Mgt350_Critical_Thinking_Strategies_in_Decision_Making

Thinking Critically Simulation Review MGT350 Critical Thinking Strategies in Decision Making February 5th 2008 Introduction This paper will discuss the teams summary and evaluation of the Thinking Critically Simulation Review. This paper will answer the following questions; what problem evaluation tools and techniques were encountered in the simulation and how do they differ from the tools and techniques that we would have used in this situation' How did these techniques assist with the evaluation of decision – making processes and outcomes' What was the outcome reached in the simulation and what changes in our decision making techniques would have generated better results' A decision has been made and implemented. The decision maker now has a series of questions to answer to determine the value of the outcome. Was the solution successful' How successful was it' How do we know' What do we do if it is not successful' Discovering the extent to which a decision accomplished the set objective is one factor in ensuring that the decision is perceived as successful, (Abdulhaqq, 2008, p. 1). Problem evaluation tools and tool encountered in simulation In the simulation many tools were encountered although they were all consistent with the content of the course. For example, it was apparent that the decision making model in the simulation was a replica of the University of Phoenix decision making model that was used during the course. After proceeding through the identification and implementation stages, the most challenging phase of the simulation-evaluation was encountered. In the course we are taught “There are two benefits of acknowledging the risks that are bound to go with any critical decision you are about to make,” (Langdon, 2001, Ch. 7, pp 1). After properly implementing decisions, there was a cross road to evaluate how the teams decision impacted the company. Most of the team was confident that the risk analysis was solid, it was apparent that sales must be the number one priority for the company. The project manager, Linda and the sales manager were both in agreement about sales, but differed on the WAN issue. Working in an industry that cannot run without computers, the company opted to make that need an urgent and critical need. The technique chosen was Force Field Analysis. The analysis allowed the team to weigh both the pros and cons and from that the company determined that spending money in this area would be a long-term benefit. All in all the simulation allowed the team to use the knowledge from this course and apply it to a working document. The tools provided in this simulation were sufficient to get the job done, but if this was a real world exercise the team would have chosen some different tools, the team would have chosen tools that they have experience with, and that have worked for them in the past. In place of the urgency criticality-matrix the team would have used an L shaped matrix. “The L shaped matrix allows us to compare two sets of items directly to each other or a single set to itself,” (Brassard & Ritter, 1994, P.85).The second tool that I would have used would have been a C &E fishbone diagram. “This tool allows a team to identify, explore, and graphically display all of the possible causes related to a problem or condition to discover its root causes,” (Brassard & Ritter, 1994, P. 23). This tool would have been helpful to identify the critical urgent items. Techniques that assisted with evaluation decision making processes and outcomes According to the Wikipedia encyclopedia problem solving is considered, “the most complex of all intellectual functions,” (2007). (Problem)Because of the complexity of problem solving I used numerous tools and techniques during the problem-evaluation process for this scenario. It was very hard to concentrate only on criteria that would be significant to the problem at hand and could be influential to the decision choice. One of the first techniques used was cause and effect. Use of this technique helped to understand what specifically the problems were. This method also helped to decide which problems were real and which were just symptoms or fallacies. Some of symptoms were sales, legal action, and attrition. The attrition was the biggest symptom because of an increase in employee turnover. The mentor suggested boosting employee morale to help increase the sales. Another tool used was brainstorming. Although brainstorming is usually thought to be used within a group or team it can also be used individually. There were different solutions to the problem and the team had to choose problems that seemed as if they would work the best in this particular situation. The one portion of the simulation it had a graphic of the smiley faces which were simulations of the employees, the headquarters, available budget, and sales. The simulation offered solutions such as; offer large discounts on inventory which will increase sales and eliminate the inventory. Another solution was offer a discretionary bonus to boost employee morale and decrease attrition which was one of the suggestions from the mentor. The tool that I used more than any other was vision. Using this tool helped me to see what results I was looking for in the long-term. The vision is one of the best tools available mainly because one would never chose a decision if the vision at the end was negative. Finally, the last tool I used was Importance weighing. Problems and decisions come in all shapes and sizes. When making decisions managers need to generally decide on problems and decisions that have a significant impact on the future of the organization. As the stimulation demonstrated the decision made can significantly impact the organization. Receiving essential information from stakeholders is fundamental because the information can assist in determining a probable solution for the decision. Important decisions require managers to adhere to the proper tools and techniques to make an informed decision. Outcome reached in simulation and changes The overall result of the simulation was a B+. In the first assignment the team found determining the problem was the most difficult. I identified the symptoms of the problem instead of the causes. Some of the team failed to identify the new stores opening and offering employees better incentive as the problem, instead some of the team addressed the issues of the employees having a problem with the compensation given by the company as the cause. With Linda’s direction the team was able to frame a solution to identify the problems and use critical thinking to implement two alternative methods in making a decision. The final situation in measuring the impact and implement the decision was a little complicated, although the decision was acceptable the evaluation of the decision was not properly planned. The changes in the decision making techniques would have been to establish the cause and effects of the problem. Once the problem was identified, they could have developed a plan to resolve the problem through critical thinking and decision-making tools, (UOP, 2007). The outcome in the simulation was that Linda suggested the team made some good decisions and had some good ideas for the decisions by using critical thinking, but did not always look at the cause of the problems. In the simulation the team kept looking at the symptoms and not the causes, and this created misapplied decisions and the real problems did not always get solved. The team also found themselves trying to solve too many problems and putting too much emphasis on the issues that were not the real problems. For example, most of the team wanted to curb the operations manager and tell her to be nicer to the employees, when all the team truly needed to do was figure out why the associates were truly upset and fix the root problem instead of wasting time on the symptoms. During the simulation the team should have remembered that sometimes fixing one major problem solves many other minor problems. Langdon stated “Eventually, and before putting a fix in place, the true cause needs to be confirmed by checking facts or experimenting,” (Langdon, 2006, p. 16). As a manager in the simulation, the team should have remembered that not all problems are what they seem to be; sometimes the apparent problems are not the real issues and need to remember to look at all the facts before jumping to a conclusion. Conclusion This paper discussed the team’s summary and outcomes of the Thinking Critically Simulation. The simulation provided the team with real world business scenarios and the opportunity to use decision making tools and techniques. The simulation will provide the team the opportunity to develop and improve their own technique as well create new techniques that would benefit their organizations. Managers use a variety of good evaluation tools to assess the impacts of a decision. Surveys, benchmarking, line graphs, and histograms are all tools that can be used to measure the extent to which the solution accomplished the objective, (Abdulhaqq, 2008, p. 1). References Langdon, K. (2001). Smart Things to Know About Decision Making. (1st Edition) Ch. 7, pp 1). Oxford, United Kingdom: John Wiley and Sons, Ltd. Brassard, Michael & Diane Ritter (1994). Memory Jogger II: A pocket Guide of tools for continuous improvement. (1st Edition). Massachusetts, U.S. Goal/QPC. Problem solving. (2008, January 31). In Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 20:37, February 2, 2008, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php'title=Problem_solving&oldid=188096005 Abdulhaqq, H. (2008, January 30). Evaluation of Decision Outcome and Processes. MGT 350 . Langdon, K. (2006). Smart things to know about decision making (2nd ed). New York, NY: Capstone Publishing. University of Phoenix (UOP), (2007). Decision Implementation. Retrieved January 24, 2008, from MyResources, MGT350: Critical Thinking: Strategies in Decision Making Web site: https://mycampus.phoenix.edu/secure/resource/resource.asp