A632.3.3.RB - Framing Complex Decisions.

A632.3.3.RB _Manglona, Matthew-Napu_ Framing Complex Decisions. 

When it comes to the different methodologies as described to this blog for my organization, everything ties in together. When it comes to the environmental decisions that need to be made everything that my staff encounters all is inputted to statistical data on a weekly basis. Our data rises and declines based off the seasons. Hoch, Kunreuther & Gunther (2001) stated that “companies, traders, and financial intermediaries have developed sophisticated means to track weather to help predict demand and supply conditions.” (p. 1343) my staff deals with the drug interdiction island wide and we use the data given to incoprate trends and behavior which is all dictated by the weather during the calendar year. During our hot months (summer) our drug data input is at its peak, but once summer is over we see a dramatic decline, then once December hits we another peak all the way till mid calendar year until summer approaches once again. This allows for me and my staff to focus on putting personnel in designated areas to ensure command and control of our drug interdiction and deterrence.

This process works best for me and my staff because it establishes a rhythm for us to follow to ensure we are on track with our objectives. We do incorporate off set patterns to make those smuggling across our borders not catch on our tactics. Hoch, Kunreuther & Gunther (2001) also discuss that “these tools allow for decision makers not only to anticipate the weather, but also to do something about it in planning their supply portfolio.” (p. 1352) The consequences to this approach is that like every battle rhythm someone eventually catches on, the remedy to this equation is to simply off set the patterns to ensure a guessing game is in play, solely not relying on the weather patterns given.

In a complex environment of decision making Hoch, Kunreuther & Gunther (2001) discuss this method as having interactions across multiple system boundaries surrounding a particular decision context. In which these system interactions cannot go ignored. (p. 1352) The three pillars discussed for these models are data, the model itself, and looking at alternative decisions in the context of the model. When it comes to my career field noticing trends and assessing each one to capitalize on has become a dire asset to help us come to a conclusion on our decision making process. Hoch, Kunreuther & Gunther (2001) described that when information is combined and put up for a consensus it provides a very detailed picture of what is available to include risks that come with it. (p.1367)

Now when it comes to multiple stake holders, Hoch, Kunreuther & Gunther (2001) discussed that stakeholders include competitors, regulators, and public interest groups. These external factors play a role in my decision making abilities. (p. 1393)They play the role as Hoch, Kunreuther & Gunther (2001) when seeking guidance from others plays a crucial role when it comes to decision making. I always use my predecessors or mentors within my organization as an “outside looking in” tool for me to shape my decision making so long as it coincides with my strategy. The negative consequence to this for me in this case is that I tend to heavily favor their recommendations and fail to make the decisions myself. I believe that if I was to weigh it all out and think of every possible outlet that comes with the different options I will be able to make a more firm decision to whatever issues that come in front of me.

Reference: 

Hoch, S. J., & Kunreuther, H. C. (2005). Wharton on making decisions. (1st edition.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

A632.3.4.RB - Reflections on Decision Making

A632.3.4.RB_ Manglona, Matthew-Napu_Reflections on Decision Making

Hoch, Kunreuther & Gunther (2001) discuss three ways to taking charge of our frames in which helps me avoid the framing traps that occur when dealing with frames in my organization. 1). simply having a frame audit. Simply put, is to ensure that you are open to all frames or options presented by yourself, your organization, and outside influences that push your decision making. (p. 1553) An example would be is the program that I run is solely based off the budget that we receive every fiscal year. With the constrictions that we experience we have to tie our agenda that with our organization. So that initiates me and my staff to understand the objectives of my organization with what we have, to ensure we meet the same intent of which is tasked down to us.

Although mission sets are different by each program the overall objective to expand and to continue the prosperity of each program is priority number 1. 2). Is to surface your frames, to literally put your frames on a board to ensure that one is following the objective set by the frames so that you may be able to see it visibly and look at it to keep oneself in.  My program and I in this case put our objectives on a board and ensure that we subtask or break it down by phases to ensure that we accomplish our objectives. 3). To understand the frames of others. Be open and flexible with what others present in their agenda to success for the organization as a whole. Understand that effective communication is the core to ensure a collaborative approach with other frames. I always try to sync my agenda of where I want my program to go with my supervisor. There may be a bigger mission set that me and my staff have to follow and may veer off the overall intentions of how “I” want things ran, but I ensure that we sync and jive our agenda with our other counterparts within our organization. Of course there will be friction and disconnect in communication, however, with great interpersonal skills will one be able to sync their agendas for the better. (p. 1560).

Each frame plays a close tie to one another and most importantly they complement each other. This exercise has taught me that to be open and remember there are multiple avenues of approach to accomplish a task or tasks for success. I always will remember that just because an objective is set out, that is just a sub part of the overall objective set out by the organization. If I ever sit in the director seat of my organization I may then understand the concept of a general sense objective for the subordinate departments to follow suit but to also incorporate their frame objectives to follow.

Additional tools that would help me through this process is to what Hoch, Kunreuther & Gunther (2001) discuss as identifying all constraints and to get other views. When I identify what is restricting me into my decision making I am able to take a step back, re-evaluate, and attack with a better thought process moving forward. When I get the view of others it paints a bigger picture to the multiple objectives at hand. When there are issues I always seek recommendations to ensure I have a better thought process when it comes to my decisions.  

What I have learned from this exercise is that although a plan for the forward progress of the organization is in place there is always room for improvement. I learned to never truly rely on your decisions that make you think “what if?” or “what could be.” Put it up on a wall and paint the picture and understand the second, third order of affects. When one understands this process, they will be able to make effective decisions.

Reference:

Hoch, S. J., & Kunreuther, H. C. (2005). Wharton on making decisions. (1st edition.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

A632.2.3.RB - Sheena Lyengar: How to Make Choosing Easier

A632.2.3.RB_ Manglona, Matthew-Napu_ Sheena Lyengar: How to Make Choosing Easier

The four methodologies that Sheena Iyengar discusses in her presentation are Cut, Concretization, Categorization, and Condition for complexity. Each methodology provides a specific way on how we can improve and manage our choices in better way. She describes Cut as a way of simply stating that less options for consumers provides greater results or revenue. When you narrow the choices for an individual to choose from it becomes easier for them to make a firm decision. She then discusses concretization, in which she states “in order for people to understand the differences between the choices, they have to be able to understand the consequences associated with each choice, and that the consequences need to be felt in a vivid sort of way, in a very concrete way.” (Iyengar, 2011) She then describes the third methodology of Categorization, simply put, if you have your choices in a categorized manner it would be much easier for the chooser to make a decision moving forward. Then finally the fourth methodology is Condition of complexity in which she describes a gradual build of presenting information in choices for making the final decision.

In my capacity as a decision maker in my organization, the two methods that relate to my decision making is the processes of Cut and Concretization. For the process of Cut, in my job, the decision on purchasing equipment for my program has to go with what is relevant and cost effective when making my decision to purchase. I do have assistance on the system that the Army provides in narrowing down my choices which presents a better choice in making my decisions on the equipment to purchase. Hoch, Kunreuther & Gunther (2001) describe using information technology as a power tool. It is used to strengthen the decision maker’s decision making however making decisions largely unchanged. (p.945) It a nutshell there is already a set standard of choices for us as decision makers to use as a guide, which ultimately for me in my case presents me the best choice without getting into trouble from my superiors. Which then ties into concretization methodology of my decision making. If I was to go against what the software database recommends then I would definitely get into trouble. We cannot spend over of what we need, when the choices are cut and concretize (in other words, set) then the best choices presented allow me to make a better decision.

I believe that all four of these methodologies will help improve my decision making. Adding the methods of categorization and condition of complexity will provide a better system of decision making for myself. My job position requires me to provide decisions on a daily basis. Just as Iyengar (2011) discussed that we on average have 70 choices a day to include the many different sub choices that are given on the bottom of it. She also describes the 9 minute time frame to the 1 hour time frame into making choices. For me, to improve my decision making is to simply make clear and decisive decisions. To understand what is in front of me. To understand that just because I am presented with a number of choices, to slim down my choices will make for a more quality decision of choice. That is the ultimatum of what I got out of this presentation, is that if I was given 100 choices rather to narrow it down to 50 choices, the more specific the choice, the better decision will be made.

Reference:

Hoch, S., Kunreuther, H., & Gunther, R. (2001). Wharton on Making Decisions (1st edition). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Iyengar, S. (2011, November). Retrieved January 20, 2017, from http://www.ted.com/talks/sheena_iyengar_choosing_what_to_choose#t-607343 Iyengar, S. 

A632.1.4.RB - Multistage Decision-Making

A632.1.4.RB_Manglona, Matthew-Napu_Multistage Decision-Making

When it comes to my decision making process depending on the situation I usually go through a barrel of emotion, intellect, and reason when it comes to making that decision. My emotion is that what am I feeling at this current time? Is there a reason to let my emotions be involved in my decision making (e.g. does it deal with someone I don’t like?) then there is my intellect, do I know enough about the situation where I can rely on regulations or policies in place to move forward with my decision? Or there the reason, what is my reason to make the decision I make (will it benefit me? My organization?) All these come into factor when presented with a question that needs a solution (decision making). Hoch & Kunreuther (2005) wrote “when we are actively learning (seeking out information) we tend to filter information to confirm our opinion. (p.593) the process discussed in this chapter presents a blue print on how to make those decisions. The formula presented seemed kind of extreme however it did bring sense to the equation of decision making. Do we forecast our decision based on what we want to know? Or do we base it on what we do know?

Doya & Shadlen(2012) stated that “an appealing idea is that similar computational principles are at play in a wide variety of decisions, whether they ultimately concern propositions, perceptions, actions, value preferences or strategies.”(p. 912) When it comes to forward planning, the sole basis of understanding what is in store for your organization when presented with such decision questions is just that. Forward planning from my understanding and experience is needed to ensure that things don’t mess up. In the Army we plan out months in advance for a mission and as each month gets closer, things change, and so do decisions. In this case, foreseeing that decisions made will have outcomes that change throughout the process.

I would apply optimal dynamic decision analysis (at least in my realm of work) with what has worked in the past and what we are truly trying to accomplish. An example I would give is the retention of soldiers in my organization. My organization is on the verge of getting our budget cut dramatically because we just cannot keep soldiers within our ranks. A dynamic decision analysis would bring on the questions of how do we retain them? What incentives do we give our soldiers wanting to get out to stay? What do we as leaders need to do currently and in the future to ensure that we keep them based off our current operations? Is it better training, administrative and financial help? These questions we ask ourselves will assist in the forward planning and decision making process because we know how to get them in the service but it is quite difficult to keep them in.

References:

Doya, K., & Shadlen, M. N. (2012). Decision making. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 22(6), 911-913. doi:10.1016/j.conb.2012.10.003

Hoch, S. J., & Kunreuther, H. C. (2005). Wharton on making decisions. (1st edition.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.