Big Sky Thinking

Thursday, February 11, 2010

Top 10 Ways to Make a Bad Decision

I'm usually a positive thinker, but I've observed that many leaders have an easier time committing to real change when there is a clear disadvantage to the status quo.  In that spirit, here's a quick Top 10 covering sure-fire ways to make a poor decision in your organization.  Have you seen others?  Share your comments and stories about what you have experienced.

10.  Make a decision based on money and time you've already spent.

9.    Play up information that confirms your current point of view.

8.    Ignore information that doesn't.

7.    Pay too much attention to the first thing you hear, or the first data you receive.

6.    Frame a decision only on the benefits OR risks, but not both.

5.    Wear rose-colored glasses when you are estimating the results.

4.    Wear doom-colored glasses when you are estimating the results.

3.    Believe that your "gut" is the smartest person in the room.  Corollary: Justify every decision with a quote by Malcolm Gladwell.

2.   Use nothing but data.

1.   Don't use data at all.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Monday, July 27, 2009

Dangers of Scores in Decision Making -- From James Taylor

James Taylor, who we've referenced on this blog on several occasions, shared his thoughts today on the dangers of scores in decision making. He provides a great example: the Body Mass Index (BMI), which is fraught with issues but is nonetheless used inappropriately by companies and health officials alike.

I've seen the misuse of scores or other numbers in some of the organizations served by Big Sky. When a model is developed that produces a number or a score -- such as with Analytic Hierarchy Process, Statistics that measure strength of relationships, or even simple weighted averages -- there are many who focus too narrowly on the number without context, or fail to realize its limitations. For example, we will often help clients use quantitative methods to prioritize budgets, but the numbers that "pop out" are really nothing more than measures of preference; they are not truth. In many cases, they aren't useful measures outside of the model, and can't even be compared to previous analyses using the same method.

Scores must be balanced with other factors -- which James correctly points out can be codified in rules and often automated. For those decisions that can't be automated because they are inherently more political or are subject to other unpredictable factors, the limitations of "scores" should be carefully and frequently communicated to all stakeholders to avoid confusion or misuse.

Thanks to James for a great post.

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,