The reasons differ quite a bit obviously, depending on the organization and the specific type of decision at hand. But if I had to pick one, I’d say it’s the difficulties establishing a quantified set of common values to a decision scenario. In other words, a model. Each person in the room often has their own information set or inventory of the relevant factors (mental modelling), and more critically, their own set of assumed relationships between them. Here’s an example:

Let’s say there are four factors in a decision, A, B, C and D. Someone might be missing C if it hasn’t been explicitly identified. Even if everyone has all the factors accounted for, how are they valuing the relationships between them? Does a change of 1 to A double C? Does A even affect C at all? This is simplistic but you see where I’m going.

Figuring out how everyone sees the situation can be quite arduous if it’s done ad hoc each time. If a decision goes to implementation and the mental models differed, those differences can (and likely will) surface later as consensus killers. This is just my pick of course, there are many other reasons such as the ones you mentioned.

Hope this was helpful Bob, thanks again for your comment.

Matt

Thanks in advance,

Bob Williams

This post was mentioned on Twitter by decisionbuilder: New blog post up by Steve – Risk Assessments Are Decisions Too – http://ow.ly/IpS0 ^MS…

This post was mentioned on Twitter by Standpoint: New blog post – who’s bridge is your business standing on? http://ow.ly/FVtz...