAYS LEADS TO THE OPTIMAL SOLUTION

VERY HIGH PERFORMANCE ON ONE CRITERION CAN OFFSET WEAKNESSES IN ANOTHER

ARE YOU CONFIDENT THE WEIGHTS AND VALUES ARE CORRECT?


Compensatory decision process classical economic approach l.jpg
COMPENSATORY DECISION PROCESSCLASSICAL / ECONOMIC APPROACH

Price MPG Room Power Style EXPECTED

ORIGINAL GRID .40 .20 .10 .10 .20 VALUE

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

CAR A 9,000 50 .4 .4 .6

CAR B 12,000 35 .6 .7 .9

CAR C 14,000 28 .7 .9 .7

CAR D 10,500 32 .7 .7 .4

CONVERTED GRID (so all #’s are standardized)

CAR A .889 1.00 .4 .4 .6 .7556**

CAR B .667 .70 .6 .7 .9 .7168

CAR C .571 .56 .7 .9 .7 .6404

CAR D .762 .64 .7 .7 .4 .6528

Ideal = $8,000 50mpg 1.0 1.0 1.0


Conjunctive process or multiple hurdles approach l.jpg
CONJUNCTIVE PROCESSOR ”MULTIPLE HURDLES” APPROACH

ALL IMPORTANT CRITERIA ARE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED

CRITERIA CAN BE RANKED OR ORDERED IN IMPORTANCE

CUTOFF LIMITS ARE SET FOR EACH CRITERION

ALTERNATIVES ARE COMPARED TO THE CUTOFF LIMITS

ONLY ALTERNATIVES WITHIN ALL CUTOFF LIMITS SURVIVE

NOT AN OPTIMIZING PROCESS---NO SOLUTION GUARANTEED

THE PROCESS MAY NARROW DOWN THE OPTIONS, BUT DOESN’T

GUARANTEE A “BEST” SOLUTION WILL BE FOUND.

IN FACT, IT IS POSSIBLE THAT ALL ALTERNATIVES MAY BE ELIMINATED

BY THE CUTOFF LIMITS, LEAVING US WITH NO RECOMMENDATION.

EXCEPTIONAL STRENGTH ON ONE CRITERION CANNOT MAKE UP FOR A

WEAKNESS OR LACK ON ANOTHER CRITERION.

ALL THE MINIMUMS ON ALL THE CRITERIA MUST BE MET.


Conjunctive decision process multiple hurdles approach l.jpg
CONJUNCTIVE DECISION PROCESSMULTIPLE HURDLES APPROACH

Price MPG Style Power Room PASSED ALL

Rank = 1 2 3 4 5 CUTOFFS

Original Grid - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

CAR A 9,000 50 .6 .4 .4

CAR B 12,000 35 .9 .7 .6

CAR C 14,000 28 .7 .9 .7

CAR D 10,500 32 .4 .7 .7

CUTOFFS Max Min Min Min Min

13,000 30 .6 .6 .6

RUNNING THE HURDLES

CAR A OK OK OKFAIL ---

CAR B OK OK OK OK OK YES**

CAR C FAIL ----

CAR D OK OK FAIL ----


Disjunctive process or behavioral l.jpg
DISJUNCTIVE PROCESSOR “BEHAVIORAL”

WE HAVE SOME CRITERIA, BUT THE LIST SEEMS INCOMPLETE

UNABLE TO EITHER WEIGHT OR RANK CRITERIA BY IMPORTANCE

WE CAN PERCEIVE OUTSTANDING ATTRIBUTES FOR EACH OPTION

WE LIST THE “STRENGTHS” & “WEAKNESSES” OF EACH OPTION

WE PICK OUR CHOICE BASED ON A REVIEW OF THESE S/W LISTS

THE DECISION PROCESS IS UNSYSTEMATIC, INCONSISTENT

AN ALTERNATIVE WITH A “BAD” ATTRIBUTE IS FREQUENTLY REJECTED

FINAL CHOICES ARE USUALLY MADE USING A SINGLE CRITERION WHICH

THE DECISION MAKER HAS DECIDED TO FOCUS UPON.

THESE DECISIONS ARE MUCH MORE SUBJECTIVE THAN THEY APPEAR,

AND ARE DIFFICULT TO DEFEND IF CHALLENGED.


Disjunctive decision process behavioral strengths weaknesses approach l.jpg
DISJUNCTIVE DECISION PROCESSBEHAVIORAL, STRENGTHS/WEAKNESSES APPROACH

Price Style Power MPG ????

Original Grid - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

CAR A Good Bad Good

CAR B Good

CAR C Bad Good

CAR D Bad

Eliminate the alternatives with “Bad” evaluations, and see what is left.

Thus, we buy Car B because I liked the color and my wife liked the

interior!

NOT RATIONAL OR SYSTEMATIC, BUT WE THINK WE WERE “LOGICAL” IN

WHAT WE DID BEFORE SELECTING THE CAR.


Environmental scenarios l.jpg
ENVIRONMENTAL SCENARIOS

WHAT ARE YOUR ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT?

POSSIBLE STATES OF NATURE (Scenarios)

MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE

THINGS WE DON’T CONTROL

POSSIBLE ACTIONS WE CAN TAKE (Alternatives)

ALTERNATIVES OR OPTIONS

THESE ARE THE CHOICES WE CAN MAKE (WE CONTROL THESE)

EXPECTED OUTCOMES FOR EACH POSSIBLE ACTION

REVENUES, COSTS, PROFITS

UNITS PRODUCED, HOURS WORKED, ETC.

LIKELIHOOD OF EACH OUTCOME

CERTAINTY

RISK or PROBABILITY

TOTAL UNCERTAINTY


Slide17 l.jpg

PAYOFF TABLES

SINGLE-PHASE PROBLEMS

RECURRING, REPETITIVE DECISIONS

CAN ILLUSTRATE THE CLASSICAL DECISION PROCESS

DECISION TREES

MULTI-PHASE PROBLEMS

NEAR-UNIQUE, ONE-TIME-ONLY DECISIONS


A payoff table illustration under total uncertainty l.jpg
A PAYOFF TABLE ILLUSTRATIONUNDER TOTAL UNCERTAINTY

EXPECTED PROFITS $ / ACRE

STATES OF NATURE / ENVIRONMENTAL SCENARIOS

ALTERNATIVE CROPSNORMALWETDRYVIOLENT

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

CORN $ 900 450 -800 250

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

POTATOES 800 -300 400 500

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

HAY/GRASS 300 500 0 100

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1. MAXI-MAX (Optimist) *Corn 900, Potato 800, Hay 500

2. MAXI-MIN (Pessimist) Corn -800, Potato -300, *Hay 0

3. MINI-MAX (Regret) Regrets..Corn 1200, Potato 800, *Hay 600

4. AVERAGE (Rational) Ex Value…Corn 200, *Potato 350, Hay 225


Building a regret matrix l.jpg
BUILDING A REGRET MATRIX

EXPECTED PROFITS $ / ACRE

STATES OF NATURE / ENVIRONMENTAL SCENARIOS

ORIGINAL MATRIX

ALTERNATIVE CROPSNORMALWETDRYVIOLENT

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

CORN $ 900 450 -800 250

POTATOES 800 -300 400 500

HAY/GRASS 300 500 0 100

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

REGRET MATRIX

CORN 0 50 1200 250

POTATOES 100 800 0 0

HAY/GRASS 600 0 400 400

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MINIMIZE THE MAXIMUM REGRETS

Corn = 1200, Potatoes = 800, Hay = 600**


A payoff table illustration under risk assigned probability l.jpg
A PAYOFF TABLE ILLUSTRATIONUNDER RISK (ASSIGNED PROBABILITY)

EXPECTED PROFITS $ / ACRE

PROBABILITIES COME FROM “GOOD” GUESSES. CALCULATE THE EXPECTED VALUES

INDIAN JOE’S ESTIMATES = Normal 30%, Wet 25%, Dry 20%, Violent 25%

STATES OF NATURE / ENVIRONMENTAL SCENARIOS

ALTERNATIVE CROPSNORMALWETDRYVIOLENT EXPECTED

WEIGHTS .30 .25 .20 .25 VALUES

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

CORN $ 900 450 -800 250 $ 285

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

POTATOES 800 -300 400 500 370**

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

HAY/GRASS 300 500 0 100 240

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = == =

You should PLANT POTATOES EVERY YEAR. In any one year you’ll either make 800, lose 300, make 400, or make 500 …but over the years, you’ll average $370 of profits.


A payoff table illustration under risk factual probability l.jpg
A PAYOFF TABLE ILLUSTRATIONUNDER RISK (FACTUAL PROBABILITY)

EXPECTED PROFITS $ / ACRE

PROBABILITY INFORMATION COMES FROM RELIABLE (FACTUAL) SOURCES

WEATHER BUREAU HISTORY = Normal 35%, Wet 30%, Dry 15%, Violent 20%

STATES OF NATURE / ENVIRONMENTAL SCENARIOS

ALTERNATIVE CROPSNORMALWETDRYVIOLENT EXPECTED

WEIGHTS .35 .30 .15 .20 VALUES

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

CORN $ 900 450 -800 250 $ 380**

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

POTATOES 800 -300 400 500 350

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

HAY/GRASS 300 500 0 100 275

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

You should PLANT CORN EVERY YEAR. In any one year you’ll either make 900, make 450, lose 800 or make 250 …but over the years, you’ll average $380 of profits.


A payoff table illustration under risk what is the value of perfect information l.jpg
A PAYOFF TABLE ILLUSTRATIONUNDER RISK (WHAT IS THE VALUE OF PERFECT INFORMATION?)

WE KNOW ONLY GOD CONTROLS THE WEATHER, BUT IF WE HAD PERFECT PREDICTION EACH YEAR, WE’D KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THE WEATHER WOULD BE AND WHAT WE SHOULD PLANT. WE’D HAVE NORMAL CONDITIONS 35% OF THE TIME, AND DURING THOSE TIMES, WE’D PLANT CORN. 30% OF THE TIME IT WOULD BE WET AND WE’D PLANT HAY, ETC.

STATES OF NATURE / ENVIRONMENTAL SCENARIOS

ALTERNATIVE CROPSNORMALWETDRYVIOLENT EXPECTED

WEIGHTS .35 .30 .15 .20 VALUES

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

CORN $ 900 450 -800 250 $ 380**

POTATOES 800 -300 400500350

HAY/GRASS 300 500 0 100 275

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Expected Profits given Perfect Information (EPPI) = $625.

Expected Value of Perfect Information (EVPI) = EPPI – EV = $625 –380 = $ 245

Therefore, you can increase your profits by up to $245 if you have a perfect weather forecast each spring.


Group decision making l.jpg
GROUP DECISION MAKING

ADVANTAGES

  • BROAD REPRESENTATION

  • TAPS EXPERTISE

  • MORE IDEAS GENERATED

  • EVALUATION OF OPTIONS

  • COORDINATION

  • HIGH ACCEPTANCE

    DISADVANTAGES

  • TIME CONSUMING

  • POSSIBLE INDECISIVENESS

  • COMPROMISE DECISIONS

  • DOMINATION BY A MEMBER

  • RISKY SHIFTS

  • GROUPTHINK


Group decision making issues vroom yetton 73 l.jpg
GROUP DECISION MAKING ISSUESVROOM & YETTON (73)

  • TIME AVAILABILITY

  • TYPE OF PROBLEM OR TASK

  • AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION

  • NEED FOR ACCEPTANCE OF DECISION

  • LEVEL OF TRUST

  • CAPABILITIES OF SUBORDINATES

  • LIKELIHIID OF CONFLICT


Participation in decision making vroom yetton 73 l.jpg
PARTICIPATION IN DECISION MAKINGVROOM & YETTON (73)

LEADERS HAVE THREE DECISION MAKING STYLES

AUTOCRATIC

CONSULTIVE

PARTICIPATIVE

FACTORS AFFECTING CHOICE OF STYLE:

1. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PROBLEM

HOW IMPORTANT IS THE QUALITY OF THE DECISION?

IS THE PROBLEM WELL-STRUCTUERED?

IS TIME CRITICAL?

HOW IMPORTANT IS SUBORDINATE COMMITMENT TO THE CHOICE?

2. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE MANAGER

DOES THE LEADER HAVE GOOD INFORMATION TO MAKE THE CHOICE?

3. CHARACTERISTICS OF SUBORDINATES

WILL SUBORDINATES ACCEPT THE LEADER’S DECISION?

DO SUBORDINATES SHARE THE ORGANIZATION’S GOALS?

IS CONFLICT LIKELY AMONG SUBORDINATES (OVER THE CHOICES)?

CAN THEY CONTRIBUTE GOOD INFORMATION TO MAKE THE CHOICE?


Vroom s decision styles l.jpg
VROOM’S DECISION STYLES

  • A1 YOU SOLVE THE PROBLEM YOURSELF, WITH YOUR OWN INFORMATION

  • A2 YOU OBTAIN INFORMATION FROM YOUR SUBORDINATES, THEN SOLVE THE PROBLEM YOURSELF

  • C1 YOU SHARE THE PROBLEM WITH YOUR SUBORDINATES INDIVIDUALLY, WITHOUT BRINGING THEM TOGETHER AS A GROUP. YOU CONSIDER THEIR IDEAS, THEN MAKE THE DECISION BY YOURSELF

  • C2 YOU SHARE THE PROBLEM WITH YOUR SUBORDINATES AS A GROUP, COLLECTIVELY GETTING THEIR IDEAS, THEN YOU MAKE THE DECISION BY YOURSELF

  • G2 YOU SHARE THE PROBLEM WITH YOUR SUBORDINATES AS A GROUP. TOGETHER YOU ATTEMPT TO REACH A CONSENSUS ON A SOLUTION. YOUR ROLE IS CHAIR, AND THE GROUP’S SOLUTION SHOULD BE THE ONE IMPLEMENTED


Defects in group decision making l.jpg
DEFECTS IN GROUP DECISION MAKING

  • DISCUSSION LIMITED TO A FEW ALTERNATIVES (ONE OR TWO)

  • FAILURE TO REEXAMINE THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE FOR WEAKNESSES AND POTENTIAL RISKS

  • NO SEARCH TO FIND ADVANTAGES FOR OTHER ALTERNATIVES, AND NO SEARCH FOR WAYS TO MAKE OTHER OPTIONS FEASIBLE

  • LITTLE OR NO ATTEMPT TO OBTAIN EXPERT OR OUTSIDE ADVICE

  • A TENDENCY TO IGNORE FACTS AND OPINIONS THAT DO NOT AGREE WITH THE PREFERRED PLAN OF ACTION

  • NO CONTINGENCY PLANS ESTABLISHED IN CASE SOMETHING GOES WRONG

  • NO ATTEMPT TO LOOK AT THE SITUATION FROM A CONTRARY OR ANTAGONISTIC VIEWPOINT

  • LAUGHING AT DANGER SIGNALS; MAKING LIGHT OF INDICATIONS THAT ALL IS NOT PROCEEDING SMOOTHLY

  • LEADERS WHO DOMINATE DISCUSSIONS AND MAKE THEIR SUGGESTIONS EARLY, BEFORE OTHERS HAVE HAD THEIR SAY


Symptoms of groupthink janis 72 l.jpg
SYMPTOMS OF GROUPTHINKJANIS (72)

A VERY COHESIVE GROUP THAT IS LIKELY TO MAKE POOR DECISIONS

  • OVERESTIMATION OF THE GROUP

    ILLUSION OF INVULNERABILITY (Superiority)

    ILLUSION OF MORALITY

  • CLOSEMINDEDNESS

    RATIONALIZATION (Discounting Warning Signs)

    STEREOTYPED VIEWS OF OUTSIDERS (Not Trusted & Not Very Smart)

  • PRESSURE TOWARD CONFORMITY

    SELF-CENSORSHIP OF MEMBERS

    DIRECT PRESSURE APPLIED TO DEVIANTS

    MINDGUARDS (Don’t Let Others/outsiders Influence Us)

    ILLUSION OF UNANIMITY (Silence Means Agreement?)


Remedies for groupthink l.jpg
REMEDIES FOR GROUPTHINK

  • ASSIGN EVERYONE THE ROLE OF CRITICAL EVALUATOR

    SENSITIZATION

  • LEADER MUST BE IMPARTIAL

    DO NOT INITIALLY STATE YOUR PREFERENCES

  • APPOINT AN INTERNAL “DEVIL’S ADVOCATE”

  • USE OUTSIDE EXPERTS TO CHALLENGE THE GROUP

    THEY MAY STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH WHAT YOU WANT TO DO

  • DIVIDE INTO TWO OR MORE SUBGROUPS TO WORK INDEPENDENTLY ON THE SAME PROBLEM

    HAVE EACH GROUP REPORT BACK

  • HOLD “SECOND CHANCE” MEETINGS TO REAFFIRM EARLIER THINKING AND DECISIONS

    HAVE A “CONFIRMATION” VOTE LATER


Brainstorming l.jpg
BRAINSTORMING

USED TO GENERATE NEW IDEAS OR ALTERNATIVES

RULES:

  • FREEWHEELING IS WELCOME --- OFFER ANY IDEAS THAT COME TO YOU

  • QUANTITY IS DESIRED --- DON’T WORRY ABOUT QUALITY OR RISK RIGHT NOW

  • NO CRITICISM OR PRAISE OF IDEAS IS ALLOWED

  • NO QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION OF IDEAS --- THAT WILL COME AT A LATER MEETING

  • COMBINATION AND IMPROVEMENT OF IDEAS IS ENCOURAGED --- BUILD ON OTHER PEOPLE’S IDEAS AND SUGGESTIONS


Nominal group technique l.jpg
NOMINAL GROUP TECHNIQUE

  • EACH MEMBER GENERATES A LIST OF THEIR IDEAS AHEAD OF TIME

  • IDEAS ARE SHARED WITH MEMBERS EITHER AS AN EXHAUSTIVE LIST, OR ARE PRESENTED ONE AT A TIME WITHOUT COMMENT

  • MEMBERS VOTE BY SECRET BALLOT TO SELECT THE “BEST” IDEAS WHICH THEY WANT TO PURSUE FURTHER

  • EACH ITEM IS DISCUSSED AND EVALUATED PUBLICLY (Pros and Cons)

  • FINAL VOTES ARE TAKEN BY SECRET BALLOT

    REDUCES THE EFFECTS OF POWER AND STATUS DIFFERENCES

    ALL MEMBERS CAN PARTICIPATE AND GET THEIR IDEAS BEFORE THE GROUP

    MEMBERS ARE NOT INTIMIDATED BY A DOMINANT MEMBER


Delphi technique l.jpg
DELPHI TECHNIQUE

  • CAN PROBE THE VIEWS OF INDUSTRY EXPERTS

  • MATRERIALS SENT TO PARTICIPANTS FOR REACTIONS

  • OPTIONS ARE INDIVIDUALLY WRITTEN AND SENT BACK

  • SUMMARIES ARE SENT OUT FOR FURTHER COMMENT

  • ROLE OF THE IN-HOUSE COORDINATOR IS CRUCIAL

  • THE “GROUP” NEVER MEETS TOGETHER

  • NO FINAL DECISIONS ARE “MADE” BY THIS GROUP

    THIS IS A “VIRTUAL GROUP” WHICH CAN BE INTERNET CONNECTED

    PROCESS GATHERS THE BEST THINKING & JUDGMENT OF EXPERTS

    SUCCESSIVE FEEDBACK REDEFINES AND FOCUSES IDEAS

    FINAL DECISIONS ARE MADE BY COMPANY OFFICIALS, NOT THE GROUP


ad