# content
A Structured Approach to Strategic Decisions

Making sound strategic decisions is crucial for organizational success, however, human judgment can be unreliable, leading to errors that can significantly impact that success. To address this challenge, a structured approach to strategic decision-making is essential.

Organizations can be viewed as decision factories, where the primary output is not physical products, but rather judgments and choices that shape the company’s future. This perspective, popularized by thinkers like Daniel Kahneman, emphasizes the critical role of decision-making in organizational success.

In a decision factory, every employee is part of the production line, contributing to the quality and efficiency of decisions made. Just as a traditional factory focuses on optimizing its manufacturing processes, a decision factory must refine its decision-making processes to ensure high-quality outcomes. This involves carefully designing the organizational structure, clarifying decision rights, and establishing effective methodologies.

To improve the quality of decisions, organizations should focus on several key areas. First, they need to align their decision-making processes with their strategic direction, ensuring that decisions at all levels support the company’s overall goals. Second, they should implement robust methodologies and processes that facilitate evidence-based analysis. Finally, cultivating a culture that values data-driven insights, encourages diverse perspectives, and promotes accountability is crucial for maintaining a high-performing decision factory.

The Challenge of Evaluative Judgments

These quality decisions are fundamentally evaluative judgments. They require decision-makers to process large amounts of complex information and either:

1. Assign numerical scores to competing options

2. Make a yes-no decision on a specific course of action

These judgments are susceptible to errors stemming from cognitive biases and random variations, often referred to as “noise”. Recognizing this unreliability is the first step towards improving the decision-making process.

There are several really good tools, such as Multi-Criteria Decision-Making, to help drive to good decision making. The Mediating Assessments Protocol , a method from the book “Noise”, designed by Daniel Kahneman and Olivier Sibony, “with noise mitigation as a primary objective” is an excellent, if slightly simpler, tool that deserves to be in your toolbox.

The Mediating Assessments Protocol (MAP)

The Mediating Assessments Protocol (MAP) is a structured approach to strategic decision-making aims to reduce errors and improve the quality of judgments. I think this a good tool for the toolbox, as it:

1. Break down complex decisions: Divide the overall decision into smaller, more manageable assessments.

2. Delay the final decision: Avoid making premature judgments by focusing on individual aspects before forming an overall conclusion.

3. Use structured criteria: Develop specific criteria for each assessment to ensure consistency and reduce bias.

4. Gather diverse perspectives: Involve multiple decision-makers to counteract individual biases and broaden the range of insights.

5. Quantify where possible: Use numerical ratings or scores to make comparisons more objective.

Implementing a structured approach like MAP can yield several benefits. First and foremost, it significantly reduces bias in the decision-making process. By breaking decisions into smaller components, the influence of initial impressions or irrelevant factors is minimized. This allows decision-makers to focus on each aspect individually, leading to more objective evaluations.

Another key advantage is improved consistency. Structured criteria ensure that all options are evaluated on the same basis, eliminating the variability that often occurs when different decision-makers use their own subjective standards. This consistency not only improves the quality of decisions but also makes it easier to compare and contrast different options.

Enhanced transparency is yet another benefit of a structured approach. The decision-making process becomes clearer and more defensible when each step is well-defined and documented. This transparency can be particularly valuable in organizations where decisions need to be justified to stakeholders or where there’s a need for accountability.

Lastly, a structured approach like MAP can lead to better group dynamics. By providing a framework for evaluation, it helps prevent groupthink and encourages diverse viewpoints. Team members are more likely to voice their opinions when there’s a clear process for considering different aspects of a decision, leading to more robust and well-rounded strategic choices.

To adopt a structured approach to strategic decision-making:

1. Identify key decisions: Determine which strategic decisions would benefit most from a structured approach.

2. Develop assessment criteria: Create specific, measurable criteria for each aspect of the decision.

3. Train decision-makers: Ensure that all involved parties understand the MAP process and its benefits.

4. Document the process: Keep records of assessments and final decisions for future reference and learning.

5. Review and refine: Regularly evaluate the effectiveness of your structured approach and make improvements as needed.

By adopting a structured approach like MAP, organizations can significantly improve the quality of their strategic decisions. This method helps mitigate cognitive biases, reduces noise in the decision-making process, and ultimately leads to more reliable and successful outcomes. In an increasingly complex business landscape, such an approach can provide a crucial competitive advantage.

References

Kahneman, D., Lovallo, D., & Sibony, O. (2019). A structured approach to strategic decisions. MIT Sloan Management Review, 60(3), 67-73.

Sinnaiah, T., Adam, S., & Mahadi, B. (2023). A strategic management process: the role of decision-making style and organisational performance. Journal of Work-Applied Management, 15(1), 37-50.

Mintzberg, H., Ahlstrand, B., & Lampel, J. (2020). Strategy safari: A guided tour through the wilds of strategic management. Free Press.

Calabretta, G., Gemser, G., & Wijnberg, N. M. (2017). The interplay between intuition and rationality in strategic decision making: A paradox perspective. Organization Studies, 38(3-4), 365-401.

Hodgkinson, G. P., & Sadler-Smith, E. (2018). The dynamics of intuition and analysis in managerial and organizational decision making. Academy of Management Perspectives, 32(4), 473-492.

Keeney, R. L. (1982). Decision analysis: An overview. Operations Research, 30(5), 803-838.

Gregory, R., Failing, L., Harstone, M., Long, G., McDaniels, T., & Ohlson, D. (2012). Structured decision making: A practical guide to environmental management choices. John Wiley & Sons.

Eisenhardt, K. M., & Zbaracki, M. J. (1992). Strategic decision making. Strategic Management Journal, 13(S2), 17-37.

Hammond, J. S., Keeney, R. L., & Raiffa, H. (1998). The hidden traps in decision making. Harvard Business Review, 76(5), 47-58.

Papadakis, V. M., Lioukas, S., & Chambers, D. (1998). Strategic decision-making processes: The role of management and context. Strategic Management Journal, 19(2), 115-147.

#dataCulture #decisionAnalysis #decisionMaking #decisionQuality #MediatingAssessmentsProtocol #problemFraming

# contentMap.en
A Structured Approach to Strategic Decisions

Making sound strategic decisions is crucial for organizational success, however, human judgment can be unreliable, leading to errors that can significantly impact that success. To address this challenge, a structured approach to strategic decision-making is essential.

Organizations can be viewed as decision factories, where the primary output is not physical products, but rather judgments and choices that shape the company’s future. This perspective, popularized by thinkers like Daniel Kahneman, emphasizes the critical role of decision-making in organizational success.

In a decision factory, every employee is part of the production line, contributing to the quality and efficiency of decisions made. Just as a traditional factory focuses on optimizing its manufacturing processes, a decision factory must refine its decision-making processes to ensure high-quality outcomes. This involves carefully designing the organizational structure, clarifying decision rights, and establishing effective methodologies.

To improve the quality of decisions, organizations should focus on several key areas. First, they need to align their decision-making processes with their strategic direction, ensuring that decisions at all levels support the company’s overall goals. Second, they should implement robust methodologies and processes that facilitate evidence-based analysis. Finally, cultivating a culture that values data-driven insights, encourages diverse perspectives, and promotes accountability is crucial for maintaining a high-performing decision factory.

The Challenge of Evaluative Judgments

These quality decisions are fundamentally evaluative judgments. They require decision-makers to process large amounts of complex information and either:

1. Assign numerical scores to competing options

2. Make a yes-no decision on a specific course of action

These judgments are susceptible to errors stemming from cognitive biases and random variations, often referred to as “noise”. Recognizing this unreliability is the first step towards improving the decision-making process.

There are several really good tools, such as Multi-Criteria Decision-Making, to help drive to good decision making. The Mediating Assessments Protocol , a method from the book “Noise”, designed by Daniel Kahneman and Olivier Sibony, “with noise mitigation as a primary objective” is an excellent, if slightly simpler, tool that deserves to be in your toolbox.

The Mediating Assessments Protocol (MAP)

The Mediating Assessments Protocol (MAP) is a structured approach to strategic decision-making aims to reduce errors and improve the quality of judgments. I think this a good tool for the toolbox, as it:

1. Break down complex decisions: Divide the overall decision into smaller, more manageable assessments.

2. Delay the final decision: Avoid making premature judgments by focusing on individual aspects before forming an overall conclusion.

3. Use structured criteria: Develop specific criteria for each assessment to ensure consistency and reduce bias.

4. Gather diverse perspectives: Involve multiple decision-makers to counteract individual biases and broaden the range of insights.

5. Quantify where possible: Use numerical ratings or scores to make comparisons more objective.

Implementing a structured approach like MAP can yield several benefits. First and foremost, it significantly reduces bias in the decision-making process. By breaking decisions into smaller components, the influence of initial impressions or irrelevant factors is minimized. This allows decision-makers to focus on each aspect individually, leading to more objective evaluations.

Another key advantage is improved consistency. Structured criteria ensure that all options are evaluated on the same basis, eliminating the variability that often occurs when different decision-makers use their own subjective standards. This consistency not only improves the quality of decisions but also makes it easier to compare and contrast different options.

Enhanced transparency is yet another benefit of a structured approach. The decision-making process becomes clearer and more defensible when each step is well-defined and documented. This transparency can be particularly valuable in organizations where decisions need to be justified to stakeholders or where there’s a need for accountability.

Lastly, a structured approach like MAP can lead to better group dynamics. By providing a framework for evaluation, it helps prevent groupthink and encourages diverse viewpoints. Team members are more likely to voice their opinions when there’s a clear process for considering different aspects of a decision, leading to more robust and well-rounded strategic choices.

To adopt a structured approach to strategic decision-making:

1. Identify key decisions: Determine which strategic decisions would benefit most from a structured approach.

2. Develop assessment criteria: Create specific, measurable criteria for each aspect of the decision.

3. Train decision-makers: Ensure that all involved parties understand the MAP process and its benefits.

4. Document the process: Keep records of assessments and final decisions for future reference and learning.

5. Review and refine: Regularly evaluate the effectiveness of your structured approach and make improvements as needed.

By adopting a structured approach like MAP, organizations can significantly improve the quality of their strategic decisions. This method helps mitigate cognitive biases, reduces noise in the decision-making process, and ultimately leads to more reliable and successful outcomes. In an increasingly complex business landscape, such an approach can provide a crucial competitive advantage.

References

Kahneman, D., Lovallo, D., & Sibony, O. (2019). A structured approach to strategic decisions. MIT Sloan Management Review, 60(3), 67-73.

Sinnaiah, T., Adam, S., & Mahadi, B. (2023). A strategic management process: the role of decision-making style and organisational performance. Journal of Work-Applied Management, 15(1), 37-50.

Mintzberg, H., Ahlstrand, B., & Lampel, J. (2020). Strategy safari: A guided tour through the wilds of strategic management. Free Press.

Calabretta, G., Gemser, G., & Wijnberg, N. M. (2017). The interplay between intuition and rationality in strategic decision making: A paradox perspective. Organization Studies, 38(3-4), 365-401.

Hodgkinson, G. P., & Sadler-Smith, E. (2018). The dynamics of intuition and analysis in managerial and organizational decision making. Academy of Management Perspectives, 32(4), 473-492.

Keeney, R. L. (1982). Decision analysis: An overview. Operations Research, 30(5), 803-838.

Gregory, R., Failing, L., Harstone, M., Long, G., McDaniels, T., & Ohlson, D. (2012). Structured decision making: A practical guide to environmental management choices. John Wiley & Sons.

Eisenhardt, K. M., & Zbaracki, M. J. (1992). Strategic decision making. Strategic Management Journal, 13(S2), 17-37.

Hammond, J. S., Keeney, R. L., & Raiffa, H. (1998). The hidden traps in decision making. Harvard Business Review, 76(5), 47-58.

Papadakis, V. M., Lioukas, S., & Chambers, D. (1998). Strategic decision-making processes: The role of management and context. Strategic Management Journal, 19(2), 115-147.

#dataCulture #decisionAnalysis #decisionMaking #decisionQuality #MediatingAssessmentsProtocol #problemFraming