Task 5 No 2 - Contemporary technology responses – Personal Decision Making tools

I have done another post for the last week because I have just realized Task 5 in the course outline has changed.  I am going to keep my original post for marking consideration because I gained some useful learning in taking part in the case study and completing the blog.

The new Task 5 required us to read two articles “Managers and their not-so rational decisions” and “Managing Overconfidence” and we were asked to discuss the two most interesting things we learnt and ways in which we could look to reduce over-confidence in decision making at our workplace.

The Russo and Schoemaker (1992) article highlighted ‘hindsight’ as a cause of overconfidence.  Specially, that in hindsight “the world is more predictable than it really is”. This is a dangerous assumption as it fails to appreciate how much uncertainty existed at the time or the whole context of how the decision was made.  On reflection, I have been guilty of this process as I have often questioned how ‘I could have been so stupid’ when making a decision, often assuming my capacity for decision making was the same as my current situation.  This is supported by the article that states, “hindsight instils an illusion of omniscience”.

The Certo et al. article discussed ‘escalation of commitment’ as a component of overconfidence and the reason why so many managers “remain committed to a course of action despite the mounting evidence that the action is not paying off”.  I presently work at an organisation were we have some long standing services that are reliant on extra funding to operate.  Some of them have not been fully evaluated in a period of time and we seem to have lost site of why we are actually providing them.  As a new senior manager, I have been asked to provide a briefing to our CEO as the feasibility of continuing these services and in a number of cases the prime reason for their existence now seems to be “it would cost us to close them” and “we are expected to deliver them by the sector”. 

To reduce the influence of hindsight affecting future decisions, I will suggest we utilise a hierarchical diagram such as a ‘fault tree’.  This would provide a tool that would minimise the ‘lens of overconfidence’ that hindsight could produce and allow us to list all the possible challenges that could affect future problems and be more objective.  If further investigation was called for, I would utilise a tool such as ‘scenario analysis’ which provides detail of how the future may unfold, allowing a better understanding of uncertainty.

Counterargumentation could also be introduced to reduce overconfidence with both the ‘hindsight’ and ‘escalation of commitment’ issues.  This year I will be introducing a ‘counter argument’ section to the yearly reports.  This will ask managers to argue to both extend and cease services that they manage.  To provide more gravitas to this exercise, I will also ask them to refer to both their previous budget performance and their proposed budget forecasts.  These will be presented and discussed at the WA Leadership forum that falls a month before the end of financial year.

In considering this blog, I also referred to the following resources that I found useful in gaining a better understanding of managing overconfidence and prospect theory.

http://catalog.flatworldknowledge.com/bookhub/3?e=bauer-ch11_s02

http://blog.tnsemployeeinsights.com/escalation-of-commitment-and-organizational-commitment/

http://billyaustindillon.hubpages.com/hub/Escalation-of-Commitment

http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/news/releases/i-knew-it-all-along-didnt-i-understanding-hindsight-bias.html

And lastly, I keep popping in this quote from the Russo and Schoemaker (1992) article at work because it makes a lot of sense and makes me look smart J

“Experience is inevitable; learning is not”

Great place to finish I think.

Task 5: Contemporary technology responses - Personal Decision Making Tools

This week’s focus was on big data, a subject I am learning a lot more about since joining a new organisation were I am required to use a number of databases that hold information about different streams of service delivery including employment services, early learning centers and community programs. I regularly draw reports from these systems and also check data “dash boards” on a daily basis to monitor expenditure and outcomes.  We also have a database that links all the other service databases, as well as customer/ stakeholder feedback and program analysis. This provides managers with information about budget, staffing, program quality etc. across the whole organization and can be used for reporting on overall performance and planning for the organizations future projects. 

I was therefore very interested in Viaene and Van Den Bunder (2011) article The Secrets to Managing Business Analytics Projects as I am a manager who needs to work with other managers from different fields within the organization to help me set up systems for capturing and utilizing big data for future programs.  The article presented a number of qualities that successful project managers have shown when coordinating analytics projects.  I was heartened to see I have some of the qualities like a ‘delivery bias towards execution’ a characteristic that often frustrates some of my team who want time to consider implementation strategies.

Other desirable characteristics included valuing continual learning; working to gain commitment; intelligently experimenting; and promoting the use of information technology.  One of the most important pieces of learning I took from the readings and lectures was the need for partnerships between operations and IT.  This is a key point especially for the not for profit sector, as many operations staff are social science specialists and have limited understanding of ways of utilizing information technology or collecting and using statistics.  Also, both operations and IT staff have little contact with each other especially when developing and implementing new community services.  I have already started to act on this piece of learning by discussing with our IT Manager how her staff can assist me when considering how new services will fit and operate within our existing structures and how to produce and capture the information I will be required to provide to internal upper management and external funders.

This week’s class focused on utilizing the learning’s from the lectures and readings by applying them to a case study set in the retail sector.  To prepare for this class I did some research and found these three sites very useful in discussing how ‘big data’ is changing the way retailers approach their business and the specific ways they are utilizing the data.

http://www.economistinsights.com/sites/default/files/The_Data_Storm_Web_1.pdf

http://www.deloitte.com/view/en_US/us/Services/additional-services/deloitte-analytics-service/358a7e1b566a2310VgnVCM1000001a56f

http://www.zdnet.com/five-big-data-trends-revolutionizing-retail-7000019510/

I already knew a bit about customer profiling and how retailers were using big data to enhance loyalty programs.  These readings also provided further interesting insights in how retailers are using data gained from a number of selling ‘channels’ to capture customers across all points of sale.  Data is also being used to develop systems that source raw materials across the world at the cheapest prices.  With a huge amount of information pouring into these ‘data warehouses’, cheapest options are changing as little as every ten minutes and the system also allows for forecasting and planning purchasing.  Data analytics are also being used to detect fraud and shrink margins in a challenging retail environment.

I brought this knowledge to class and was able to present it to my working group when we were addressing the case study questions.  I really enjoyed this class, as it was useful to share ideas about ways to approach the case study challenge.  It was interesting to see how others approached the questions.  My group took quite a ‘macro’ approach and looked at how data analytics could be introduced across a whole organization.  When we changed groups, I learnt others had focused on specific retail examples and addressed the questions this way.  Through discussion, I have gained a better understanding of the challenges of introducing data analytic systems to an organization, the key points for me being:

• ·           They are expensive and require specific infrastructure and expertise.
• ·           They need buy in from all managers throughout the organization.
• ·      Different levels of the organization will have different focuses ie the CEO will want data to achieve different things than an IT Manager.
• ·      You need to be flexible and change to the needs of the organization and individual stakeholders.

In conclusion, this was an enjoyable class because everyone took part and we worked together to address the questions and consider the challenges facing organizations that wish to utilize data analytics and carry out big data projects.

Task 4 : Methodologies and tools for solving complex problems

For this weeks blog I have addressed an issue at work by selecting a number of techniques that have been presented in the last couple of week’s lectures. 

Presently, one of the programs I manage is not reaching its goals and expectations set by the funding body and I recently attended a review meeting were a number of issues were raised and some short term objectives have been set to improve performance quickly.

One specific objective is the quality of the Individual Performance Plans (IPP), which workers develop with clients.  These should be more detailed and specifically link to the services that are being provided to the client.

I organised a meeting to discuss strategies for improving IPPs and invited the Area Manager, Program Manger and three Program Coordinators.  Before the meeting, I sent the staff this link :

http://leadership.fuller.edu/Leadership/Resources/Part_4-Leading_for_Transformative_Change/III__Constructing_a_Holding_Environment.aspx

I asked them to read it and think about how the ideas could be used to support our staff and improve our learning culture.  The article, from Fuller Theological Seminary, discusses the ideas of Ronald Heifetz (2009) in regards to constructing a “holding environment” that is "uncomfortable enough that a person cannot avoid the problem, but safe enough that a person can experiment with new ways of doing things”.  One of my leadership goals is to develop a team culture that supports and motivates staff to creatively approach challenges and share their successes. 

In setting up the meeting I considered Jurgen Habermas’s (1971) work relating to developing a “ideal speech situation”.  I made sure I booked the meeting room for a couple of hours, organised refreshments and asked our PA to take messages for all the managers in the meeting so it was a mobile phone free zone.  I started the meeting by setting up ‘group rules’ for the discussion that encouraged the group to:

• ·      Speak and share ideas no matter how left field,
• ·      Question anything that is said,
• ·      Provide context about why they have suggested something,
• ·      to try and not influence others through coercion.

I also advised everyone that I would be utilising a dialogue mapping tool as presented by the CogNexus Institute as this would allow us to record the ideas and see how they link to each other.  As I was utilising a data projector so everyone could see the map, it would allow us agree on the content and reduce mistakes.   The meeting lasted for an hour and a snapshot of part of the map is below:

The process worked very well for us.  As it was a shared display, everyone became engaged and focused in presenting ideas, questions, and comments to support or challenge assertions.  Our discussion kept to logical streams and all the ideas suggested where recorded with further discussions linked to these ideas in a logical manner.   The finished map clearly showed ‘open issues’ and ‘action items’ for future follow up.  Practically, it was a really useful record of what we discussed which captured the thinking process of the group, which we could give to other managers and staff who did not attend the meeting. 

The dialogue-mapping tool is definitely something I will use again, even though my inputting and Power Point skills often did not keep up with the ideas that were flying around the room.

Task 3 - Decision Making Issues

A lot of week four’s lecture resonated with me when reflecting on the personal decision making styles and especially the bias that can affect the way we approach decision making.  I could think of specific examples where staff have framed the information they have given me to increase the chance that I will make the decision they are hoping for.  For example, recently before we were to discuss moving a member of staff to another team to assist another manager, the present staff member’s manger told me about the challenging personal issues the worker had that would have made the move difficult.  The manager also highlighted their loyal and consistent service.  It was obvious the manager did not want to lose the worker and the way the information was framed made me think about a number of other staff we could move to leave the staff member in their current position.  I slept on the decision over night and with a bit more reflection, felt it was still more efficient and productive to move the staff member. 

I was also able to recognise times when I use mental models to create normality.  I can see that I use this tool in times when I have to make quick, programmed decisions as they help me make sense of things based on past experiences and assumptions.  Unfortunately I have made some bad decisions based on ‘gut feeling’ and intuition that I have tried to post rationalise with limited success.  

Recently I had to make a decision at work regarding reducing the number of pool vehicles available to three different programs across our drug and alcohol service.  I knew that although the three cars were not being fully utilised, a reduction of a whole vehicle could potentially affect all three program’s ability to provide outreach to clients. 

Although I was to make the ultimate decision, I did not feel comfortable making a decision without consultation with the teams who my decision would affect. Before the meeting I was provided with data that suggested all services would have to reduce outreach work by up to 30%.  I quickly realised this information was anchoring my decision-making process and I decided to look into the how the statistics were formulated.  One of the workers had simply assumed they would only have access to a car 70% of the time and then ascribed his programs findings to the other two.  Although I knew any decision to reduce resources would not be popular, I was also being primed by my Manager, who clearly wanted to reduce expenditure.  

I held a meeting with all the teams were I started by informing everyone that I needed to reduce expenditure, but wanted to listen to their ideas about how we could do this.  I gave them two days to thinks about strategies and then we met again, where teams presented ideas.  What resulted was strategies were communication processes were improved and teams planned their outreach in consultation with each other. 

We were able to reduce the car pool by one car, with an understanding that they could utilise my company car within working hours if required.  The teams have also generated cost saving ideas regarding stationary, utilising casual staff and sharing resources between each other.  These ideas were implemented and shared with other State Offices as an example of consultative/ collaborative decision-making.

As I missed attending the lecture last week, I would like to address the group discussion questions myself.  “Group Think” distortions disturb me the most due to being a worker who really enjoys working collaboratively.  As a senior manager, I am also aware that my presence in groups can intimidate other workers and stop them from fully engaging in the process.  My opinions can also influence the group and sway discussions, as some workers may not want to be seen to disagree with me.

To try and overcome these issues, I will reframe from giving my opinions in the initial group meetings unless asked and then sometimes I will still not provide my opinion in the forum and usually wait for the next meeting.  I make sure that everyone can see that I am actively listening and will encourage quieter team members.  I will also respectively manage group members who may be overtaking group discussions.  I often make myself the scribe, so I can explore people’s ideas as I record them and engage them to explain their ideas fully.  I also explain all these strategies openly at the start of the process so staff know I am not taking part for a reason and am really encouraging them to provide me with their ideas. 

And just quickly, two strategies I have used to minimise groupthink are:

• ·      Bringing in an outsider to play devils advocate and question assumptions.
• ·      Ask the group to come up with two different solutions that they have to present and argue for equally.

Have a great week!

Shaun

Task 2 with pics you can see

When considering the task for this week’s blog, I have referred to chapter six ‘Systems Analysis’ of Teale et.al 2003 book Management Decision Making: Towards an Integrative Approach and Chapter four ‘Objective Finding, Fact Finding and Problem finding/ Definition” of Tony Proctor’s 2005 book, Creative Problem Solving for Managers.

As a manager who is responsible for staff on 15 sites around WA, I have a constant problem with receiving consistent, dependable and timely information from the site managers. I require this information to compile weekly manager reports and track performance and expenditure.  The information includes client statistics, budget updates, variances and some quantitative information about staff performance and general presenting themes of clients.

I started this task by doing an Input- Transformation- Output model for the issue.  This broke the process into four sections that I could explore (Figure 1).  

I then did a quick mind map (Figure 2) to try and come up with possible issues/ blockages that are stopping me from receiving the information I require in a timely manner.  

This highlighted a couple of areas that could contribute to the issue, namely:

• ·      Site managers my not have systems that make the extraction of data quick and accurate.
• ·      They may not know how to use the central database efficiently for the task.
• ·      They may have too many things to do.
• ·      They may not be clear of the expectations of the task.
• ·      They might not have experience or knowledge of data collection.
• ·      They may not perceive it as important.
• ·      The instructions may not have been clear.
• ·      There is no common reporting framework.

Information and knowledge inputs/ outputs were annotated on the mind map to explain the flow of information and knowledge and highlight issues.  This process generated some red flags for further exploration, such as:

• ·      The clarity of my instructions and expectations. (Knowledge)
• ·      Explanation of why the information is required and its importance. (Knowledge)
• ·      The integrity of the data input. (Data)
• ·      The limited knowledge of site managers with qualifications in social services to extract and present data from the organisation’s database. (Information)

From completing and reflecting on this process, I would blame my problem mostly on me. Its pretty clear I need to generate a reporting framework for all the managers I am responsible for and support them to be able to use the tool efficiently. I will also invest some time in explaining why the information is required in the next site managers meeting.  I will plan some training for the managers to develop their skills and knowledge at efficiently inputting the data, drawing out the data and presenting the information in line with our reporting requirements. This should result in me receiving information that is dependable, consistent and within deadline. 

Task 1 - Decision Making Typologies

In considering Simon’s (1960) normative model of decision-making, I have done some extra research by reading chapter one of the Teale et al. (2003) text Management decision making: towards an integrative approach.  The chapter entitled “Management decision-making in context” provided a concise review of Simon’s life and contribution to the professional discipline of decision-making in “business administration”.  I also reviewed Pomerol and Adam’s (2004) academic article “Practical decision making: from the legacy of Herbert Simon to decision support systems”.  This was an easy to read piece that focused on Simon’s work and how it has been developed to form the foundations of Decision Support Systems (DSS) that are utilised by many managers today. 

Key themes of Simon’s work focus on the way decisions are rationally made by identifying all the possible alternatives; determining all the possible consequences of the these alternatives; and evaluating all the possible consequences.  His other key argument was that if the individual is making a decision in an organisation, the structure and the ‘influence’ of the organisation plays a key role.  This places Simon’s research and work in the framework of ‘social psychology’, a well-established field of study today, but one that has its foundations in the work of Herbert Simon. 

In 1960, Simon presented his model of decision making which he is most famous.  It is made up of four stages: Intelligence; Design; Choice and Implementation (Review).

In considering a decision I have made within this framework, I am drawn to a situation in my last job.  I was the WA Operations Manager of a residential service for young people with very high needs.  I was asked by the Board to research and decide if the organisation should open operations in South Australia, with the understanding that I would manage the service if it were to open. 

I started by collecting as much information as possible about the out-of-home care sector in Adelaide, this included the amount of young people in care; relevant legislation and Acts, competitors presently in the market place, the possible pool of potential employees, rental costs, and government funding structures that would be able to utilise our services.  In looking for potential issues, I recognised a number of opportunities in opening services in Adelaide, namely the limited amount of services presently providing high needs care and the high number of young people waiting for suitable placements.  Potential issues (problems) was that we would be the high cost of our service and the difficulties we could potentially have in recruiting suitably qualified, experienced and resilient local staff. 

I conceived a number of possible service development models, which included organically building the service one house at a time, transporting current staff from either WA or Queensland to open and establish the business; or developing a partnership with an established service in Adelaide and training some of their current staff to work specially with more challenging clients.  I also thought about moving to Adelaide myself to manage the start up and work towards sustainability of the business and the employment of a SA State Manager.  The Board and the CEO provided me with defining criteria, namely a deadline for the proposal of two months, projected start up of the new business within a year and a projected operational budget for the first year of opening. 

Using these criteria, I evaluated the alternatives and decided to present the option of growing the new Adelaide operation one house at a time, allowing us to employ and train staff as we needed them, more tightly control the budget and minimise risk.  The Board supported this model and I produced a business plan that focused on building relationships with key stakeholders and employing a local coordinator to obtain suitable resources including the first property in Adelaide.  I left the organisation shortly after the SA coordinator was employed.

On reflection, this model could break down in the first stage, as you can only choose from alternatives you know about.  I was acting on a combination of tacit and explicit knowledge, which led to bounded rationality as I had limited time, knowledge, data and the authority to make the final decision.  I was also bias due to that not wishing to move to Adelaide, which seriously affected my ability to judge all the alternatives the same.

I believe the model is useful because it provides a framework for capturing possibilities and considering consequences.  I personally like ordered ways of approaching decisions and Simon’s provides a rational model that allows you to take into account a number of alternatives for reaching similar goals.  He also makes us question our limitations and bias that underpin our decisions. 

The main issue however is how we are usually time poor, which in turn undermines the amount of information that can be collected and considered as well as how much time can be spent in utilising this model.  I suppose this model is only as good as the information and knowledge that is fed into it, which again is a serious constraint for most of today’s time poor managers.