Sunday, 14 February 2010 00:00

Quality Decisions are a Thing of the Past

Rate this item
(0 votes)

Sign of a quality decision, so thought the decider

Recently I have seen an abundance of references to decision making in everything from presentations to job titles. Yes, I said job title. Director of Quality Decisions. The second thing that struck me (the first being that it was actually a title) was that it was too low in the company. Are other leadership roles like C-Levels, Presidents, and VPs exempt? Unfortunately, I know little about that job and cannot find the person that got the position. I would love to interview him or her.

As for the presentations, I have good notes. They were all pretty basic, focusing on how decisions should be made and the factors influencing them. Surprisingly, the crowds, primarily executives, seemed a little conflicted with the message. The common thread in all the presentations is that we have inadequate data to substantiate choosing a direction. The attendees seemed to want to focus on the process rather than looking at what the decision is riding on—the data.

How to Spot Quality Decisions

To look at this a little deeper it is best to start with a few definitions. First, there are no quality decisions, at least at the time they are made. There are decisions made using quality processes. The processes, though, only reduce the occurrence of poor decisions. It will not eliminate them.

Components of Sound Decisions
  1. Know the alternatives
  2. Gather input from numerous sources
  3. Understand the consequences
  4. Plan the execution

Second, quality decisions are only known in retrospect. A decision is about the future, if you knew the outcome as being truly a quality decision, then it would be an observation rather than a decision. For instance, deciding to market to a new demographic can only be evaluated as a quality decision when sales have increased. A quality decision is only known in hindsight.

There are a simple set of factors that comprise up a good decision making process. The four basic requirements are:

  1. Know the alternatives. Never evaluate a decision in isolation. A decision always has one alternate—inaction. However, there are nearly always alternate actions. Evaluate as many as possible.
  2. Gather input from numerous sources. This could be from experience, other people, or both. Herein lies the crux of making poor decisions—the data that we get is invalid or incomplete. As humans, we are very poor at estimating. We are optimistic about our capabilities and fail to see all the risk associated with tasks. In addition, during execution, we further violate our estimates by taking on additional work.
  3. Understand the consequences. We must have full comprehension of what will happen as a result of all the decisions, including the decision to do nothing. Both the positive and negative outcomes must be understood in order to insure we are headed the right direction.
  4. Determine how the plan will be carried out. Making a decision usually makes anyone feel better. The pressure is off. But, the work has only begun. Without an execution plan the decision has little chance of succeeding.

Changing a Decision

In my research on quality decisions, I ran across this: "A quality decision is one from which there is no turning back. It is set in stone. You make up your mind and you don't change it for anything or anybody or any pressure or any persecution. We need to make this kind of decision concerning every aspect of our life in order to be successful in life and in order to overcome the plans the enemy tries to have for us." Albeit, this source is, at best, dubious, however the attitude is not isolated to Mr. Browne. Former President Bush, noted by many as having the antithesis of a good decision making process, made it common knowledge that he was never going to back away from any decision regardless of the results it was achieving. I would say this quote probably fits him quite well. This process and behavior is far from the definition of quality decision making.

The Decisions Maker's Responsibility

That brings in the last point when looking at decisions—the qualities of the decision maker. Can the person making the decision admit they were wrong and take the corrective action required to improve the decision or abandon it altogether? Rather will they be like the prior paragraph and refuse to "change it for anything or anybody or any pressure or any persecution." Good leaders are continually re-evaluating their decisions and ensuring they will be quality decisions, instantiating course corrections to achieve the best results.

Do People Get This?

A few months ago, I was at a presentation by Avanade, the Microsoft/Accenture joint venture. The presenter went to great lengths to say that every executive in the room needed to focus on ensuring everyone in the company, regardless of title, was focused on providing quality data for every decision. When the presentation was opened for questions, a Vice President of Quality asked, "What do you think the next killer-app is going to be? We have virtualized our desktops and we need another big leap like that." The presenter kindly said he did not know and re-iterated that expanding the Organization Development (OD) efforts would reap excellent rewards. The presenter only received blank looks in return.

Read 7389 times

Related items

  • Success vs Culture

    The other day a Latvian student contacted me for my views the connection between culture and success criteria—an important and intriguing topic. After working in Taiwan, Singapore, Korea, Japan, Israel, United States, and Canada, I wear many scars of both blatant and subtle cultural violations. I also know that within a culture one person's success is often another person's failure. So, after dispelling concerns about clicking on some random email link, I completed her survey (please feel free to take it yourself). In the process, I struck up a friendship with the student, Kristine Briežkalne, who is studying at Riga International School of Economics and Business Administration . She has some interesting views and presented me with a Venn diagram showing four frames to a project (business, client, project management, and growth perspectives) and how they intersected. As the diagram is part of her Master's thesis, I will let you ponder the how to label the overlapping areas (an eye-opening exercise).

  • Kill The White Knight

    There is a reason we do not teach classes on fixing failing projects. Many a cynic feels that we simply do not want to teach our trade, however, our reason is far nobler—we should be teaching prevention rather trying to create white knights to save the day. It is the same philosophy as building a fence at the cliff's edge rather than an emergency room at its base. Our language is replete with idioms telling us to look past the symptom and address problems at their root cause. 'An ounce of prevention versus a pound of cure' or 'a stitch in time saves nine.' Please, feel free to supply your own in the comments. Unfortunately, most of our businesses loathe this philosophy, waiting to address an issue until it is irrefutably broken.

  • The Executive-Project Manager Gap

    It was such an innocuous question, "Working on an article; what is the biggest problem you see with project governance at orgs? Can you comment?" Can I comment? Really? That is like cheese to a mouse. Where could I start—bureaucracy, draconian process, poor executive sponsorship, disengaged leaders? Plenty of fodder, because they all lead to project failure. I fired off, "Creating an over bureaucratic morass stifling innovation & implementing process instead of cultivating leaders." Then the maelstrom started and it went directly to the gap between the executives and projects managers. Naomi Caietti, Robert Kelly and I had a great conversation. Most of the thread is below.

  • Disband Your PMO

    After nearly 30 years of project work, I struggle to understand the role of a project management office (PMO). Even though, I have written of the pros and cons, and read a plethora of articles, opinions, and how-to guides little has been done to convince me that the PMO is reducing project failure. It seems to be nothing more than a tool to fill a void in leadership? Even the acronym, which is so widely thrown around, has little meaning as the "P" has no less than four meanings. It is an executive's crutch for their lack of understanding in how projects work. These, like other, unattended holes in the corporate accountability create opportunities for new and greater bureaucracies and empires that further obfuscate accountability.

  • The Catch-22 of Organizational Change Management

    "Kotter, ADKAR, or CAP which methodology should we be using to build our approach to improving project adoption?" I hear this question repeatedly from people trying to implement an organizational change management (OCM) program. The problem is that is the wrong question. Take a perfunctory peek at any of the models and you will see that in the quest for an answer people have mistakenly jumped over the first few steps and they head down the road of failure. It is a Catch-22; unless you already have an OCM process in place, you will most likely fail at implementing it. Putting one in place, however, is a change—one of the most difficult cultural transformations your company will undertake. As a result, people jump to the solution stage, which is well down the change management process path (which, they did not know, ironically, since there was no procedure in place).

Leave a comment

More Info on Project Recovery

Tell me More!

Please send me more information
on fixing a failing project.

Rescue The Problem Project

Internationally acclaimed

Image of RPP

For a signed and personalized copy in the US visit the our eCommerce website.

Amazon logo
Buy it in the United States Buy it in Canada Buy it in the United Kingdom
Buy it in Ireland Buy it in Germany Buy it in France
Buy it in Italy Buy it in the PRC
Buy it in Japan
Book sellers worldwide.

Upcoming Events

Other's References

Sitemap