The IPPD Toolkit: Team Process #3

Recognizing that there is no single way to make decisions, this lecture addresses some aspects of decision making that will help a team get results. Every team is unique and lives within its surrounding enterprise, and every team can improve the way it does business including the way it makes decisions.

Decision making is one of the major processes of IPTs. It is both an art and a science and cannot be avoided where responsibility is concerned. Although team decision making is more complex and time consuming than individual decision making, IPTs can provide significant advantages by making high quality decisions, that is, those that can be implemented and contribute to product value. Decision making refers to the selection of one or more alternatives generated by the problem solving process.

The focus is on the decision making process as it applies to complex problems rather than routine ones because major decisions have a large impact on the final product capability. Clausing (1994) has noted that a typical program may consist of several million decisions, of which only the top few hundred need to be given very special attention.

Teams can be particularly effective when decisions are complex and require a balance among functional disciplines and/or between short and long-term priorities. An IPT can provide the full range of knowledge and the different perspectives needed to filter out biased views, and to objectively consider all options. Through a collaborative interaction process the team can arrive at balanced, high quality decisions. But they do not come easily or quickly.

The number and difficulty of decisions will vary widely with the experience, authority, and specific responsibilities of the IPT. Team decision making offers the opportunity for individual members to learn from each other and to understand the decision making process. Having participated in the problem solving process that leads up to the final decision, team members have a good understanding of the reasons for the decision and its consequences. They will be able to implement team decisions and explain them to others throughout the enterprise.

Some key points to note concerning decisions are:

The quality of complex decisions is a major factor in determining final product value. Good team innovation and problem solving processes are precursors to good decisions. These decisions, coupled with the effectiveness of their implementation, are the predominant influence on how successfully the acquisition product is created.

The following topics provide more information on team decision making:

The quality of any given decision cannot be determined by its outcome because it is impossible to predict circumstances after the decision is made. Decision quality does impact the probability of its outcome, but it cannot determine it. Many factors that determine decision quality do so by helping the decision alternative have a better chance of getting the desired results. Complex decisions are far more judgment-driven than data-driven, although data and information are important inputs. This is one reason that IPTs can make better decisions than individuals can; their collective judgment should be better than an individual's judgment.

Those decisions that significantly impact product value need to be thoroughly evaluated to ensure maximum decision quality. Decision quality depends upon a number of factors to be discussed that have varying degrees of importance, depending upon the particular decision and its context. The relative importance of each decision quality factor will change with time, and any given decision may have additional quality factors not described here. An IPT should consider every major decision as unique and treat it accordingly.

The use of technology to help decision-makers is growing as the power of computers grows. Common databases, intelligent algorithms, high-powered three-dimensional visualization, complex display graphics, and modeling and simulation are some of the areas where technology helps IPTs make decisions. More information on decision quality factors is covered in the lectures below:

Decision Quality: Shared Vision/Approach

A frequently overlooked characteristic of IPTs that affects decision quality is the existence of a shared vision/approach. Its importance stems from the need for team members to have a common reference to judge the decision. Since every team member brings their own perspective of the objective and goal to the team, and they have their own language and priorities, good communication among team members can be difficult. A shared vision of where the team is going and how it plans to get there reduces communication difficulties among team members.

For example, an IPT responsible for developing a combat weapon system would have a vision that included a broad description of the desired system as well as its high level characteristics. Every major IPT decision and its outcome should take the program closer to that combat system vision. In other words, a quality decision would have the maximum probability of increasing the combat weapons system's final value, i.e. product quality, lowest TOC and delivered on schedule. This line-of-sight traceability between decisions and final product value is one way of keeping the team focused on its ultimate objective. Used in this manner, the vision provides a safety check for the team to stay on track.

Decision Quality: Decision Efficiency

The team's local environment can influence how efficiently the decision can be made. Good decision making requires accurate, real-time data, information, and resource knowledge available to all team members. This, coupled with a decision conference center supported by groupware and other facilitation devices, makes for a very efficient support system for decision making. Variable lighting, table and seating arrangements, comfortable chairs, and writing supplies can change the professional atmosphere of the room and thereby influence the decision process. Companies such as IBM and Xerox have pioneered such conference rooms as described in Dimancescu (1997, 187). The DoN's ACE is specifically designed to facilitate efficient decision making.

Team leadership and the team collaboration level also play a big role in team efficiency. Collaborative team members do not always agree with each other. In fact, they may disagree more that ordinary groups do. What they do is to work together to reach the best decision, recognizing that disagreement and discussion is a vital part of bringing out all of the information and knowledge needed for the best decision quality. Collaborative teams are still efficient because they go through this noisy process with a clear objective in mind. Many teams just disagree and hope something will come out of it.

Decision Quality: Decision Risk

A decision that cannot be implemented is of poor quality because it does not get results. Since every decision is a guess about the future, every decision has inherent risk. However, some decisions have more risk than others, and some have a tendency to hide risks. A high-risk decision may still be of good quality if the risks are planned, prudent, and necessary for product success. If the risks are not thought through and are not a recognized part of the decision process, the decision would be low quality, no matter what the outcome.

In The Art of Strategic Planning for Information Technology, Boar (1993) identifies pivot points that allow a team to shift directions when the future changes abruptly. By building such a robust strategy into decision options, risk level can be reduced. Possible other techniques include parallel development paths, market research, simulation, environmental scanning, and virtual feedback networks.

Decision timing is another factor in decision quality. The decision must fit into the program flow and the stakeholders must be ready to accept and take action on the decision. Also, the political climate must be right. A major decision may require a lot of pre-decision work on the part of the team to smooth its implementation.

The timing of a decision may be critically dependent upon the context of the situation and the local stakeholder relationships with the team. If the IPT has developed strong enterprise partnering and feedback programs, they will be able to access the local environment and better able to make the best timing choice for the decision.

Making a decision before all facts and information are known is another timing issue. For complex decisions there will never be enough information. Yet delaying a decision to continually look for more information can lead to a poor decision or one that comes too late to be effective. This is always a tough judgment call on the part of the team and is based more on experience, intuition, and gut feel than logic.

Decision Quality: Decision Balance

A decision may result in a short-term, positive impact with long-term negative consequences. On the other hand, there are decisions that result in a short-term loss and long-term gain. An example of this would be designing for TOC reduction where the initial research and development (R&D) costs would be higher but the TOC would be less. In this case, the system's TOC reduction would more than offset the increased R&D costs. Systems thinking and system dynamics modeling have demonstrated many decisions and policies that fall into this category. Research indicates that managers have a great deal of difficulty recognizing the long-term effects of their decisions.

One measure of IPT decision quality is proper balancing of the short-term and long-term effects on the organization or on the product. In particular, this balancing means an awareness of the long-term and short-term effects of the decision and an analysis of the needs of the product. A problem in the past has been the lack of consideration for downstream system needs during the design phase of the program. Logistics, test and evaluation, manufacturing, technology refresh, interoperability, environmental, and disposal needs all must be seriously considered and acted upon by the IPT during the design process. If this does not occur, the cost of changes goes up exponentially as the system passes through the development and manufacturing phase into the operational phase.

Another indicator is the balance of all functional disciplines participating in the decision making process. Still another is the right mix of organizational representation for a given decision. In general, there are usually several areas where a manager or team leader needs to consider what balance in needed to get the best decision.

Decision Quality: Impact on Product Value

When a development program begins, the product does not exist, and therefore has no value. When the product is turned over to the Fleet it has a final value determined by its development costs and how well it meets Fleet requirements. It follows then that during the development phase this product value must go from an initial value of zero to its final value Pv, when delivered to the customer. All decisions and actions taken by an IPT during the development of the product will contribute, either directly or indirectly, to this product value. The extent to which a given decision is expected to contribute to the final product value (performance, schedule, and cost) becomes another indicator of decision quality.

In selecting the correct option, a team must look into the impact of its decision on the final product. In other words, how much does that particular choice, out of all available options, add to the product value at this point in the development cycle? While such a line of sight connection between each decision and its impact on final product value may be difficult to trace, it is important that the team keep this connection in mind. A decision or action that does not add value in some way to the final product is wasted. As such, it increases cost without benefiting the customer. Some decisions may be necessary to keep the program alive and may not appear to add value to the product. Even these types of decisions add value because a bad decision may mean no program, therefore no product value!

Decision Quality: Political Consequences

If the results of a decision create political disturbances or major stakeholder opposition that could have long-term negative consequences on the program, the decision must be very carefully reconsidered. On the other hand if a decision encourages stakeholder support and makes implementation easier, the decision quality is enhanced.

Another consequence to consider is whether the decision will cause the enterprise to limit the ability of the IPT to solve future problems. In other words, is the decision robust enough to provide the IPT with the needed freedom for future decisions. Finally, the major assumptions underlying the decision should be clearly articulated and evaluated in terms of their validity and their consistency with the current and anticipated enterprise environment.

Decision Quality: Decision Scope

A decision intended to solve a particular event or unique problem has a considerably smaller scope in time and space than does a major policy decision intended to change the culture or major processes within the organization. A common error among decision makers, as noted by Drucker (1967), is to interpret an event or a pattern of events as a need for major policy changes. Although this goes primarily to a proper understanding of the problem, it shows a clear and important connection between understanding the problem and the scope of the decision intended to resolve the problem.

Systems thinking postulates that it is neither events nor patterns of events that drive behavior in organizations. It is the structure of the organization. Policies or decisions that are intended to change events or patterns of events will rarely work because they do not change long-term behavior. They usually result in a short-term positive impact and, as the organization adapts to the new policy, long-term negative consequences begin to show up Sterman and Morecroft (1994, 67) note in Modeling for Learning Organizations:

Organizations frequently become rule-bound by a series of policy decisions intended to prevent re-occurrence of specific problems or events without consideration of their long-term impact. As different events continue to occur, new policies are generated which begin to stifle the organization.

Decision Quality: Worst Case Scenario

Good decision making takes into account the worst case scenario. This acts as a hedge against the future by identifying and clarifying the worst possible outcome if everything goes wrong. Primarily applicable for high level decisions such as strategic planning, worst case scenario development and evaluation may also be useful for major decisions such as acquisition strategy, contractor selection, technology refresh, and requirements development.

If a reasonable worst case scenario can be generated and its consequences understood, the expected outcome is put in a different light. Knowing the boundaries of the worst case, the decision implementation can proceed with a better appreciation of the risks involved and where the danger areas are located. Frequently, such an analysis indicates that the worst case is not as bad as is often feared, leading to more risk taking, not less. Worst case analysis also may provide new suggestions for managing the program to minimize unnecessary risk.

There are many ways to make decisions and there are just as many processes. Each process may depend on the decision to be made, the time to make the decision or the make-up of the team. No matter what the process is, there are some questions that should be considered before starting to make the decision.

First, who should make the decision? Then, if the team should make the decision, how will the outcome be measured? What is the type and degree of team interaction needed during the team decision making discussions? Will the decision require creative thinking or analysis and logic? Do all team members need to be present? Should outside experts participate in the decision? Is a facilitator needed? Finally, what is the sequence of thinking that the team will go through to arrive at a decision? These will be discussed in the following lecture series:

Decision Process: Who Makes the Decision?

When should decisions be made by the IPT as a team, and when by subgroups, individual experts, or by the team leader? Who and how such decisions are made can significantly impact team collaboration and performance. When the decision requires technical judgment the team expert should make the decision and explain the rationale to the team and, if needed, get their concurrence.

The team may act as a sounding board and discuss the expert's rationale for the decision, particularly if they have a role in its implementation. This will also expand the team members' knowledge of the expert's discipline and broaden their perspective of the decision consequences. On the other hand, if the decision region encompasses considerations which include additional technical expertise, other disciplinary knowledge or political and organizational factors, then the team as a whole should become involved and make the decision; preferably by unanimous concurrence, otherwise by consensus.

If the decision has to be made quickly and the team leader has the experience and knowledge, the leader may make the decision and then explain the situation to the team. If the decision needs to be made at a level above the team, the team leader can discuss it with the team and forward it to higher authority. When this happens, the team needs to be kept abreast of the results and the rationale for higher management's final decision.

Closing the communication loop in such circumstances is vital to team members' recognition that they are respected and that their role in the IPT is recognized. Without this closed loop communication, trust can be easily damaged by misunderstanding. IPTs, like empowered individuals, cannot operate well in a vacuum. They must be kept informed of what is happening above, around, and below them. This is one of the greatest forms of empowerment.

Decision Process: Decision Voting

IPTs have a number of options when it comes to determining the final decision. If the team is making the decision, it should continue the decision making process until all participants are in agreement. If agreement cannot be reached, other options may be employed. The team may decide to use a majority vote, assign the decision to a minority subgroup, give the decision to the team leader, or try to achieve consensus among the team members.

Majority vote is sometimes used, although it raises the possibility that those individuals with negative votes may not support the decision. Sub-groups making the decision can create antagonism among other team members where people have strong feelings about the decision. The team leader decision may be acceptable, but the team leader should always explain the reasons behind the decision.

A consensus decision may be the best alternative if team members cannot come to full agreement. Consensus means that those team members who do not think a particular option is best will still accept and support it. If consensus is reached, no team member strongly disagrees with the decision, and all feel they can support and implement it. Achieving consensus for an important decision that encompasses political, organizational and cross-functional balancing can be a real challenge to the team. Good facilitation, either from an outside facilitator or the team leader, is essential when this occurs.

Decision Process: Thinking Sequence

Decision making is defined as the selection of one alternative from a number of options. The generation of alternatives is covered in the lecture on Team Process 2: Problem Solving. Looking at the sequence of thinking that a team goes through in hunting for the best alternative, the highest potential for conflict and diversity usually occurs during the analysis and investigation of the alternatives. A good facilitator will ensure divergent thinking by the team so that nothing is overlooked in the evaluation of each alternative. This is when team members are encouraged to express their opinions and analyze other's opinions to create as many possibilities as possible.

Once these ideas are brought forth, the team process moves to convergent thinking. Convergent thinking focuses on the desired results of each decision option. This allows the team to start bringing the previous ideas together to reduce and refine the set of likely choices. This convergence focuses on the strengths, weaknesses, threats, and opportunities related to each choice. In addition, the factors affecting decision quality described earlier are reviewed and used to compare choices.

After reaching agreement on an alternative, the team may want to hold its final decision in abeyance overnight or over the weekend to allow team members to sleep on it and convene one more time for second thoughts. Psychologically, this allows each individual to become comfortable with the decision and to utilize his or her intuition and gut feel for the adequacy of the decision. It is important for all team members to feel good about the decision in order to get their buy in and full participation during implementation. Objectivity, fairness, equal participation by all members, and a thorough evaluation of each decision alternative leads to team member ownership of the decision.

Decision Process: The Edge of Chaos

Conflict and disagreement can play a significant role in influencing the IPT's ability to get the most out of its resources. This figure below shows a nominal plot of team performance along the vertical axis and degree of team member conflict along the horizontal axis. The plot assumes that the team is involved in a difficult and challenging decision process that requires diversity of thinking. At the axis intersection there is no disagreement and unanimity exists among all team members. On the far right of the horizontal axis, there is complete disagreement and high conflict to the point where no one is listening and chaos has taken over. Clearly neither of these extremes will help decision making. The team's position along the horizontal axis is a rough indicator of its performance in a given situation.

If the decision is easy, clear and simple, then team diversity or conflict is not necessary and team performance can be high so long as individual member competency is adequate. Be aware of the danger of too easy agreement if the decision has large consequences. If all team members agree without serious discussion (left side of the axis) there is a possibility that the team decision will result in something similar to the famous GroupThink problem discussed by Janis (1982). IPT members must not jump too quickly to a simple solution and reach unanimous agreement if the decision has a significant impact on the product or the program.

If the decision is complex and has a great deal of uncertainty and risk, the team should operate somewhere near the peak of the curve. It is here that the large amount of diversity of opinions, discussion, effective conversation, and interaction among team members will bring forth the most views, and ramifications of the decision. This region, denoted by two dashed vertical bars, is sometimes called operating on the edge of chaos. This region has a lot of controversy and conflict among team members, but it never reaches the level where personal antagonisms or animosity are created. An experienced facilitator can sometimes move a team along the horizontal axis to get maximum diversity of views and exchange of ideas. Going too far to the right creates dangerous problems for a team and must be carefully avoided.

Decision Process: Team Interaction Techniques

There are a number of techniques that a team can use to improve its decision process. These techniques lead to team discussions and raise questions and views that might otherwise be overlooked. They all take time and should be used only for the most important decisions. They are not easily mastered and may be considered for long-term just-in-time team development. In some cases there are software packages to support the processes.

The devil's advocate approach sets up a situation where one subgroup of the team has the responsibility to develop the strongest possible case against the anticipated alternative. They question every aspect of the decision, particularly its assumptions, values, consequences, value added to the product, and political impact. Another subgroup presents the case for the desired alternative. The full team hears both sides, contributes to the discussion, and converges to a decision.

The counter assumption technique tasks a subgroup to review the team's decision, look at its underlying assumptions, and create a complete set of counter assumptions. They then prepare their own decision as derived from this set of counter assumptions. The results are presented to the IPT and compared to the original decision choice. The full team participates in this comparison to determine the appropriateness and strength of the original decision. This technique is particularly useful when the assumptions underlying the decision choice are questionable and have a big impact on the final decision.

The pair-wise comparison process looks at a number of decision options, and, using the analytic hierarchy process as its mathematical foundation, determines the relative importance of each of a set of decision alternatives compared against the same standard or objective. During the process, each team member compares all possible pairs of alternatives. Each team member then estimates how much more important one alternative is compared to the other. This is done openly, with full discussion among team members.

Every team member participates in every possible pair of choices and many discussions ensue related to why one person sees the comparison differently than another. The process is facilitated and can take four to eight hours, depending on the number of alternatives considered and the size of the team. The advantage of this process is that all team members have the opportunity to discuss and share their views with the rest of the team and have the opportunity to understand their teammates reasoning. The process results in a team weighting of the importance of each alternative in the full set of choices. In addition, the mathematical solution of the resulting matrix provides a measure of the teams inconsistency among their pair wise comparisons.

Each approach to reaching a final team decision has its merits and drawbacks. The important thing is that the team is aware of available team interaction techniques and decides whether or not they would be useful in a given situation. Without some discipline, it is easy for a team to get bogged down in trying to solve different problems in the same way, resulting in time-consuming meetings and perhaps frustration among team members.

Although documenting major decisions takes time, it is a good way for the acquisition system to learn. All major decisions of an IPT should be documented to indicate the context and purpose of the decision and the information and rationale applied in making the decision. This ensures that downstream perceptions and understanding of the decision are accurate and serve as lessons learned for other acquisition programs.

Because every major decision is unique in terms of timing, organizational context, and program status, and because no decision guarantees the desired results, documenting the decision process is valuable for enterprise and IPT learning. Such documentation can also explain prudent risk taking decisions that turn sour a long time after they are made. Often the decision was very sensible at the time, but history forgets the details and memories get foggy. By documenting prudent decisions, the team can protect its integrity and learn from its experience.

Many problems occur when a team makes a major decision. Most are easily resolved if the team has developed the ability to collaborate and have agreement on their vision and approach. This lecture describes some atypical problems to indicate the subtleties of teams and their decision processes.

A problem that sometimes arises is the issue of who has the decision responsibility. Teams sometimes show a tendency to take on any decision that is brought to them. This leads one to ask the age-old question of who is responsible. Making decisions for others is not only time consuming, but can generate laziness, apathy, or a feeling of being un-empowered. It is usually best if a team sends the decision to the individual or organization that has the responsibility. IPTs should be careful to follow the rule that a decision should be made at the lowest possible level consistent with competency and understanding of the decision. On the other hand, providing advice and assistance to others should be a standard IPT practice.

Another danger of decision making is that it is possible for a team to become focused in a given direction and decide to do something that doesn't make sense. For instance, teams may be more likely to make riskier decisions than individuals in some situations, and more conservative decisions than individuals in others. While neither of these is good or bad, they serve to raise a caution flag to the team to be particularly careful in analyzing their own decisions relative to risk level.

One trap a team leader can occasionally fall into is the problem of false consensus. This is the belief that everyone agrees and accepts the decision, when in fact they do not. Team leaders must make sure that their team understands and can live with the decision before a consensus is finalized. Team decision making problems may also result from interpersonal relationship issues, hidden agendas or conflicting goals.

Another caution for team leaders is to be wary of expressing their opinions and desires early in a discussion. This may sway some team members and prevent a greater diversity of ideas and opinions from being considered.

A situation can arise, particularly if the team leader is inexperienced or exhibits autocratic leadership, where the team arrives at a conclusion that the team leader strongly disagrees with. Depending upon the decision and its impact, it is usually preferable not to overturn a team's decision unless that decision will significantly harm the program. Under this latter situation, the team leader may feel it necessary to either overturn the decision or take it to a higher level. This latter choice can be a good solution because it does not sever the relationship between the leader and the team in terms of trust and collaboration. If a team leader overrides a team decision, and does not provide a good explanation, it can be harmful to team trust and future collaboration.

Team members may be unable to attend meetings when decisions are made. Potential solutions might include E-mailing the absent party immediately after the decision and requesting a rapid response. If the absent member will be significantly impacted by the decision, consideration should be given to delaying the decision.

It can be very frustrating to make team decisions when team members are not empowered to commit their organizations. The team is caught in a double bind, particularly if the decision has a deadline. What typically happens is the team will make the decision, asking the un-empowered team member to go back to their organization and bring the organization's response to the team leader. If there is a problem it can be surfaced quickly and resolved if the functional manager is available.

Team Process 3: Decision Making *