F 145 the issue of trust is discussed in more detail

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

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 its recommendations. 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.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online