Charles R. Schwenk

Effects of the expert, devil's advocate, and dialectical inquiry methods on prediction performance

Abstract The dialectical inquiry (DI), the devils advocate (DA), and the expert (E) approaches are three potential aids for making decisions under uncertainty. This study examined the comparative effectiveness of these aids. Furthermore, an objective, nonemotional DA (DA 1 ) was differentiated from an emotional, “carping-critic” DA (DA 2 ). Results indicate that when the state of the world conforms to the assumptions underlying a plan, the E approach was found to be superior to the DI approach. When the state of the world was opposite to the assumptions in the plan, the DA 1 and DI were superior to the E approach. When the state of the world was midway between the assumptions of the plan and counterplan, the DA 1 was superior to both the DI and the E approaches. The results provide support for the recommendation to use an objective, nonemotional DA approach in actual decision-making situations.

Formulating the Mess: The Role of Decision Aids in Problem Formulation

Analytic decision aids have been criticized by some practitioners for their inability to address questions of problem formulation. These aids typically begin with the assumption that a problem has been recognized and stated, and that the task of the sequential step-wise analysis process is to indicate the optimal strategy in terms of a specified choice criterion. Writers such as Ackoff, Mason & Mitroff and Raiffa have argued that this approach may lead to solving the wrong problem, particularly when applied to ill-structured, complex organizational decision problems. The purpose of this paper is to provide a more thorough understanding of the nature of problem formulation and the use of techniques for assisting decision-makers in this process. The paper attempts first to develop an understanding of the process of organizational problem formulation through the examination of current literature and research. This is seen to be a necessary prerequisite for discussing the value of decision aids for problem formulation. Second, attention is focused on aids to problem formulation. Included is discussion about the matching of problem to problem type, creativity stimulants, dialectical inquiry and devils advocate approaches, as well as the role of formal analysis as a stimulant for a policy dialogue process. Finally, the relationships between the various approaches are examined and a synthetic model for their use in problem formulation is suggested.

Management illusions and biases: Their impact on strategic decisions

Abstract Strategic decision-making often involves a great deal of uncertainty and ambiguity. Because managers are subject to ‘bounded rationality’ their cognitive processes may result in systematic decision biases. This paper summarizes research in the areas of cognitive psychology and behavioural decision theory dealing with human cognitive biases which may influence strategic decision-making. Examples of the probable operation of these biases in strategy formulation are given and conjectures about specific decision errors resulting from the biases are offered.