MODULE 2: DA Frameworks
In this section you will access your Hypothes.is assignment(s):
Module 2 Assignment
1. Get SMART:
The organizers of an international conference have to choose a hotel that will be the conference venue. The organizers started with an initial list of 40 possible hotels, but this has now been reduced to a short list of five:
The value tree was found to meet Keeney and Raiffa's five criteria of completeness, operationality, decomposability, absence of redundancy and minimum size.
The costs of using the hotels for the conference are given below, together with scores that the organizers assigned to them for the non-monetary attributes (0 = worst performance on the attribute, 100 = the best):
Here are the assigned raw weights:
Identify the efficient frontier and defend your selection for the optimal decision! Create an excel file to track your work, export as a pdf, and use the assignment upload feature in the Week 2 module on Blackboard to upload your pdf file.
Required Reading:
Additional Required Viewing:
Old School
We begin Module 2 by considering two of the more venerable DA frameworks, i.e. Vroom Yetton and OODA.
We begin Module 2 by considering two of the more venerable DA frameworks, i.e. Vroom Yetton and OODA.
 |
Vroom Yetton |
 |
Vroom Yetton Details |
 |
|
 |
|
Kepner Tregoe (KT)
For the purpose of this session, we will focus not on the Kepner Tregoe (KT) method in general (as interesting as it is) but on the KT Decision Tool! What separates this approach from other DA tools? In short, he notion of finding the "bullet proof" or perfect decision is rejected. The approach centers on finding the "best possible decision" without mistaking the decision as risk proof. Here is the process:
In this case, a group of "volunteers" were asked to imagine themselves as the owners of an imaginary cafe and were tasked with selecting one coffee machine among five possible choices. Within the top portion of the tool, the volunteers were asked to identify strategic attributes, i.e. those "must have" qualities for a coffee maker. If the model could not satisfy these strategic needs, then a status of "no-go" was assigned. In the next portion of the tool, the volunteers were asked to identify tactical attributes, i.e. those "nice to have" qualities for a coffee maker. A weight was established and a ranking created for each machine per attribute. At the bottom of this portion an aggregate was compiled and allowed for quantitative comparison. In this case, the fourth machine (the Breville Dual) at this point in the process seemed to be the best choice. As the KT method is a "real-world" approach that strives to find the "best possible approach," prior to making a final assessment risks were admitted and added into the final metric. In this case, warranty data was used to assign a risk number reflecting catastrophic (total) failure. In the end, the fourth machine (the Breville Dual) possessed the most favorable assessment.
For the purpose of this session, we will focus not on the Kepner Tregoe (KT) method in general (as interesting as it is) but on the KT Decision Tool! What separates this approach from other DA tools? In short, he notion of finding the "bullet proof" or perfect decision is rejected. The approach centers on finding the "best possible decision" without mistaking the decision as risk proof. Here is the process:
- State a decision
- Describe and classify objectives - list the must haves and the nice to haves
- List the limits - all decisions and scenarios have them
- Rank & assign weights to your must and nice to haves
- Generate and evaluate alternatives
- Evaluate risks
- Make a decision
In this case, a group of "volunteers" were asked to imagine themselves as the owners of an imaginary cafe and were tasked with selecting one coffee machine among five possible choices. Within the top portion of the tool, the volunteers were asked to identify strategic attributes, i.e. those "must have" qualities for a coffee maker. If the model could not satisfy these strategic needs, then a status of "no-go" was assigned. In the next portion of the tool, the volunteers were asked to identify tactical attributes, i.e. those "nice to have" qualities for a coffee maker. A weight was established and a ranking created for each machine per attribute. At the bottom of this portion an aggregate was compiled and allowed for quantitative comparison. In this case, the fourth machine (the Breville Dual) at this point in the process seemed to be the best choice. As the KT method is a "real-world" approach that strives to find the "best possible approach," prior to making a final assessment risks were admitted and added into the final metric. In this case, warranty data was used to assign a risk number reflecting catastrophic (total) failure. In the end, the fourth machine (the Breville Dual) possessed the most favorable assessment.
SIMPLE MULTI-ATTRIBUTE RATING TECHNIQUE
Here we will examine a robust decision-making framework.
Here we will examine a robust decision-making framework.
|
S.M.A.R.T |
 |
|
 |
S.M.A.R.T Template |
|
SensaSIM v.1 |
In this section you will access your Hypothes.is assignment(s):
-
H2: Critical Analysis of the Kepner Tregoe Approach
https://hyp.is/zKUAnsuIEemE7dsNY-sq9g/www.decision-making-confidence.com/kepner-tregoe-decision-making.html
-
H3: Vroom-Yetton Analysis https://hyp.is/Sd6OiM0cEemTcEvMFQTTmA/www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newTED_91.htm
Module 2 Assignment
1. Get SMART:
The organizers of an international conference have to choose a hotel that will be the conference venue. The organizers started with an initial list of 40 possible hotels, but this has now been reduced to a short list of five:
- Alton
- Buttermere
- Castle
- Dorset
- Elm
- the cost of using the hotel
- ease of transport to the hotel
- quality of the conference facilities
- comfort of the bedrooms
- quality of other facilities
The value tree was found to meet Keeney and Raiffa's five criteria of completeness, operationality, decomposability, absence of redundancy and minimum size.
The costs of using the hotels for the conference are given below, together with scores that the organizers assigned to them for the non-monetary attributes (0 = worst performance on the attribute, 100 = the best):
Here are the assigned raw weights:
Identify the efficient frontier and defend your selection for the optimal decision! Create an excel file to track your work, export as a pdf, and use the assignment upload feature in the Week 2 module on Blackboard to upload your pdf file.
Required Reading:
Janse, B. (2019, February 13). Vroom Yetton Jago Decision Model, a decision making tool. Retrieved from https://www.toolshero.com/decision-making/vroom-yetton-jago-decision-model/
McDermott, D. (n.d.). Vroom-Jago decision model - Learn how to quickly run through it. Retrieved from https://www.decision-making-confidence.com/vroom-jago-decision-model.html
Mulder, P. (2017). OODA Loop. Retrieved from https://www.toolshero.com/decision-making/ooda-loop/
(n.d.). The Vroom-Yetton Decision Model: Deciding How to Decide. Retrieved from https://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newTED_91.htm
Additional Required Viewing: