This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: lt in them accepting a
flawed project and which will subsequently fuel their distrust of decision analysis.
Secondly and more likely, it means that the decision-makers ignore, or reduce the
emphasis on, the analysis which, in turn, affects the motivation of employees to
compile the analysis and means that managers do not become educated in decision
analysis techniques. According to one respondent:
“It’s very interesting in those discussions how much importance [is given to
the analysis], because he [the decision-maker] doesn’t really grasp, I don’t
believe, what’s going on here. So you know you do all that work and you go
to him, and it comes back down to, “Well, what do you think?”…and he has
his preferred advisors. So it comes down to sometimes what his preferred
advisors think who might not wholly understand what is going on down at the
probabilistic level either, or have not have been involved. So there’s an awful
lot of input here from the people who have the trust of the leader…The
decision-makers don’t get it. They go on opinion. They also go on the people
who they trust the best. That is very clear here….Now we still do this
[decision analysis] but it might not carry one bit of weight if people who are
the opinion holders if you like - the trustees, the most trusted employees - if
they don’t buy it.” (F) 145 The issue of trust is discussed in more detail below. The third effect of decisionmakers lack of involvement in generating the analysis is that it means that the
decision-makers’ preferences, beliefs and judgements are not captured and
included in the analysis which must contribute to any inherent reluctance to accept
Some companies have attempted to overcome these difficulties by introducing a
structured process for gaining management input to the decision-making process.
These companies are typically the larger organisations where employees are not
personally known to the decision-maker. This practice encourages communication
between analysts and decision-makers. Consequently, it improves the efficiency of
the process in numerous ways, not least, by ensuring that the assumptions that the
analyst has underlying the analysis are consistent with the decision-makers’
opinions. This ought to result in fewer projects being rejected that reach the end of
the analysis process. It should also improve managers’ understanding of, and
attitude toward, decision analysis.
In small companies, there are usually fewer opportunities and the levels of trust
tend to be higher since employees are usually known to the decision-maker. The
decision-makers are more naturally involved in the process and hence, generally,
companies do not think it necessary to have formal management “buy-in” to the
analysis process. This is well illustrated by one respondent:
“…And the other thing I guess in our organisation is that we have direct
access to all decision-makers. I mean we [are], in terms of people, really quite
small. I mean I can cal...
View Full Document
This document was uploaded on 03/30/2014.
- Summer '14
- The Land