Home
Priorities Now Logo
 
 
Help / Overview  
   
Overview
 

Overview Part   4  of  7
123 4 567
DECISION TYPES

INDIVIDUAL DECISIONS

From the Intuition or Judgement method, the individual decider’s priorities are calculated by the program. The decider’s proposed resolution of the issue is given by his/her option priorities.

Issue : Which Service Departments should expand?
Decider : Chairman
Objective : All things considered
OPTIONS PRIORITY%
Management Services 52
Personnel 23
Accounts 14
R & D 8
Admin 3
ALL OPTIONS 100.0

These answer the individual decider’s questions:
Do I (the decider) have any implicit sense of the relevant priorities between all the options?
What do my valuations of the options amount to overall?
What is the priority scale implicit in my valuations?

TEAM DECISIONS

Priorities are often collectively or participatively decided by teams, rather than by an individual alone. From the Intuition or Judgement method, the team’s priorities are calculated by the program. The team’s proposed resolution of the issue is given by the combined options priorities of each individual team member.

The questions are:
Is there any congruence between the option priorities of individual deciders?
What team view is implied in the trade-off and compromises typically made in negotiations on options?
What are the team priorities implied in this team view?
Do participants in the decision-making team have any sense of a team scale of relevant priorities between options?
What implied team priority scale can be inferred from each participant’s individual option priorities?
How does this collective team priority scale vary when relative decider influences are taken into account?

The answer to these questions provides a team priority scale of options. The team priority scale is the one which articulates and satisfies each decider’s priorities between options (as expressed in his/her individual weightings) to the maximum that is allowable if other decider’s counteracting priorities are to be correspondingly satisfied. So the team thus tacitly negotiates the best achievable resolution of the issue in the computer as it were, without even having to meet up or speak.

This team priority scale provides the basis for forming a sufficient degree on consensus to enable collective decisions to be made and subsequent action to be taken. The higher the capability of building a consensus the higher is the team capability for decision and action. Conversely significant dis-sensus tends to preclude concerted team decisions and actions.

Issue: Which Service Departments should expand?
Objective: All things considered

DECIDERS (Influence) CHAIR
(33%)		 MD
(29%)		 FD
(24%)		 NED
(14%)		 TEAM
(100%)
OPTIONS (Services) [Overall: All things considered] [Overall]
MS
Accounts
Personnel
R & D
Admin		 53
13
23
8
3		 24
24
30
9
13		 27.4
19.5
21.1
30.6
1.4		 10
53
12
11
14 		32
24
23
14
7
ALL OPTIONS 100 100 100 100 100

ANALYTIC DECISIONS : So far the quickest individual and team decisions have been made pragmatically. The deciders have decided between option priorities using the Intuition (or Judgement) method with the single objective: All Things Considered. The decider/s may make more analytic considered decisions on an objective-by-objective basis as follows.
 

Overview Part   4  of  7
123 4 567