 One
of the value propositions for Knowledge Management is to improve
decision-making. At a recent Toronto KM Consortium meeting, we agreed
to study whether KM actually achieves this objective.
When we looked for a model of the decision-making process, one that
seemed especially intriguing, in light of recent controversies about
its authors' decision-making skill, was that used by NASA, illustrated
in the table at right.
Whether we decide instinctively (whether to flee or fight), rationally
(what laptop to buy), or morally, aesthetically or emotionally (who to
vote for in the next election), or using some combination of the above,
we do tend to follow this process. Our decision criteria can be
objective or subjective. The process can be one-pass or iterative,
formal or informal. In some cases we 'back into' the process -- making
a possibly impulsive decision and then attempting to justify or test it
by going back through the process. The facts and assessment of unknowns
can be exhaustive and methodical or cursory, often depending on the
importance of the decision and the consequences of making the wrong
one, though I've heard more than one CEO pride himself on his ability
to make fast decisions with incomplete information, even if better
information was available.
Some of us are prone to groupthink -- unduly influenced by the
preferences of others, even if those preferences are uninformed,
illogical or volatile -- you see this often in election campaigns.
There are different styles of weighing alternatives, too. Some prefer
to find consensus, and consult extensively with others whose judgement
they trust -- recent studies indicate, with the benefit of hindsight,
that such an approach yields superior decisions. Others take an
adversarial, black-hat or 'devil's advocate' position to try to get
opposing perspectives before making decisions. In his new book, the Wisdom of Crowds, James Surowiecki cites the importance
of careful design of a decision-making or advisory group (most
critically that they be informed, representative of different
stakeholders and perspectives, and independent thinkers).
We tend to be influenced differently by others in the decision-making
process, depending on our personal values and our position in the
organization or group -- some of us are deeply influenced by others'
authority (status or education), reputation, or trustworthiness (which
means peers' views get more weight than either superiors' or
subordinates').
Inaccurate, incomplete or biased research or debate can also produce inappropriate decisions -- some of us are more aware of 'spin'
in what we read and hear than others. Marketers have perfected
techniques that range from manipulative to dishonest to influence
customer buying decisions. And as these fall from favour, subtler, more
subversive techniques -- like story-telling -- are taking their place.
Some legal decisions are considered so critical that there is a special
standard of fairness -- "due process'.
Technology sometimes gives us the opportunity to defer making decisions
and keep many options open until more facts are available and the risk
of decision error drops -- rapid prototyping for example.
Here are four brief stories about decisions, that reveal good and bad decision-making processes:
- A friend of mine was hiring for a research-analyst
position. There were three excellent candidates, but all four
interviewers rated a tall, well-spoken, attractive, well-dressed young
man as their clear choice. The word three of them used to describe his
superior je ne sais quoi was
'presence'. It turned out presence was all he had -- his research
skills were questionable, and the interviewers later kicked themselves
for not looking more closely at his sample work-product before hiring
him. Before he could be hired, he quit for a much higher-paying job in
PR, a job he had no credentials for, and where he is now Vice President.
- A colleague was trying to decide between two new house
models. He and his wife were each leaning slightly towards a different
choice. He drew up a chart listing all the buying criteria they cared
about, weighted each criterion and rated each house on each criterion.
The house his wife preferred got a higher total score, but my colleague
wasn't convinced. He kept trying to rig the numbers or weights to
change the scores, but couldn't do it, so he relented and they bought
the house his wife preferred. A year later he was delighted with the
decision, and couldn't understand how he was attached to the other
house at all.
- A woman I know was going out with two guys, and was under
growing pressure to make a decision. All her friends preferred Guy A,
with whom she shared many interests, over Guy B, who spoke little
English and with whom she had almost nothing in common. She chose Guy B
anyway, citing 'pure chemistry', and eventually married him.
Twenty-five years later, it was obviously the right choice -- they're
still together and very happy.
- A small Canadian company was successfully courted by a foreign company that appeared, on the surface, to be a perfect tactical
fit -- the Canadian company had great products and R&D, while the
foreign company had lots of cash and market presence around the world.
Five years later everyone from the Canadian company was gone and all
that was left was a warehouse. The strategies and cultures of the two companies, it was clear in hindsight, were completely incompatible.
This year, Canadians and Americans will both decide on a new federal
government. The electoral process in both countries is badly flawed,
the electorate is largely ignorant of the issues, and is being
deliberately misled by campaign advertising, while the media, in
typical fashion, are oversimplifying many of the choices and completely
disregarding others. The only thing we know for sure is that, in both
countries, more people will consciously decide not to vote than will vote for any of the alternatives. I wonder what that tells us about The Wisdom of Crowds?
|
MADE IN CANADA
trust your
instincts 
