Problem solving models Rational problem solving Creative problem solving

3. Develop alternatives 1. Identify problem 2. Choose decisionstyle Rational Decision Making Model 4. Choose best solution 5. Implement solution 6. Evaluate decision

Corel Corp. With permission Problem Identification Concerns Perceptual Biases –Perceptual defense –Political influence by others –Mental models Poor Diagnostic Skills –Need to make sense –Lack of time –Complex situation –Defining solutions as problems

Identifying Problems Effectively Be aware of perceptual limitations Discuss the situation with colleagues Create early warning signs Use information technology Corel Corp. wWth permission

Problems with Choosing Solutions Goals problems –Ambiguous, conflicting –Biased by personal goals Info processing problems –Selective attention –Limited info processing –Sequential evaluation with implicit favourite Maximizing problems –Tend to satisfice Corel Corp. With permission

Choosing Solutions Effectively Systematically evaluate alternatives Decision support systems Scenario planning Intuition (with caution) Corel Corp. With permission

Intuitive Decision Making Ability to know when a problem or opportunity exists and select the best course of action without conscious reasoning Conduit for tacit knowledge Logical reasoning that became habit

Preparation Creative Process Model Incubation Insight Verification

R. Ernst, Vancouver Province Creativity at Millenium Technology Illich Cheng and his employees at Millennium Technology Inc. have the persistent motivation and insight to design a better magnetic resonance imaging system (MRI). Some people are more creative than others due to their intelligence, experience, inventive thinking style, and persistence.

Characteristics of Creative People Intellectual abilities –Synthetic, general, practical Relevant knowledge and experience Motivation and persistence Inventive thinking style R. Ernst, Vancouver Province

Creative Work Environment Organizational support –Tolerates mistakes –Encourages communication –Offers job security Intrinsically motivating work –Task significance, autonomy, feedback –Self-leadership –Flow — align competencies with job Sufficient time and resources

Creative Practices JammingJamming Review past projectsReview past projects Tell me, strangerTell me, stranger Redefine the Problem Chain storyChain story Artistic activitiesArtistic activities MetaphorsMetaphors Morphological analysisMorphological analysis AssociativePlay Diverse teamsDiverse teams In-house presentationsIn-house presentations Cross- Pollination

De Bono’s Six Hats The quality of our thinking will determine the quality of our future. ” Dr. Edward de Bono  Avoid impulsive behaviour and snap judgments.  See alternatives not difficulties or dilemmas.  Improve decision making and idea generating skills.  Increase ability to consider the consequences before taking action.  Work more productively when working with others in a group.

The Hats White Hat - Information – Facts; what you have, what you need and where to get it. Red Hat - Feelings – Intuition and instincts. Black Hat - Caution – Dangers and potential problems. Yellow Hat - Benefits - Positive aspects and values. Green Hat - Creativity – Alternatives, options, new concepts and perceptions. Blue Hat - Managing the thinking – Ensuring rules are observed, sequencing hats and decision taking.

© Photodisc. With permission. Team Decision Making Constraints Time constraints –Process loss –Production blocking Evaluation apprehension –Belief that other team members are silently evaluating you Conformity to peer pressure –Suppressing opinions that oppose team norms

© Photodisc. With permission. Team Constraints: Groupthink Tendency in highly cohesive teams to value consensus at the price of decision quality More common when the team: –is highly cohesive –is isolated from outsiders –faces external threat –has recent failures –leader tries to influence decision

© Photodisc. With permission. Team Constraints: Group Polarization Tendency for teams to make more extreme decisions than individuals alone Riskier options usually taken because of gambler’s fallacy — believe luck is on their side

Decision Process High Risk Individual Opinions Low Risk Group Polarization Process Team Decision Social Support Persuasion Shifting Responsibility

Improving Team Decision Making 1.Ensure neither leader nor any member dominates 2.Maintain optimal team size 3.Team norms encourage critical thinking 4.Introduce effective team structures

Generating Constructive Controversy Form heterogeneous decision making team Ensure team meets often to face contentious issues Members should take on different discussion roles Team thinks about the decision under different scenarios

E. Luse. San Francisco Chronicle Features of Brainstorming 1.No criticism 2.Encourage many ideas 3.Speak freely 4.Build on others’ ideas

Photo: Courtesy of IBM Canada Evaluating Electronic Brainstorming Benefits +Less production blocking +Less evaluation apprehension +More creative synergy +More decision efficiency Problems –Too structured –May be costly –Lacks interpersonal dynamics –Candid feedback is threatening

Describeproblem Individual Activity Team Activity Individual Activity Nominal Group Technique Write down possiblesolutionsPossiblesolutionsdescribed to others Vote on solutionspresented

Escalation of Commitment Escalation occurred when the British government continued funding the Concorde supersonic jet long after it’s lack of commercial viability was apparent. To this day, some scholars refer to escalation of commitment as the “Concorde fallacy.” © Corel Corp. With permission

Escalation of Commitment Causes Self-justification Gambler’s fallacy Perceptual blinders Closing costs

Employee Involvement Defined The degree that employees share information, knowledge, rewards, and power throughout the organization –active in decisions previous outside their control –power to influence decisions –knowledge sharing

Forms of Employee Involvement Informal Casual information exchanges Example: Boss asks for ideas Formal Codified practices Example: SDWTs at TRW Canada Statutory Required by law Example: European codetermination Voluntary No legal requirement Example: Strategic task force Direct Employees personally involved Example: Staff vote against smoking in the workplace Representative Reps decide for other employees Example: Employee reps as directors

High Medium Low Levels of Employee Involvement High involvement — Employees have complete decision making power (e.g., SDWTs) Full consultation — Employees offer recommendations (e.g., gain sharing) Selective consultation — Employees give information, but don’t know the problem

How Involvement Improves Decisions Employee Involvement Identify and define problems better More likely to select the best option Usually identify more and better solutions

Contingencies of Employee Involvement Decision quality Decision commitment Decision conflict Structured problem

Overcoming Involvement Challenges Cultural Differences –Better in collectivist and low power distance cultures Management Resistance –Educate/train managers to become facilitators Employee and Union Resistance –Concerns about increased stress, giving up union rights, and union power –Solution is trust and involvement