SBenegaL

Blog

  • Decision Making – Virtual Workplaces

    In the last byte, we looked at the role Group Decision Support Systems play. In today’s byte, we begin our discussion on the shift decision making process has to take in case of Virtual Workplaces.

    Virtual workplace refers to the modern day work environment where managers face scenarios of flexibility in workplace independent or unconstrained by geography, time and organizational boundaries. Virtual teams today could be seen as a work arrangement where the co-workers are disbursed geographically and would require a combination of telecommunication and information technology to accomplish the task at hand. These teams rarely have face-to-face meetings and the membership involved changes according to the project requirements at hand.

    The decisions made in these virtual teams would need the following three components for communication and decision making:

    1. Desktop Videoconferencing Systems (DVCS)
    2. Group Decision Support Systems (GDSS)
    3. Internet/intranet systems
    While we have already discussed the GDSS in the earlier section, we shall discuss about this in the context of these virtual teams. Over the next byte, we shall attempt understanding these three components.

  • Decision Support System

    In the last byte, we looked at Expert Systems and began our discussion on DSS. We shall continue from the discussion on DSS to begin today’s byte. 

    DSS could be designed to ease decision making in situations of information overload and stress. Many a times, though the situations that arise at different points in time could even be emergency situations, the managers wouldn’t really need to make a radically different plan – they could have a skeletal plan that could be accessed using the DSS instead of beginning from scratch each time!

    Group Decision Support System (GDSS) is a decision making tool that helps in group decision making scenario – GDSS uses computer support and communication facilitate to support group decision making process in either face to face meetings or dispersed meetings. One advantage is that GDSS could help conflict management within a group by depersonalizing the issue and by forcing the group to discuss its conflict management process. Members are also found to share information more fully when they use GDSS!

    We shall continue this discussion on GDSS further in the next byte as well.

  • Decision Making: Expert Systems

    In the last byte, we looked at the cultural issues that affect decision making. In today’s byte, we look at some of technical aids that help decision making – Expert Systems.

    Expert Systems are developed using artificial intelligence for programmed decisions. Definitely the system is set up using decision rules and therefore the effectiveness of the expert system is dependent on its design. As the system is a source of knowledge and experience and not just passive software, the organization would need to decide who is responsible for the decisions made by the system.

    What is important is that managers do not blindly go by the decisions that emerge from the expert systems; they must carefully scrutinize the suggestions and take a call.
    Decision Support Systems (DSS) is a tool that enhances the manager’s ability to make complex decisions. These are essentially computer and communication systems that process incoming data and synthesize the pertinent information for managers to use.
     
    We shall continue the discussion on DSS in the next byte too.

  • Decision Making: Cultural Aspects

    In the last byte, we looked at the concept of self-managed teams. In today’s byte, we look at the cultural aspects that one needs to consider in decision making.

    Decision making styles vary a lot across different cultures. Some of these aspects are listed below:
    • Uncertainty Avoidance
    • Power Distance
    • Individual/Collective Dimension
    • Time Orientation
    • Masculine/Feminine Dimension

    Managers make decision day in and day out and it becomes quintessential for them to as much as possible about the decision making processes across culture. With the growth of global organizations, this has become an essential part of the business.

  • Self-Managed Teams

    In the last byte, we looked at the concept of Dialectic Inquiry and Quality Circles as Group Decision Making techniques. In today’s byte, we look at Self-Managed Teams in a bit more detail.

    We have discussed about Self-Managed Team, however in the context of comparing it with Quality Circles and Quality Teams  we would need to note that the self-managed teams are more broad focused and do not limit themselves to quality or related production problems. The decisions self-managed teams do could also include work scheduling, job assignments, staffing etc – all these were once reserved only for the managers. Another difference is that these self managed teams have a delegated authority, unlike quality-circles which have a predominantly advisory role.

    There is however a risk of falling trap to the issues of becoming a cohesive group – groupthink issues could arise. So the key to break this is by encouraging and welcoming dissent among members. This helps break down complacency and sent in motion a process the ability to make better decisions – methods like dialectic inquiry or devil’s advocacy would be really useful here.

  • Dialectical Inquiry and Quality Circles

    In the last byte, we looked at Nominal Group Technique and Delphi Technique of group decision making. In today’s byte, we look at Dialectical Inquiry and the concept of quality circles. 

    Dialectic Inquiry essentially refers to two opposing sets of recommendations and the debate between these opposing recommendations. While it sounds like conflict – it is a constructive approach as it helps the benefits and limitations of both sets of ideas emerge.

    The key to make this method effective is the ability to look beyond the win-lose as an individual attitude and instead focus on reaching the most effective solutions for all the concerned parties. Framing thus becomes an important aspect when detailing the decision in question.

    Quality circles refer to the method where a small voluntary group meets up to provide inputs on solving quality or production problems. It could be seen as a means to extending participative decision making in teams. Managers generally listen to the recommendations and implement the same.

    This is a bottom up approach that helps the manager gets valuable inputs into his decision making while still retaining authority in the decision making.

  • Nominal Group Technique and Delphi Technique

    In the last byte, we looked at brainstorming and its types and the benefits each form gets to the table. In today’s byte, we look at Nominal Group Technique and Delphi Technique.

    Nominal group Technique is a structured approach to group decision making that focuses on generating alternatives and choosing one. It could be seen as containing the following steps:
    1. Individuals silently list their ideas
    2. Ideas are written on a chart one at a time until all ideas are listed
    3. Discussion is permitted for clarification only, and not for criticism.
    4. A written vote is taken
    This method could be used when group members are frightened of criticism.
    Delphi Technique is one in which the judgments of experts are gathered and a decision is taken. The experts from remote locations respond to a questionnaire and the coordinator summarizes the responses which are then sent to the experts. The experts then rate the various alternatives generated and the coordinator tabulates the results!

  • Brainstorming

    In the last byte, we began our discussion on various techniques of decision making. In today’s byte, we look at the technique of brainstorming.

    Brainstorming is a good technique for generating alternative. Brainstorming is a technique for generating as many ideas as possible on a given subject, while suspending evaluation until all the ideas have been suggested. Participants are encouraged to build on the suggestions of other members in the group than criticize it.

    It is always possible that the participants engage in discussion amongst themselves that cam make them loose focus and this in some ways reduces the efficiency of group brainstorming.

    Verbal brainstorming is a traditional way of brainstorming and a recent trend is that of electronic decision making. The electronic brainstorming which uses an anonymous inputs overcomes two common problems that can produce group brainstorming failure:

    1. Production Blocking
    2. Evaluation Apprehension
    Production blocking happens as individuals are exposed to the inputs of others as these individuals are distracted by other’s inputs. The fear that others might respond negatively to their idea is captured by evaluation apprehension.

  • Group Decision Making 4

    In the last byte, we looked at the concept of group polarization. In today’s byte, we begin our discussion on some of the techniques of group decision making.

    Group decision making as a process begins with the realization for the need to apply group decision making into the current problem. There are several techniques that we would discuss going further are:

    1.   Brainstorming
    2.   Nominal Group Technique
    3.   Delphi Technique
    4.   Devil’s Advocacy
    5.   Dialectical inquiry
    6.   Quality Teams
    7.   Self-managed Teams
    Each one of these come in with its own positives and drawbacks. We shall discuss about these in the next few bytes.

  • Group Polarization

    In the last byte, we looked at some of the approaches one could take to prevent group think. In today’s byte, we look at the concept of group polarization. 

    Group Polarization refers to the tendency for group discussions to produce shifts towards more extreme attitudes amongst members.  This group phenomenon was discovered by a graduate student!

    The tendency towards a polarized decision making has serious implications for the group decision making overall – groups where initial views lean in a particular direction  – one could expect it to come back as a more extreme view following interactions.

    There are two broad explanations:
    1. Social comparison approach: Individuals generally believe they hold better views than other members, during group discussion they see that their views are not too far away from the average and so they shift to a more extreme position.
    2. Persuasive argument: The group discussions reinforce the initial views of the members and so they take a more extreme position.

    It is possible that in addition to these, there may be other models and the combination of these is what could lead to the polarized attitude!