Multistage Decision-Making

A632.1.4.RB

Chapter 3 of the Wharton text discusses the power of everyday reasoning in multistage decision-making. The text discusses the way that researchers solve multistage problems through the application of formulas that provide the most significant chance of success. Critically think about your own decision-making process and reflect on the process you use compared to the process outlined in the article. Would this improve your decision-making? What would the impact be on forward planning? How would you apply optimal dynamic decision analysis to predict future impact of today's decision?

According to Hoch and Kumreuther (2005), “Decision making is essentially the process of accepting less of something to get more of something else.” Thus, we must use our reasoning skills and abilities to make decisions on a daily basis. Fortunately for us, many of these daily decisions revolve around trivial things such as: what we choose to wear, what flavor of coffee we want, or where we choose to eat for lunch. Yet, there are instances where we are faced with more complex decisions that require critical thinking and keen problem solving skills. Wharton discusses such a process that is used by researchers to solve multistate problems. While this process resembles a mathematical formula, its logical foundation is designed to provide a straightforward answer (Hoch and Kunreuther, 2005). Although this process may prove to be fruitful for researchers, I do not see myself using this method as I have never quite been comfortable with mathematically based formulas in any fashion.

By and large, I tend to use past experiences as a foundation to develop clarity of the issue, its causes, any assumptions and courses of action (COA). This process however, according to Wharton, has limited abilities as people are poor learners of the past; as well as having the limited ability of forward planning or myopia (Hoch and Humreuther, 2005). In general, I would agree with Wharton’s statement. However, there are institutions that develop systematic processes that take many of these factors into account in order to provide the best decision making process. For example, while in the service we used (at every level) the military decision making process (MDMP). As leaders, in a training environment, we conducted countless practical exercises and military planning operations that centered around MDMP. Furthermore, commanders (leaders) at the unit level would use MDMP for operations and staff development. “The military decision-making process (MDMP) is a single, established, and proven analytical process” (FM 101-5, 1997). MDMP consists of the following seven steps:

·       Step 1. Receipt of the Mission

·       Step 2. Mission Analysis

·       Step 3. Course of Action Development

·       Step 4: Course of Action Analysis

·       Step 5. Course of Action Comparison

·       Step 6. Course of Action Approval

·       Step 7. Order Production

Although there are seven steps, the process of mission analysis, COA developments and war gaming can go on for a few hours to a few weeks (size of mission dependent). In fact, the below figure provides the process and many of the inputs/outputs involved.

(FM 101-5, 1997)

As one can imagine, this process can be cumbersome, yet through years of application, its users can become very proficient. It forces its users to thoroughly analyze the issues, develop courses of action, and see the second and third orders of effect (future). In fact, many currently serving and prior service military members still use this process as a framework in their daily lives as it provides a systematic and analytical process that is time tested and proven when used properly. Although though I am two years removed from service, I still utilize this process for complex decisions in the civilian workforce.

I believe that decision making is both science and an art; it is a skill that requires objectivity, critical thinking, and an inherent need for information. This like any other skill also requires constant practice and feedback. By using a systematic process, one can see both the large picture and the smaller points of friction. In doing so, the decision maker is better prepared to make the best decision possible by using their reasoning process and judgement (experience).

References

FM 101-5. (1997). Staff Organization and Operations. Headquarters, Department of the Army. Retrieved from http://www.fs.fed.us/fire/doctrine/genesis_and_evolution/source_materials/FM-101-5_staff_organization_and_operations.pdf.

Hoch, S. J., & Kunreuther, H. C. (2005). Wharton on making decisions. (1^st edition). Kendal edition.