Discussion: View Thread

Expand all | Collapse all

Decisions, Decisions

  • 1.  Decisions, Decisions

    Posted 12-10-2004 16:43
    As some of you know, I've been poking around in the literature on decision
    making. One of the first things I came across was the issue of framing;
    that is, the ways in which the way one frames a decision shape the way
    choices are made (e.g., treatment choices couched in terms of survival or
    mortality rates elicit very different choices even though the practical
    outcomes are identical).

    In a related vein, the questions you pose and the way you pose them tend to
    shape the answers. I've been toying with a three-part framework as a way of
    teasing out some typical framing questions.

    For example:

    What do we do about X?

    In this instance, the object is a course of action.

    As another example:

    Down which of these paths do we go?

    In this instance, the object is to choose.

    Here's a third:

    Which of these yields the highest rate of return?

    The object here is to evaluate alternatives or options against a
    criterion.


    If you think about the situations in which such questions might be asked,
    they strike me (in order) as:

    Confronted with a requirement for action.

    Confronted with a choice between alternatives or among options.

    Assessing two or more choices in light of a given criterion.

    The three-part framework, then, consists of the following:

    Situation: Faced with alternatives or options.
    Object: Choose one.
    Question: How do I choose between or among these?

    Situation: Faced with a requirement to act.
    Object: A course of action.
    Question: What can we do about X?

    It seems to me that there is a set of such three-part frameworks that ought
    to "cover the bases" with respect to decision making.

    Here's my question to the list: What are some Situation-Object-Question
    sets that come to your mind right away? (I'll be sure to compile and share
    any and all responses.)


    Regards,

    Fred Nickols
    "Assistance at A Distance"
    nickols@att.net
    www.nickols.us


  • 2.  Decisions, Decisions

    Posted 12-10-2004 19:25
    Fred,

    Before touching your situation-object-question, I'll argue that you don't
    have three types of decision.

    Every decision has alternatives, or it wouldn't be a decision. Every
    decision has criteria, or we would guess instead of decide. Every decision
    results in action, even if the choice is not to act. And you've neglected
    the stakeholders in the result.

    Your decision is always: What choice of action will yield the greatest
    benefit for X?
    For "action," we can put "strategy" and/or "tactic."
    For "greatest return," we can benefits or turn it around to least risk.
    For "X", we can mention ourselves, customers, and other stakeholders.

    Question = Object + Risk/Benefits + Stakeholder

    Example: What choice of customer needs met will yield greatest competitive
    advantage for Acme?
    We could ask only, "What customer needs shall we meet?" The "choice of"
    is understood. Yet even with "choice of", that question is clearly
    incomplete. As soon as we attempt an answer, we discover that our decision
    depends on .

    Then situation-object-question examples are everywhere, all the time.

    ----------------------------
    Innovation Catalyst
    Process Accelerator
    Gary Lundquist
    President - Market Engineering International
    www.Market-Engineering.com
    Chair - The Colorado Innovation Summit
    www.InnovationSummit.com
    303-840-9929 GaryL@Market-Engineering.com


  • 3.  Decisions, Decisions

    Posted 12-10-2004 19:51
    G'day

    It is only a minor point, but the saying

    " There are no answers only questions" is most relevant from a decision
    making perspective, and a knowledge / information / cognition point of view.

    Every time we think, research or answer a question, we change our cognitive
    map and our understanding of the problem. So every cycle of the thought
    process on a certain issue, we change the question as we become more
    familiar with the topic. It is impossible to answer a problem solving
    question because the question is always evolving when we try to answer it.

    So in the end an answer is never possible, however we accept that there is
    no need for any more questions, we can live with what has been obtained.

    cheers
    tony


    At 05:25 PM 10/12/2004 -0700, you wrote:
    >Fred,
    >
    >Before touching your situation-object-question, I'll argue that you don't
    >have three types of decision.
    >
    >Every decision has alternatives, or it wouldn't be a decision. Every
    >decision has criteria, or we would guess instead of decide. Every decision
    >results in action, even if the choice is not to act. And you've neglected
    >the stakeholders in the result.
    >
    >Your decision is always: What choice of action will yield the greatest
    >benefit for X?
    > For "action," we can put "strategy" and/or "tactic."
    > For "greatest return," we can benefits or turn it around to least risk.
    > For "X", we can mention ourselves, customers, and other stakeholders.
    >
    > Question = Object + Risk/Benefits + Stakeholder
    >
    >Example: What choice of customer needs met will yield greatest competitive
    >advantage for Acme?
    > We could ask only, "What customer needs shall we meet?" The "choice of"
    >is understood. Yet even with "choice of", that question is clearly
    >incomplete. As soon as we attempt an answer, we discover that our decision
    >depends on .
    >
    >Then situation-object-question examples are everywhere, all the time.
    >
    >----------------------------
    > Innovation Catalyst
    > Process Accelerator
    >Gary Lundquist
    >President - Market Engineering International
    > www.Market-Engineering.com
    >Chair - The Colorado Innovation Summit
    > www.InnovationSummit.com
    >303-840-9929 GaryL@Market-Engineering.com




    --
    UTS CRICOS Provider Code: 00099F
    DISCLAIMER: This email message and any accompanying attachments may contain
    confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, do not
    read, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this message or attachments. If
    you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately
    and delete this message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the
    individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority,
    states them to be the views the University of Technology Sydney. Before
    opening any attachments, please check them for viruses and defects.


  • 4.  Decisions, Decisions

    Posted 12-10-2004 20:27
    Fred, Gary, and others...

    Herb Simon made a nice distinction, thus far missing from this thread,
    between "structured" and "ill-structured" problems. A stuctured problem is
    one in which the alternatives are known or can be identified. For example,
    a home buying decision typically would be considered a structured problem
    because the potential home buyer could look at a set of houses and narrow
    the search down to, say, three or four final alternatives. In this case,
    the alternatives (houses) are known. Most decision models, particularly the
    mathematical models, are designed specifically for this type of decision.
    However, the other type, the ill-structured type, is quite different and
    requires a different logic. In this scenario the alternatives are either
    unknown, unknowable, or the decision-maker is otherwise unable to identify
    them. For example, imagine a husband and wife who aren't happy in their
    marriage, they've been unhappy for years, each not knowing what to do, but
    each knowing that something needs to be done. In this scenario it's not a
    simple matter of, say, choosing to (a) go to counseling, (b) talk to the
    Rabbi, or (c) see a divorce attorney. The point is that knowing the
    alternatives makes for a different sort of decision than one in which the
    decision-maker is stuck and doesn't know what to do to get unstuck. The
    Janis-Mann "psychological balance sheet" or the Hammond-Keeney-Raiffa PrOACT
    approach, for example, offer structured methods for making comparisons of
    known alternatives. But for ill-structured decisions, once again, the
    process is quite different, and this is where the Bolman-Deal work in
    reframing or my work with the ACES technique can be useful. For these types
    of ill-structured decisions, whether they are professional or personal, the
    decision-maker needs something to get him/her unstuck. It is much like the
    work that Andre Delbecq did with his NGT for groups -- i.e., creating a
    structure for discovery of new alternatives, in which criteria are clarified
    and assumptions are challenged. Using the Janis-Mann framework, this allows
    movement from defensive avoidance toward vigilance. With the new frame the
    decision-maker may then be faced with a structured decision, in which the
    more traditional models apply.

    Larry Pate
    Redondo Beach, California


  • 5.  Decisions, Decisions

    Posted 12-12-2004 05:25
    I would like to add the comments on this topic (as part of a range of materials available to learners) using an exercise which explores innovation management; decisionmaking is a key part of the programme. Has anyone any objections?

    best wishes

    Lynn Martin

    Dr L M Martin; Senior Academic for Innovation; UCE Business School; Perry Barr G212; Birmingham, B42 2SU; United Kingdom

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Management Education and Development Discussion on behalf of Larry Pate
    Sent: Sat 11/12/2004 01:26
    To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
    Cc:
    Subject: Re: Decisions, Decisions


  • 6.  Decisions, Decisions

    Posted 12-12-2004 09:41
    I have no objections. Just be sure to cite or otherwise give proper credit
    to the various people who have contributed to this thread.


    -----Original Message-----
    From: Management Education and Development Discussion
    [mailto:MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU] On Behalf Of Lynn Martin
    Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2004 2:25 AM
    To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
    Subject: Re: Decisions, Decisions


    I would like to add the comments on this topic (as part of a range of
    materials available to learners) using an exercise which explores innovation
    management; decisionmaking is a key part of the programme. Has anyone any
    objections?

    best wishes

    Lynn Martin

    Dr L M Martin; Senior Academic for Innovation; UCE Business School; Perry
    Barr G212; Birmingham, B42 2SU; United Kingdom

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Management Education and Development Discussion on behalf of
    Larry Pate
    Sent: Sat 11/12/2004 01:26
    To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
    Cc:
    Subject: Re: Decisions, Decisions


  • 7.  Decisions, Decisions

    Posted 12-16-2004 06:40
    Hi Lynn

    As List Director I welcome creative uses of the virtual community and do not
    object. Though, I must say, that I actually uncertain about what you are
    suggesting.

    Charles Wankel, Mg-Ed-Dv virtual community director
    http://management-education.net/l (links to several lists)

    -----Original Message-----


    I would like to add the comments on this topic (as part of a range of
    materials available to learners) using an exercise which explores innovation
    management; decisionmaking is a key part of the programme. Has anyone any
    objections?

    best wishes

    Lynn Martin

    Dr L M Martin; Senior Academic for Innovation; UCE Business School; Perry
    Barr G212; Birmingham, B42 2SU; United Kingdom


  • 8.  Decisions, Decisions

    Posted 12-12-2004 10:14
    Fred asks
    <<Here's my question to the list: What are some Situation-Object-Question
    sets that come to your mind right away? (I'll be sure to compile and share
    any and all responses.)>>

    We have used a modified 'systems thinking approach' to working on complex
    issues for a decade or more. The modification we incorporated is
    fundamental -- we insist on clearly establishing a triggering question at
    the outset with the option to alter as time goes on and we learn more about
    the issue. We actually insist that it be written on the flipchart so it is
    literally in front of us all the time.

    Further, we insist that the question have exactly this format:
    1) It must begin with the word 'Why'.
    2) It must identify the variable that is 'the presenting symptom' (e.g.,
    staff morale, student test scores, adoption of a new marketing scheme, late
    deliveries).
    3) It must identify the unacceptable performance (e.g., too low, slipping,
    too high, not changing).

    Thus we get
    'Why is staff morale slowly slipping?'
    'Why are student test scores staying flat and not improving?'
    'Why is the adoption of the new marketing scheme going so slowly?'
    'Why is the staff turnover rate so high?'

    One point is to de-personalize the issue and avoid trying to fix the blame
    on some hapless individual or group. The second point is to avoid jumping
    to solutions ('interventions') before we understand why the system is
    delivering the performance we're getting right now.

    Michael A

    Michael Ayers
    mbayers@earthlink.net <=> www.TheCommonwealthPractice.com
    -> Who are you gonna be while you're doing what you do? <


  • 9.  Decisions, Decisions

    Posted 12-12-2004 11:16
    Fred Nichols asked for additional decision triads.

    Situation: A decision has been reached
    Object: Avoiding Unintended Consequences
    Question: What side effects or unforeseen situations might be triggered?


  • 10.  Decisions, Decisions

    Posted 12-13-2004 02:10
    That's great - I thought I would have the debate as it is, with the
    names of contributors etc, to show how an online debate can work
    Compliments of the season

    Lynn Martin

    Dr L M Martin; Senior Academic for Innovation; UCE Business School;
    Perry
    Barr G212; Birmingham, B42 2SU; United Kingdom

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Management Education and Development Discussion
    [mailto:MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU]On Behalf Of Larry Pate
    Sent: 12 December 2004 14:41
    To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
    Subject: Re: Decisions, Decisions


    I have no objections. Just be sure to cite or otherwise give proper
    credit
    to the various people who have contributed to this thread.


    -----Original Message-----
    From: Management Education and Development Discussion
    [mailto:MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU] On Behalf Of Lynn Martin
    Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2004 2:25 AM
    To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
    Subject: Re: Decisions, Decisions


    I would like to add the comments on this topic (as part of a range of
    materials available to learners) using an exercise which explores
    innovation
    management; decisionmaking is a key part of the programme. Has anyone
    any
    objections?

    best wishes

    Lynn Martin

    Dr L M Martin; Senior Academic for Innovation; UCE Business School;
    Perry
    Barr G212; Birmingham, B42 2SU; United Kingdom

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Management Education and Development Discussion on behalf
    of
    Larry Pate
    Sent: Sat 11/12/2004 01:26
    To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
    Cc:
    Subject: Re: Decisions, Decisions


  • 11.  Decisions, Decisions

    Posted 12-13-2004 17:59
    Colleagues,

    Michael Ayers wrote:

    We insist that the question have exactly this format:
    1) It must begin with the word 'Why'.
    2) It must identify the variable that is 'the presenting symptom' (e.g.,
    staff morale, student test scores, adoption of a new marketing scheme, late
    deliveries).
    3) It must identify the unacceptable performance (e.g., too low, slipping,
    too high, not changing).

    It must be frustrating to always work on problems, never on opportunities.
    To always work on what is unacceptable and never what is inspired or
    aspired. To always seek to fix the bad, never build the good.

    Best,

    Gary
    ----------------------------
    Innovation Catalyst
    Process Accelerator
    Gary Lundquist
    President - Market Engineering International
    www.Market-Engineering.com
    Chair - The Colorado Innovation Summit
    www.InnovationSummit.com
    303-840-9929 GaryL@Market-Engineering.com


  • 12.  Decisions, Decisions

    Posted 12-13-2004 18:48
    Michael is free to respond in his own way, but I'll pick up the gauntlet on
    this one, too.

    I think the distinction that most people drawn between "problem" and
    "opportunity" isn't worth drawing. I have seen it too often used as a way
    of avoiding difficult and awkward conversations about what's really going
    on. I can think of (and have written about) three basic kinds of problems:

    1. Those in which something has gone wrong and the task is to find and
    fix the cause of the problem. The gap here is the result of a sudden fall
    off in previously attained results. (Enter the Kepner-Tregoe methodology,
    known to technicians of my generation as "fault isolation" or
    "troubleshooting."

    2. Those in which the sights are raised. For whatever reason (and
    there are often many of them), the gap here results from a raising of the
    bar, of setting more ambitious goals and objectives. Typically, these gaps
    are addressed as a result of examining and refining existing arrangements
    (and, on occasion, "reengineering" them).

    3. Those in which targets are set for the very first time (such as
    would be the case with recognizing, seizing upon and setting out to exploit
    an opportunity). Here, the gap owes to a new target coupled with the
    complete absence of any system for achieving it. The task here is to
    engineer a solution, to build it from scratch.

    A true "opportunity" and a "problem," IMNSHO, are two very different
    matters. A problem is a situation requiring action but in which the action
    to take is not known. An opportunity is a situation in which conditions
    change in ways to make attractive actions that were previously deemed
    impractical or inadvisable.

    So, when "opportunity" is used simply as a way of avoiding the use of the
    word "problem," my hackles go up and my alarm bells go off. The game at
    hand, in my experience, is political wordsmithing, not authentic
    conversation. On the other hand, when a true opportunity presents itself,
    I'm all for exploiting the bejeezus out of it - and that needn't necessarily
    have a darn thing to do with problems, problem solving, solving problems or
    engineering solutions.

    Still, what do you do when someone says, "Here's a great opportunity," but
    no one has a clue regarding how to exploit it. Hmm. I guess that's a
    problem, isn't it?


    Regards,

    Fred Nickols
    nickols@att.net

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-
    > DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU] On Behalf Of Gary Lundquist
    > Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 5:59 PM
    > To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
    > Subject: Re: Decisions, Decisions
    >
    > Colleagues,
    >
    > Michael Ayers wrote:
    >
    > We insist that the question have exactly this format:
    > 1) It must begin with the word 'Why'.
    > 2) It must identify the variable that is 'the presenting symptom' (e.g.,
    > staff morale, student test scores, adoption of a new marketing scheme,
    > late
    > deliveries).
    > 3) It must identify the unacceptable performance (e.g., too low, slipping,
    > too high, not changing).
    >
    > It must be frustrating to always work on problems, never on opportunities.
    > To always work on what is unacceptable and never what is inspired or
    > aspired. To always seek to fix the bad, never build the good.
    >
    > Best,
    >
    > Gary
    > ----------------------------
    > Innovation Catalyst
    > Process Accelerator
    > Gary Lundquist
    > President - Market Engineering International
    > www.Market-Engineering.com
    > Chair - The Colorado Innovation Summit
    > www.InnovationSummit.com
    > 303-840-9929 GaryL@Market-Engineering.com


  • 13.  Decisions, Decisions

    Posted 12-14-2004 09:46
    Jack Ring asks a couple questions ...

    <<Is it okay for #3 to identify the unacceptable symptom (which may be other
    than performance)?>>

    Sure! The point is to be clear about what is happening now that is 'not
    okay.'

    <<Is it likely that the Why round will be followed by the 'How to suppress
    or
    mitigate the unacceptable symptom' round?>>

    Absolutely -- that's the eventual point! -- to craft a set of interventions
    (typically more than one) which, taken as an integrated response, will
    hopefully minimize the 'not okay' while not undermining the 'already okay.'
    The 'Why' comes first because without somehow formalizing or externalizing
    -our- understanding of both what is 'not okay' and why it is happening
    (i.e., cause-and-effect), we run the serious danger of simply reacting to
    events without taking time to notice underlying patterns and
    interdependencies.

    The fundamental rule of systems thinking:
    Intended consequences may or may not happen; unintended consequences always
    happen.
    See Sunday's BC comic strip (Originally Published on Sunday December 12,
    2004) for example ...
    http://www.creators.com/comics_show.cfm?comicname=bc

    <<Would the How round include an estimate of how the 'fix' might affect the
    underlying problem system in other ways? This latter acknowledges the
    principle: Design a fix not only for the original problem but also for
    foreseeable problems that the fix may cause.>>

    In identifying the inter-operating elements of the system, we will notice
    what is doing 'okay' along side what is doing 'not okay.' Having made
    plain our understanding of how the system works, we can now try 'thought
    experiments' with the interventions: Well, if we make a change here, then
    this would go up and that's good, but after a bit that would go down and
    that would be bad. So we'll also need to do something there to accommodate
    that.

    Political metaphor: picture yourself putting together a terrific,
    integrated bill for some tough problem. It pretty much needs to be adopted
    -in toto-. That's the plan. The danger, of course, is that someone
    somewhere with a line-item veto strikes out a key element, and the whole
    thing becomes an unintended catastrophe.

    In my experience, after about 60-75 minutes of 'dialog' (word used quite
    narrowly), someone notices that the question we started with can be
    substantially improved and then offers a new question. With the group's
    permission, we strike the old question and operate based on the new one.
    Typically this takes into account a richer understanding of a somewhat
    larger system, offering the potential for more robust and enduring
    interventions.

    Gary Lundquist writes:
    <<It must be frustrating to always work on problems, never on opportunities.
    To always work on what is unacceptable and never what is inspired or
    aspired. To always seek to fix the bad, never build the good.>>

    It is surely the case that I have been nearly always asked to try to solve
    a (negative) problem rather than try to capitalize on a (positive
    opportunity). At least that is the language that has been used. I think
    that recognizing the interconnection of the 'not okay' and the 'already
    okay' is a powerful part of the systems thinking approach. Think about the
    concept of 'too much of a good thing' -- too much of this (okay) thing
    leads to too much of that (not okay) thing. That's how the system seems to
    work.

    That is challenge faced by leadership is to improve the overall performance
    of the system, building on the basis of seeing those subtle
    interconnections. I suspect that many of our current problems are in fact
    created by non-system solutions put forth by people unable or unwilling to
    try to understand the larger system. Thus we get the result of 'optimizing
    the subsystem at the expense of the larger system.'

    Michael A

    ps Probably the seminal work on this topic is Garrett Hardin's 1968
    article, The Tragedy of the Commons:
    http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/articles/art_tragedy_of_the_commons.ht
    ml

    Michael Ayers
    mbayers@earthlink.net <=> www.TheCommonwealthPractice.com
    -> Who are you gonna be while you're doing what you do? <


  • 14.  Decisions, Decisions

    Posted 12-16-2004 09:47
    Inasmuch as net postings are not always considered carefully as archival
    documents before posting :), I would be reluctant to have them simply
    incorporated into a permanent form in an educational environment.

    May I suggest that Dr. Martin extract the portions she wants in the
    potential final form, then obtain permission from each posting person as
    needed. For eample, I trust that anything extracted will be checked for
    spelling at least. Yes, it's more work for Lynn, but it will also
    minimize personal embarrassment and downstream repercussions. :)

    Cheers,
    Jay

    Charles Wankel wrote:

    >Hi Lynn
    >
    >As List Director I welcome creative uses of the virtual community and do not
    >object. Though, I must say, that I actually uncertain about what you are
    >suggesting.
    >
    >Charles Wankel, Mg-Ed-Dv virtual community director
    >http://management-education.net/l (links to several lists)
    >
    >-----Original Message-----
    >
    >
    >I would like to add the comments on this topic (as part of a range of
    >materials available to learners) using an exercise which explores innovation
    >management; decisionmaking is a key part of the programme. Has anyone any
    >objections?
    >
    >best wishes
    >
    >Lynn Martin
    >
    >Dr L M Martin; Senior Academic for Innovation; UCE Business School; Perry
    >Barr G212; Birmingham, B42 2SU; United Kingdom
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >

    --
    Jay Warner
    Principal Scientist
    Warner Consulting, Inc.
    4444 North Green Bay Road
    Racine, WI 53404-1216
    USA

    Ph: (262) 634-9100
    FAX: (262) 681-1133
    email: quality@a2q.com
    web: http://www.a2q.com

    The A2Q Method (tm) -- What do you want to improve today?


  • 15.  Decisions, Decisions

    Posted 12-17-2004 13:15
    Colleagues,

    Earlier this week, I hit reply, and sent this note just to Larry Pate. He
    encouraged me to resend to the list.

    Best,

    Gary

    > Larry,
    >
    > Thanks for bringing up the difference between structured and
    > ill-structured decisions.
    >
    > I work with ill structured decisions in my consulting, and have developed
    > closely structured processes for achieving repeatably valuable results.
    >
    > For instance, I help companies set corporate goals. If I just asked them
    > what their goals are, the answer would be poor at best. Instead, I start
    > them thinking more broadly, then bring in a binning technique, then ask
    > for statements of success on binned items, and typically create time-able,
    > assignable, achievable, measurable objectives as steps toward each bin.
    > Finally, we write a concise definition of each goal.
    >
    > When we are done, we have way more than a list of goals. We comprehend
    > what it means to have the resulting goals and can progress to development
    > of strategy for reaching the goals.
    > Just as important, the richness of detail enables marketing of the
    > goals (as strategic directions) for buy-in and support in both management
    > and staff.
    >
    > We never create a suite of alternatives and choose among them.
    >
    > To define a corporate brand, I use eight dimensions of inquiry along with
    > the goals/strategies process. The brand is a logical, manageable,
    > repeatable output of this process. I'm sure, equally viable processes have
    > been developed by others. Without such tools, brand definition would be
    > just gut instinct.
    >
    > Scenario development, simulation methods, and game theory are all tools
    > for approaching complex, ill structured decisions.
    >
    > Global markets, financial intertwining, political moves, and social change
    > are all way too difficult to handle without software systems. Perhaps my
    > facilitated decision making may one day become embedded in software.
    >
    > Best to all for the holidays.
    >
    > Gary
    > ----------------------------
    > Innovation Catalyst
    > Process Accelerator
    > Gary Lundquist
    > President - Market Engineering International
    > www.Market-Engineering.com
    > Chair - The Colorado Innovation Summit
    > www.InnovationSummit.com
    > 303-840-9929 GaryL@Market-Engineering.com
    >


  • 16.  Decisions, Decisions

    Posted 12-17-2004 15:44
    Since Gary has forwarded the note he sent me to the list, I'll forward the
    reply I sent him to the list too. Here it is:


    Hi Gary,

    Thanks for your note. It brings to mind the story of Aristotle and Plato
    and their radically different approaches to logic and reason. Aristotle's
    view was that we can never understand anything in isolation, that
    understanding only comes from looking simultaneously at the whole, whereas
    Plato's view was that the only way to understand anything was by breaking
    things down into component parts. Thus, the two of them held this great
    debate placing the wholistic logic of Aristotle against the linear logic of
    Plato. Ultimately, Plato won, but he didn't win because his approach was
    more accurate; indeed, a linear logic is generally always less accurate.
    No, he won, ironically, because Aristotle was right! Looking at everything
    at once (e.g., mutual causality) was way too complex and difficult for
    people to track, but they could handle the relative simplicity of Plato's
    logic (another way to say it is that it is shallow, thus, for example, the
    "platonic" relationship). The end result is that we now live in a society
    that relies heavily on a linear logic, such as counting a person's age,
    height, waist, number of women slept with, size, etc., and not the things
    that really matter, such as integrity, courage, honesty, and depth. There
    is also a companion distinction between a process of discovery
    (problem-finding) vs. a process of choice (problem-solving). By helping
    your clients to discover what they want, they make a different set of
    choices than if you had simply started with alternatives. By my experience,
    most of the really tough decisions we face in life are ill-structured, yet
    most of the decision models that exist are appropriate only for structured
    decisions. Thus, while Aristotle still appears to have been right, he was
    never the pragmatist.

    Once again I want to encourage you to send your note to the entire list and
    not just to me. While I appreciate your communication, there are probably a
    lot of people out there who would also be interested in both your thoughts
    and mine.

    Yes, all the best for the holidays!

    Larry


    -----Original Message-----
    From: Management Education and Development Discussion
    [mailto:MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU] On Behalf Of Gary Lundquist
    Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 10:15 AM
    To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
    Subject: Fw: Decisions, Decisions


    Colleagues,

    Earlier this week, I hit reply, and sent this note just to Larry Pate. He
    encouraged me to resend to the list.

    Best,

    Gary

    > Larry,
    >
    > Thanks for bringing up the difference between structured and
    > ill-structured decisions.
    >
    > I work with ill structured decisions in my consulting, and have
    > developed closely structured processes for achieving repeatably
    > valuable results.
    >
    > For instance, I help companies set corporate goals. If I just asked
    > them what their goals are, the answer would be poor at best. Instead,
    > I start them thinking more broadly, then bring in a binning technique,
    > then ask for statements of success on binned items, and typically
    > create time-able, assignable, achievable, measurable objectives as
    > steps toward each bin. Finally, we write a concise definition of each
    > goal.
    >
    > When we are done, we have way more than a list of goals. We
    > comprehend what it means to have the resulting goals and can progress
    > to development of strategy for reaching the goals.
    > Just as important, the richness of detail enables marketing of the
    > goals (as strategic directions) for buy-in and support in both
    > management and staff.
    >
    > We never create a suite of alternatives and choose among them.
    >
    > To define a corporate brand, I use eight dimensions of inquiry along
    > with the goals/strategies process. The brand is a logical,
    > manageable, repeatable output of this process. I'm sure, equally
    > viable processes have been developed by others. Without such tools,
    > brand definition would be just gut instinct.
    >
    > Scenario development, simulation methods, and game theory are all
    > tools for approaching complex, ill structured decisions.
    >
    > Global markets, financial intertwining, political moves, and social
    > change are all way too difficult to handle without software systems.
    > Perhaps my facilitated decision making may one day become embedded in
    > software.
    >
    > Best to all for the holidays.
    >
    > Gary


  • 17.  Decisions, Decisions

    Posted 12-19-2004 07:49
    An excellent post Larry. Thank you for reminding us that we are part of a
    debate thousands of years old, rather than a jargon ridden discipline that
    regards writers such as Simon and Barnard as classical, when in reality
    they are less than a century old.

    A thought though. Both Aristotle and Plato would subscribe to the idea of
    true, justified belief as the object of their enquiries, even if they
    disputed the means. Would we still have such expectations now?

    Thanks again

    Steven


  • 18.  Decisions, Decisions

    Posted 12-20-2004 11:13
    From: Nigel [mailto:phillinp@lsbu.ac.uk]

    Dear All

    I have enjoyed this debate on decision making which I have found both
    stimulating and informative. However, I feel a need to nitpick on some
    recent digressions. Plato was not a reductionist neither was Aristotle a
    Holistist and neither of them subscribed to the formula Knowledge =
    justified true belief.

    Plato actually changes his view quite radically from the Meno to the
    Republic and even more so from the Republic to the Theaetetus. His main
    contention though remains that to truly know something is to know its
    ideal form and that such knowledge is innate and can be obtained by
    reflection and deep thought. All actual forms in the real-world are
    corruptions or distortions of some ideal form - hence the allegory of
    'the Cave'. Plato therefore believed in idealised models and conceptual
    frameworks as the best way to understand the world.

    Aristotle did not disagree with Plato's view of knowledge, like Plato,
    and unlike nearly all later philosophers he was quite unconcerned with
    what it means for "A to know that P". Aristotle was concerned with the
    logic of science - of why things are as they are and what careful study
    can reveal of this. Such knowledge must be demonstrable - deducible from
    'basic premises' - the axioms and premises of science. These premises
    are considered to be indisputably true but not demonstrable. The truth
    of these premises is based on 'nous' or intellectual intuition.
    Aristotle therefore believed that analysis was needed to supplement
    reflection.

    The difference between them is that Plato was concerned with the essence
    of knowledge which was in turn the essence of things - while Aristotle
    was concerned with methods of deducing the essentials.

    Both Plato and Aristotle considered knowledge and belief to be quite
    distinct categories.

    The formula for knowledge as justified true belief really only gained
    hold in the later half of the last century and has more or less run out
    of steam as all formulations to date for justification schemes have been
    refuted by counter examples.

    On another tack, someone once explained to me that while in England
    'comprise' is generally seen as a good thing whereby all parties gain,
    in the US it is generally seen as a bad thing where no body gets exactly
    what they want - I wondered which view is held in the land of OZ.

    Nigel Phillips
    Centre for Research in Business IT & E-commerce
    London South Bank University
    phillinp@lsbu.ac.uk


    -----Original Message-----
    From: Management Education and Development Discussion
    [mailto:MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU] On Behalf Of Steven Henderson
    Sent: 19 December 2004 12:49
    To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
    Subject: Re: Decisions, Decisions

    An excellent post Larry. Thank you for reminding us that we are part of
    a
    debate thousands of years old, rather than a jargon ridden discipline
    that
    regards writers such as Simon and Barnard as classical, when in reality
    they are less than a century old.

    A thought though. Both Aristotle and Plato would subscribe to the idea
    of
    true, justified belief as the object of their enquiries, even if they
    disputed the means. Would we still have such expectations now?

    Thanks again

    Steven


  • 19.  Decisions, Decisions

    Posted 12-20-2004 12:46
    Abstracting from the volume of Aristotle's work three knowledge constructs
    emerge. One is episteme or scientific knowledge, the second is techne or
    technical knowledge, and lastly phronesis or practical knowledge. Even
    though Aristotle thought the world was flat, he and his peers understood
    human nature, behavior, and interaction as well if not better than many
    management scholars whose view of the world is through the lens of the
    bottom line (reducing all decisions to it). Aristotle's knowledge
    constructs is similar to the cognitve interests concepts explained by
    Habermas. Now I would think that these three forms of knowledge and their
    related cognitive interests are all at play during different decision
    making scenarios. I guess the trick would be under which situations would
    certain knowledge constructs and the parallel cognitve interests come into
    play and why??

    Mike Chumer, Ph.D.
    Information Systems Dept
    NJIT
    University Heights
    Newark, NJ 07102
    973-596-5484
    chumer@scils.rutgers.edu
    chumer@njit.edu


    > From: Nigel [mailto:phillinp@lsbu.ac.uk]
    >
    > Dear All
    >
    > I have enjoyed this debate on decision making which I have found both
    > stimulating and informative. However, I feel a need to nitpick on some
    > recent digressions. Plato was not a reductionist neither was Aristotle a
    > Holistist and neither of them subscribed to the formula Knowledge =
    > justified true belief.
    >
    > Plato actually changes his view quite radically from the Meno to the
    > Republic and even more so from the Republic to the Theaetetus. His main
    > contention though remains that to truly know something is to know its
    > ideal form and that such knowledge is innate and can be obtained by
    > reflection and deep thought. All actual forms in the real-world are
    > corruptions or distortions of some ideal form - hence the allegory of
    > 'the Cave'. Plato therefore believed in idealised models and conceptual
    > frameworks as the best way to understand the world.
    >
    > Aristotle did not disagree with Plato's view of knowledge, like Plato,
    > and unlike nearly all later philosophers he was quite unconcerned with
    > what it means for "A to know that P". Aristotle was concerned with the
    > logic of science - of why things are as they are and what careful study
    > can reveal of this. Such knowledge must be demonstrable - deducible from
    > 'basic premises' - the axioms and premises of science. These premises
    > are considered to be indisputably true but not demonstrable. The truth
    > of these premises is based on 'nous' or intellectual intuition.
    > Aristotle therefore believed that analysis was needed to supplement
    > reflection.
    >
    > The difference between them is that Plato was concerned with the essence
    > of knowledge which was in turn the essence of things - while Aristotle
    > was concerned with methods of deducing the essentials.
    >
    > Both Plato and Aristotle considered knowledge and belief to be quite
    > distinct categories.
    >
    > The formula for knowledge as justified true belief really only gained
    > hold in the later half of the last century and has more or less run out
    > of steam as all formulations to date for justification schemes have been
    > refuted by counter examples.
    >
    > On another tack, someone once explained to me that while in England
    > 'comprise' is generally seen as a good thing whereby all parties gain,
    > in the US it is generally seen as a bad thing where no body gets exactly
    > what they want - I wondered which view is held in the land of OZ.
    >
    > Nigel Phillips
    > Centre for Research in Business IT & E-commerce
    > London South Bank University
    > phillinp@lsbu.ac.uk
    >
    >
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Management Education and Development Discussion
    > [mailto:MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU] On Behalf Of Steven Henderson
    > Sent: 19 December 2004 12:49
    > To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
    > Subject: Re: Decisions, Decisions
    >
    > An excellent post Larry. Thank you for reminding us that we are part of
    > a
    > debate thousands of years old, rather than a jargon ridden discipline
    > that
    > regards writers such as Simon and Barnard as classical, when in reality
    > they are less than a century old.
    >
    > A thought though. Both Aristotle and Plato would subscribe to the idea
    > of
    > true, justified belief as the object of their enquiries, even if they
    > disputed the means. Would we still have such expectations now?
    >
    > Thanks again
    >
    > Steven
    >