You are here

Alternative views

8 September, 2015 - 10:52

Behavioral theorists argue that the rational view of decision making is too simplistic. Although decision makers may go through the four phases of the rational model, they don’t normally do so in any straightforward manner. Many decision makers, especially those with managerial responsibilities, have work that is fragmented, brief and varied. They face constant interruptions (telephone, email, impromptu meetings), and can only spend a short amount of time considering most decision situations. They are often under considerable stress, which can further degrade their ability to follow a rational approach to making all of the decisions that are needed.

As a result, decision makers often take shortcuts to reduce the burden of making decisions. They typically rely on a network of contacts (both inside and outside of their organization) to help them collect data and to come up with alternative solutions to a particular problem or opportunity. The term ‘satisficing’ has been used to describe a common approach, which is to settle for the first alternative that seems ‘good enough’, rather than expending additional time and effort to collect all available data and to consider all possible options.

In addition, human beings have many biases that can influence their decision making. We may be biased by our upbringing and educational background, by the opinions of persons whom we look up to, by our experiences in similar situations in the past, and so on. We also have personality traits (such as dogmatism, or a lack of creativity, or low willingness to accept risk). These biases and personality traits often keep decision makers from considering a full range of alternatives.

Also, it has been noted that decisions are often reached based on ‘political’ motivations, rather than as a result of rational thought and consideration. For example, a purchasing agent might decide to obtain goods from a supplier whose products and services are inferior (lower quality products, higher price, etc.) than those offered by a competitor, because he knows that his boss is a good friend of an important individual who works for the supplier. While rational decision making implies putting organizational goals above departmental or individual ones, we know that this doesn’t always happen.

In addition to situational factors (too many decisions requiring attention, inadequate data available, not enough time to consider options fully, and so on), decision makers are human beings with limitations. We can only keep so much information available in our short-term memory (which makes comparing options more difficult), we are poor at seeing trends in data, and we are slow (and often inaccurate) in accessing information stored in our long- term memory.

The reason for considering these issues, is to acknowledge they exist and then design information systems that can help us overcome individual and situational limitations, to try and help us move closer to having the ability to use a rational decision making process. For example, designing systems that provide summarized data (with access to more detailed data on demand) makes it easier for decision makers to retrieve the information they need, which increases the probability that they will do so (rather than taking shortcuts). Similarly, we can design systems that help decision makers to see trends in data, to compare multiple options simultaneously, and to provide more transparency in decision making (which reduces the probability of decisions being made for political reasons).

As an example, several large cities exist in dangerous areas – near nuclear power stations or in areas that prone to hurricanes, tornadoes, or floods. City administrators have plans to evacuate in cases of emergency – but think of the complications. The time of the emergency (which will affect where people are and what transportation is available), the amount of warning, the public transportation capacity (roads, railroads, airports), the severity of the emergency, the cost of the disruption – all these need to be considered and possibly traded-off against one another. Ideally, planners will have developed comprehensive plans in advance that will have considered these issues and developed plans to minimize loss of life and economic disruptions. One way to assist these planners is to provide them with robust information systems that help forecast the impact of different possible scenarios, and also to help them weigh trade-offs among competing criteria.