Printer Friendly

Making rational decisions.

[check] This checklist provides an outline framework for making rational decisions. It is therefore relevant to all managers.


The process of choosing between alternative courses of action. Decision making may take place at an individual or organisational level. The nature of the decision-making process within an organisation is influenced by its culture and structure and a number of theoretical models have been developed. One well-known method for individual decision making was developed by Charles Kepner and Benjamin Tregoe in their book "The New Rational Manager" published in 1981. Specific techniques used in decision-making include heuristics and decision trees. Computer systems designed to assist managerial decision making are known as decision support systems.


The rational model for decision-making:

* will provide evidence and support for how the decision was made

* is particularly suitable for complex or fuzzy situations

* is thorough and systematic

* relies on effective information-gathering, rather than preconceived ideas

* is an effective technique for determining a route through the mist and securing commitment to it.


The method:

* can be very time-consuming and resource-intensive especially in fast-moving situations

* relies heavily on information which may prove difficult to gather

* requires fairly strict adherence if the outcome is to be a rational decision

* highlights the possibility that a rational decision may not be the right one!

Action checklist

1 Define the decision to be made

Be clear on the exact decision to make. This first step helps to clarify thinking, aids communications and provides a record for the future. It may lead to the discovery that assumptions have been made previously which have muddied the water.

For example--Decision: Which computer to buy?

2 Establish the objectives

These are things that are desired from the decision and should be measurable wherever possible. It is not necessary to worry at this stage if there are apparent incompatibilities between the objectives. This stage involves consultation, information searching and checking.

Your objectives may be: a computer which can communicate to others, run CD-ROMs, do word-processing, spreadsheets and graphics, not run out of hard-disc space too quickly, and be affordable. The computer must have a modem, an expandable memory slot, CD-ROM drive, large hard disc, standard software packages and be within budget

3 Classify the Objectives

Differentiate between the essential requirements (the "musts") and the desirable (the "wants"). The fundamental difference between musts and wants is that if one of the decision alternatives does not meet a "must", then that option should be rejected. Failure to meet a "want" should not mean automatic rejection. The process for considering "wants" is dealt with at point 5.

Musts: Maximum price / Minimum processor capability / Minimum hard disc capacity. Wants: Modem, CD-ROM drive, extra memory slot, software packages.

4 Define the "musts"

To be a valid "must", an objective should have a quantitative measure or an objective standard. Assign quantitative measures to the "musts"; maximum price 1,000 [pounds sterling], minimum 200 Mhz processor, minimum two gigabyte hard disc. This means that if an option presented for purchase is either over [pounds sterling]1,000 or less than 200 Mhz processor or with less than a two gigabyte hard disc, then it should be rejected.

5 Define the "wants"

Examine the "wants" for importance and give a numerical weighting out of 10 (10 for the most important, less than 10 for something less important). For example if the software packages are the most important feature after the "musts", then software would be weighted 10. If an option includes all of spreadsheet, database, graphics and word processing then it may well score 10 out of 10; if one is missing, it might only score 8. An extremely fast modem with built-in error correction may have a weight of 10; an option with a modem not so fast or sophisticated may only score 6 out of 10.</p> <pre> Fast modem

10 Complete software package 10 Inbuilt CDROM

9 Extra memory slots 8 </pre> <p>6 Generate the Alternatives

With information requirements established, next seek and obtain the appropriate information. In this case sources may include PC suppliers the trade press and "informed" colleagues.

7 Apply the Alternatives to the Requirements

The information--or options obtained--should be recorded for each alternative against each "must" objective.

8 Test the alternatives against the "musts"

Reject those options that do not meet the "musts". Do any of the alternatives not match against the "musts" on price, storage or processor? If negative, it is logical to reject that alternative.

If either you do not wish, or something else prevents rejection of an alternative which has failed on "musts", then the "musts" are either proving unsatisfactory, or you are not adhering to the rational process. In either case, re-start at Step 3.

9. Score the remaining alternatives against the "wants"

Score the remaining options against each of the "wants" in turn. The alternative that meets the "want" best should be scored highest and others allocated proportionate scores. For example:

Slower modem 6 2 out 4 software elements missing 5 No CDROM drive 0 2 extra memory slots 8

10. Multiply the weights by the scores

Weights should be multiplied by scores and the results added for each alternative. For example, as in Steps 5 and 9 above: Slower modem 10 x 6 = 60 2 out 4 software elements missing 10 x 5 = 50 No CDROM 9 x 0 = 0 2 extra memory slots 8 x 8 = 64 Total = 174

11. Come to a Provisional Decision

The totals will enable you to come to a provisional decision. With the totals compared it is usually possible to make statements such as:

* alternative A is clearly the best

* alternatives D and E are not worth considering

* there is little to choose between alternatives B and C.

12. The Final Decision

The analysis will not provide an automatic decision, unless all alternatives but one fail the "musts". Where several alternatives have similar totals, it is particularly important to re-examine scores and weights and the evidence on which they have been based. The analysis will provide a sound framework for clear examination. It is not always necessary to use the entire process described above, especially for simple binary (yes/no) decisions. However, each element in the process can be used separately to improve the efficiency of a decision.

Dos and don'ts for making rational decisions


* Get sufficient information to be able to choose from a number of alternatives.

* Ensure that your objectives will meet your needs

* Take time in working out "musts"; make them measurable.

* Remain objective.

* Re-examine the process after the provisional decision to tighten or modify aspects.


* Jump too quickly to an "apparently" obvious decision.

* Let a preconceived conclusion influence the process.

* Cut corners especially if the decision has far-reaching implications.

* Let personal preferences cloud the process.

* Take the provisional decision as final

* Use this approach for solving problems!

Useful reading


Business strategy : a guide to effective descision making ed Michael J Hicks London Thomson Learning 2004

Decision_making_Jeremy_Kourdi London Economist Books in association with Profile Books 2003

Thought starters

* Do you have a difficult or fuzzy decision to take?

* Do you need to impose some order on a mass of data?

* Do you need to show evidence and method for how you made the decision?

* When you bought a car how did you come to your decision?
COPYRIGHT 2005 Chartered Management Institute
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2005, Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:Checklist 015
Publication:Chartered Management Institute: Checklists: Managing Information and Finance
Geographic Code:4EUUK
Date:Oct 1, 2005
Previous Article:Brainstorming.
Next Article:Planning the replacement of software systems.

Related Articles
New Superfund Law May Impact Relations With Scrap Suppliers.
Robbing Drug Dealers: Violence Beyond the Law. (Book Notes).
Virus attack on cancer: heat makes neglected technology work better.
Buyer's guide to thermoplastics.
Effective communications: communicating with groups.
Solving problems.
Emotional intelligence.
Making rational decisions.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2021 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters