Issue is a problem, conflict or question to be resolved, decided or agreed. E.g. Expansion...Which department should expand? User can effectively decide just about any issue with the priorities program. To decide any issue, enter at least 3 options, 1 objective and 1 decider. ON Issue screen if user wants to add new issue then please enter issue name in the blank box under Name field and enter issue description in the blank box under Description field then click on submit and the newly inserted issue will appear at the top in the ISSUE NAME column of the table and then user can click on that particular ISSUE NAME to add options. If user wants to alter already existing issues, then user needs to click on issue name in the ISSUE NAME column of the table. If user wants to make changes in the ISSUE NAME AND ISSUE DESCRIPTION or either of them CLICK ON Edit button and if user wants to delete any ISSUE listed in the ISSUE NAME field click on delete button.
The first step in handling any issue is to recognise that we have some options available to us and to agree a reasonably cogent options agenda. Unless options can be specified, deciders are likely to find themselves wandering wonderingly in Alice's Looking Glass Wood with no Names.
An option is a distinct definable element of the issue. Depending on the subject, the options may comprise :
Options should be relatively capable of being prioritised. We cannot sensibly ask: "Is living more important than breathing?" They should be relatively exhaustive of the agenda for consideration. We should not need to ask: "Is there something more important than life or death?" Deciders should have a relatively common understanding of the options. We should not have to ask: “Is my east your west?” Deciders may test their agenda of options asking.
Does each option state or imply some tangible physical action? Can we decide any priorities or preferences between these options? Can we meaningfully compare them? Could there be any basis for saying that any one of these options is preferable to another for any reason? Are these options reasonably distinct, relatively exhaustive, and roughly at the same level of specifications? Do the deciders have a reasonably common understanding of the options?
Some common options available in many contexts are :
Objectives are intentions, targets, benefits, reasons, objective or factors to be taken into account. To decide any issue enter at least 1 objective. E.g. Effectiveness, Efficiency, profitability. In real life, decision-making is something approached more analytically – with some discussion of the pros and cons of each option. In other words, several objectives may be considered – what leads to a "Happy Holiday" overall. You bring these objectives into the decision: it works virtually the same way as for options. For the holiday plan, such objectives might be excitement, social life, weather, low cost. The influence of these factors on the final decision will vary, as each decider will have different views about the relative importance of each objective. You rate the objectives in much the same way as you rate the options. Priorities produces a weighting in percentage terms for each objective.
Organisations are networks of deciders. Deciders are those stakeholders who in respect of the issue may (or should) have some:
Unless a person has some discretion on the issue, even if only advisory, he or she is not a decider on that matter. The decision-making team may be a roll-call for a decision metting, an advisory group, a responsibility structure, a role analysis, a power chart, or an established section of the hierarchy. Here are some questions that sensitise deciders to the sometimes delicate power issues involved.
Who are the relevant deciders? The stakeholders? The pertinent advisors? Who’s usually involved? Who should be? Who speaks for the organization on this issue? Are the full range of views represented? And the full range of experience and expertise?