Make Better Decisions  

Oleh:

Davenport, Thomas H.

Jenis: Article from Bulletin/Magazine - ilmiah internasional
Dalam koleksi: Harvard Business Review bisa di lihat di link (http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/command/detail?sid=f227f0b4-7315-44a4-a7f7-a7cd8cbad80b%40sessionmgr114&vid=12&hid=105&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=bth&jid=HBR) vol. 87 no. 11 (Nov. 2009), page 117.
Topik: Decision Makers; Organizations; Decision Making Process

Ketersediaan

Perpustakaan Pusat (Semanggi) Nomor Panggil: HH10.40 Non-tandon: 1 (dapat dipinjam: 0) Tandon: tidak ada

Lihat Detail Induk

Isi artikel

In recent years decision makers in both the public and private sectors have made an astounding number of poor calls. For example, the decisions to invade Iraq, not to comply with global warming treaties, to ignore Darfur, are all likely to be recorded as injudicious in history books. And how about the decisions to invest in and securitize subprime mortgage loans, or to hedge risk with credit default swaps? Those were spread across a number of companies, but single organizations, too, made bad decisions. Tenneco, once a large conglomerate, chose poorly when buying businesses and now consists of only one auto parts business. General Motors made terrible decisions about which cars to bring to market. Time Warner erred in buying AOL, and Yahoo in deciding not to sell itself to Microsoft. Why this decision-making disorder? First, because decisions have generally been viewed as the prerogative of individuals—usually senior executives. The process employed, the information used, the logic relied on, have been left up to them, in something of a black box. Information goes in, decisions come out—and who knows what happens in between? Second, unlike other business processes, decision making has rarely been the focus of systematic analysis inside the firm. Very few organizations have “reengineered” their decisions. Yet there are just as many opportunities to improve decision making as to improve any other process. Useful insights have been available for a long time. For example, academics defined “groupthink,” the forced manufacture of consent, more than half a century ago—yet it still bedevils decision makers from the White House to company boardrooms. In the sixteenth century the Catholic Church established the devil’s advocate to criticize canonization decisions—yet few organizations today formalize the advocacy of decision alternatives. Recent popular business books address a host of decision-making alternatives (see “Selected Reading”).

Opini Anda

Klik untuk menuliskan opini Anda tentang koleksi ini!

Kembali