THE NATURE OF DECISION MAKING

DECISION MAKING The act of choosing one alternative from among a set of alternatives. DECISION-MAKING PROCESS Recognize and define the nature of a decision situation Identify appropriate alternatives Choose and justify the best alternative (Recommend)
Evaluated on basis of feasibility, effectiveness, and consequences

Implement the recommendation (Put it into practice) EFFECTIVE DECISIONS Effective decisions optimize some set of factors: e.g. maximize profits, sales, market share or satisfaction, or minimize costs, waste, turnover, or unhappiness.

PRECONDITIONS FOR DECISION MAKING

IS THERE A PROBLEM WE REALLY MUST ADDRESS?

IS THERE A PERFORMANCE GAP? Assumes there are standards to judge Assumes there is monitoring and feedback IS THE DECISION MAKER AWARE OF THIS GAP? Consciousness of the gap Significance to the organization DOES THE DECISION MAKER HAVE THE RESOURCES TO ACT? Knowledge and ability to fix the problem Budgets, personnel, power IS THE DECISION MAKER MOTIVATED TO ACT ON THE GAP? Rewards and risks weighed Risk-averse or risk-seeker?

TYPES OF DECISIONS
ROUTINE (Programmed)
COMMON PROBLEMS WITH WELL-DEFINED SOLUTIONS
: Rules, procedures, computer software packages There is an obvious best solution or alternative

ADAPTIVE
A COMBINATION OF MODERATELY UNUSUAL AND ONLY PARTIALLY-KNOWN PROBLEMS AND ALTERNATIVES
Incremental changes or modifications of past decisions and practices Selecting from a set of known alternatives, but unsure of the outcomes

INNOVATIVE (Non-Programmed)
UNUSUAL OR AMBIGUOUS PROBLEMS WHICH REQUIRE UNIQUE OR CREATIVE ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS
Emphasizes radical change, innovation, brainstorming Not sure what the alternatives are, not sure whether any will work

RATIONAL DECISION MAKING MODEL

DEFINE AND DIAGNOSE THE PROBLEMS
SEPARATE SYMPTOMS FROM CAUSES

CLARIFY THE OBJECTIVES TO BE ACHIEVED

IDENTIFY CRITERIA TO BE USED

SEARCH FOR ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS

WE MUST HAVE OPTIONS FOR EACH PROBLEM

COMPARE AND EVALUATE ALTERNATIVES

EXPECTED RESULTS, COSTS, POTENTIAL SIDE EFFECTS?

RECOMMENDED SOLUTIONS
JUSTIFY WHY THIS CHOICEWHY NOT THE OTHERS?

IMPLEMENTATION
STEPS AND PROCEDURES TO FOLLOW TO ENSURE SUCCESS

MONITORING AND CONTROL

ARE THINGS GOING AS EXPECTED? IS FURTHER INTERVENTION NEEDED?

RATIONAL MODEL ASSUMPTIONS

PROBLEM CLARITY The problem is clear and unambiguous. The decision maker is assumed to have complete information regarding the decision situation. KNOWN OPTIONS The decision maker can identify all the relevant criteria and can list all the viable alternatives. Furthermore, the decision maker is aware of all the possible consequences of each alternative. CLEAR PREFERENCES The criteria and alternatives can be ranked and weighted to reflect their importance. CONSTANT PREFERENCES The decision criteria are constant and the weights assigned are stable. NO TIME OR COST CONSTRAINTS The decision maker can obtain full information about criteria and alternatives because it is assumed there are no time or cost constraints. MAXIMUM PAYOFF The rational decision maker will choose the alternative that yields the highest perceived value.

BOUNDED RATIONALITY
SIMON (57)

BASED ON A LIMITED PERSPECTIVE

SOME IMPORTANT CRITERIA ARE NOT IDENTIFIED NOT ALL ALTERNATIVES ARE CONSIDERED

SEQUENTIAL EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES

CONSIDER OPTIONS ONE AT A TIME MAY ONLY COMPARE AND CONTRAST TWO OPTIONS

SATISFICING
IS THE OPTION UNDER CONSIDERATION OK or GOOD ENOUGH? SELECTION OF THE FIRST TOLERABLE OPTION

JUDGMENTAL HEURISTICS AND BIASES

OVERCONFIDENCE Im 70% suremore like 50/50 ANCHORS -- Get stuck on some initial info$15-$50 millPrimacy Effect CONFIRMATION Bias that remembers only data that supports your predisposition AVAILABILITY Information that is readily available and vivid, we dont dig deeper ESCALATION OF COMMITMENT More investment in a bad decision

DECISION MAKING

UNDER CONDITIONS OF: CERTAINTY RISK UNCERTAINTY AMBIGUITY

LEADS TO SOLUTIONS THAT ARE: OPTIMIZED SATISFICED

FOUR DECISION MAKING CONDITIONS

CERTAINTY
DECISION MAKERS KNOW WHICH OBJECTIVES THEY WANT TO ACHIEVE ALTERNATIVES ARE CLEARLY DEFINED KNOWLEDGE OF OUTCOMES IS COMPLETE ALL INFORMATION NEEDED IS FULLY AVAILABLE

RISK
DECISION MAKERS KNOW WHICH OBJECTIVES THEY WANT TO ACHIEVE ALTERNATIVES ARE CLEAR LIKELIHOOD OF OUTCOMES IS SUBJECT TO CHANCE GOOD INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE

UNCERTAINTY
DECISION MAKERS KNOW WHICH OBJECTIVES THEY WANT TO ACHIEVE ALTERNATIVES ARE INCOMPLETE LIKELIHOOD OF OUTCOMES IS NOT UNDERSTOOD INFORMATION IS INCOMPLETE

AMBIGUITY
OBJECTIVES TO BE ACHIEVED ARE NOT CLEAR ALTERNATIVES ARE DIFFICULT TO DEFINE INFORMATION ABOUT OUTCOMES IS UNAVAILABLE

DECISION STYLES
THOMPSON & TUDEN (59) CLEAR PREFERENCES REGARDING OUTCOMES
YES, We Agree NO Agreement Known with Certainty Not Known ---------------------------------------------------YES, We Know What To Do

CLEAR UNDERSTANDING COMPUTATIONAL COMPROMISE OF CAUSE / EFFECT --------------------------------------RELATIONSHIPS

NO, We Dont Know What to Do

JUDGMENTAL

BLUE-SKY
(Inspirational)

----------------------------------------------------

DO YOU KNOW WHAT OUTCOMES YOU WANT AND WHAT TO DO TO GET THEM?

THREE RATIONAL DECISION PROCESSES

COMPENSATORY, CONJUNCTIVE, DISJUNCTIVE

COMPENSATORY PROCESS (CLASSICAL) ALL IMPORTANT CRITERIA ARE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED CRITERIA ARE WEIGHTED ACCORDING TO IMPORTANCE ALL ALTERNATIVES CAN BE MATHEMATICALLY MODELED EXPECTED VALUE IS CALCULATED FOR EACH OPTION THE BEST EXPECTED VALUE IS THE OPTIMAL CHOICE
USE OF EXPECTED VALUES ALWAYS LEADS TO THE OPTIMAL SOLUTION VERY HIGH PERFORMANCE ON ONE CRITERION CAN OFFSET WEAKNESSES IN ANOTHER

ARE YOU CONFIDENT THE WEIGHTS AND VALUES ARE CORRECT?

COMPENSATORY DECISION PROCESS

CLASSICAL / ECONOMIC APPROACH

ORIGINAL GRID

CAR A CAR B CAR C CAR D

Price MPG Room Power Style .40 .20 .10 .10 .20 ----------------------------9,000 50 .4 .4 .6 12,000 35 .6 .7 .9 14,000 28 .7 .9 .7 10,500 32 .7 .7 .4

EXPECTED VALUE

CONVERTED GRID (so all #s are standardized)

CAR A CAR B CAR C CAR D Ideal =

.889 .667 .571 .762 $8,000

1.00 .70 .56 .64

.4 .6 .7 .7

.4 .7 .9 .7 1.0

.6 .9 .7 .4 1.0

.7556** .7168 .6404 .6528

50mpg 1.0

CONJUNCTIVE PROCESS
OR MULTIPLE HURDLES APPROACH

ALL IMPORTANT CRITERIA ARE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED CRITERIA CAN BE RANKED OR ORDERED IN IMPORTANCE CUTOFF LIMITS ARE SET FOR EACH CRITERION ALTERNATIVES ARE COMPARED TO THE CUTOFF LIMITS ONLY ALTERNATIVES WITHIN ALL CUTOFF LIMITS SURVIVE NOT AN OPTIMIZING PROCESS---NO SOLUTION GUARANTEED
THE PROCESS MAY NARROW DOWN THE OPTIONS, BUT DOESNT GUARANTEE A BEST SOLUTION WILL BE FOUND. IN FACT, IT IS POSSIBLE THAT ALL ALTERNATIVES MAY BE ELIMINATED BY THE CUTOFF LIMITS, LEAVING US WITH NO RECOMMENDATION.

EXCEPTIONAL STRENGTH ON ONE CRITERION CANNOT MAKE UP FOR A WEAKNESS OR LACK ON ANOTHER CRITERION.
ALL THE MINIMUMS ON ALL THE CRITERIA MUST BE MET.

CONJUNCTIVE DECISION PROCESS

MULTIPLE HURDLES APPROACH

Rank = Original Grid CAR A CAR B CAR C CAR D

CUTOFFS

Price MPG Style Power Room 1 2 3 4 5 ----------------------------9,000 50 .6 .4 .4 12,000 35 .9 .7 .6 14,000 28 .7 .9 .7 10,500 32 .4 .7 .7

Max 13,000 Min 30 Min .6 Min .6 Min .6

PASSED ALL CUTOFFS

RUNNING THE HURDLES

CAR A CAR B CAR C CAR D

OK OK FAIL OK

OK OK ---OK

OK OK
FAIL

FAIL OK
----

--OK

YES**

DISJUNCTIVE PROCESS
OR BEHAVIORAL

WE HAVE SOME CRITERIA, BUT THE LIST SEEMS INCOMPLETE UNABLE TO EITHER WEIGHT OR RANK CRITERIA BY IMPORTANCE WE CAN PERCEIVE OUTSTANDING ATTRIBUTES FOR EACH OPTION WE LIST THE STRENGTHS & WEAKNESSES OF EACH OPTION WE PICK OUR CHOICE BASED ON A REVIEW OF THESE S/W LISTS
THE DECISION PROCESS IS UNSYSTEMATIC, INCONSISTENT AN ALTERNATIVE WITH A BAD ATTRIBUTE IS FREQUENTLY REJECTED FINAL CHOICES ARE USUALLY MADE USING A SINGLE CRITERION WHICH THE DECISION MAKER HAS DECIDED TO FOCUS UPON.

THESE DECISIONS ARE MUCH MORE SUBJECTIVE THAN THEY APPEAR, AND ARE DIFFICULT TO DEFEND IF CHALLENGED.

DISJUNCTIVE DECISION PROCESS

BEHAVIORAL, STRENGTHS/WEAKNESSES APPROACH

Original Grid

Price Style Power MPG ???? -----------------------------

CAR A CAR B CAR C CAR D

Good
Good Bad Bad

Bad
Good

Good

Eliminate the alternatives with Bad evaluations, and see what is left. Thus, we buy Car B because I liked the color and my wife liked the interior!
NOT RATIONAL OR SYSTEMATIC, BUT WE THINK WE WERE LOGICAL IN WHAT WE DID BEFORE SELECTING THE CAR.

ENVIRONMENTAL SCENARIOS
WHAT ARE YOUR ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT? POSSIBLE STATES OF NATURE (Scenarios)
MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE THINGS WE DONT CONTROL

POSSIBLE ACTIONS WE CAN TAKE (Alternatives)

ALTERNATIVES OR OPTIONS THESE ARE THE CHOICES WE CAN MAKE (WE CONTROL THESE)

EXPECTED OUTCOMES FOR EACH POSSIBLE ACTION

REVENUES, COSTS, PROFITS UNITS PRODUCED, HOURS WORKED, ETC.

LIKELIHOOD OF EACH OUTCOME

CERTAINTY RISK or PROBABILITY TOTAL UNCERTAINTY

PAYOFF TABLES
SINGLE-PHASE PROBLEMS RECURRING, REPETITIVE DECISIONS CAN ILLUSTRATE THE CLASSICAL DECISION PROCESS

DECISION TREES
MULTI-PHASE PROBLEMS NEAR-UNIQUE, ONE-TIME-ONLY DECISIONS

A PAYOFF TABLE ILLUSTRATION

UNDER TOTAL UNCERTAINTY
EXPECTED PROFITS $ / ACRE STATES OF NATURE / ENVIRONMENTAL SCENARIOS ALTERNATIVE CROPS

NORMAL

WET

DRY

VIOLENT

CORN POTATOES HAY/GRASS

1. 2. 3. 4.

-------------------------------$ 900 450 -800 250 -------------------------------800 -300 400 500 -------------------------------300 500 0 100 --------------------------------

MAXI-MAX (Optimist) *Corn 900, Potato 800, Hay 500 MAXI-MIN (Pessimist) Corn -800, Potato -300, *Hay 0 MINI-MAX (Regret) Regrets..Corn 1200, Potato 800, *Hay 600 AVERAGE (Rational) Ex ValueCorn 200, *Potato 350, Hay 225

BUILDING A REGRET MATRIX

EXPECTED PROFITS $ / ACRE STATES OF NATURE / ENVIRONMENTAL SCENARIOS

ORIGINAL MATRIX
ALTERNATIVE CROPS

NORMAL

WET

DRY

VIOLENT

CORN POTATOES HAY/GRASS

REGRET MATRIX

-------------------------------$ 900 450 -800 250 800 -300 400 500 300 500 0 100 --------------------------------

0 50 1200 250 100 800 0 0 600 0 400 400 -----------------------------------MINIMIZE THE MAXIMUM REGRETS Corn = 1200, Potatoes = 800, Hay = 600**

CORN POTATOES HAY/GRASS

A PAYOFF TABLE ILLUSTRATION

UNDER RISK (ASSIGNED PROBABILITY)
EXPECTED PROFITS $ / ACRE

PROBABILITIES COME FROM GOOD GUESSES. CALCULATE THE EXPECTED VALUES

INDIAN JOES ESTIMATES = Normal 30%, Wet 25%, Dry 20%, Violent 25% STATES OF NATURE / ENVIRONMENTAL SCENARIOS ALTERNATIVE CROPS WEIGHTS NORMAL WET DRY VIOLENT EXPECTED

CORN POTATOES HAY/GRASS

.30 .25 .20 .25 VALUES ======================= $ 900 450 -800 250 $ 285 -------------------------------800 -300 400 500 370** -------------------------------300 500 0 100 240

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = You should PLANT POTATOES EVERY YEAR. In any one year youll either make 800, lose 300, make 400, or make 500 but over the years, youll average $370 of profits.

A PAYOFF TABLE ILLUSTRATION

UNDER RISK (FACTUAL PROBABILITY)
EXPECTED PROFITS $ / ACRE

PROBABILITY INFORMATION COMES FROM RELIABLE (FACTUAL) SOURCES WEATHER BUREAU HISTORY = Normal 35%, Wet 30%, Dry 15%, Violent 20%
STATES OF NATURE / ENVIRONMENTAL SCENARIOS
ALTERNATIVE CROPS

NORMAL

WET

DRY

VIOLENT EXPECTED

.35 .30 .15 .20 VALUES ======================= CORN $ 900 450 -800 250 $ 380** -------------------------------POTATOES 800 -300 400 500 350 -------------------------------HAY/GRASS 300 500 0 100 275 ======================= You should PLANT CORN EVERY YEAR. In any one year youll either make 900, make 450, lose 800 or make 250 but over the years, youll average $380 of profits.
WEIGHTS

A PAYOFF TABLE ILLUSTRATION

UNDER RISK (WHAT IS THE VALUE OF PERFECT INFORMATION?)
WE KNOW ONLY GOD CONTROLS THE WEATHER, BUT IF WE HAD PERFECT PREDICTION EACH YEAR, WED KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THE WEATHER WOULD BE AND WHAT WE SHOULD PLANT. WED HAVE NORMAL CONDITIONS 35% OF THE TIME, AND DURING THOSE TIMES, WED PLANT CORN. 30% OF THE TIME IT WOULD BE WET AND WED PLANT HAY, ETC.
STATES OF NATURE / ENVIRONMENTAL SCENARIOS ALTERNATIVE CROPS

NORMAL

WET

DRY

VIOLENT EXPECTED

.35 .30 .15 .20 VALUES ======================= CORN $ 900 450 -800 250 $ 380** POTATOES 800 -300 400 500 350 HAY/GRASS 300 500 0 100 275 ======================= Expected Profits given Perfect Information (EPPI) = $625. Expected Value of Perfect Information (EVPI) = EPPI EV = $625 380 = $ 245 Therefore, you can increase your profits by up to $245 if you have a perfect weather forecast each spring.
WEIGHTS

GROUP DECISION MAKING

ADVANTAGES
BROAD REPRESENTATION TAPS EXPERTISE MORE IDEAS GENERATED EVALUATION OF OPTIONS COORDINATION HIGH ACCEPTANCE

DISADVANTAGES
TIME CONSUMING POSSIBLE INDECISIVENESS COMPROMISE DECISIONS DOMINATION BY A MEMBER RISKY SHIFTS GROUPTHINK

GROUP DECISION MAKING ISSUES

VROOM & YETTON (73)

TIME AVAILABILITY TYPE OF PROBLEM OR TASK AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION NEED FOR ACCEPTANCE OF DECISION LEVEL OF TRUST CAPABILITIES OF SUBORDINATES LIKELIHIID OF CONFLICT

PARTICIPATION IN DECISION MAKING

VROOM & YETTON (73)

LEADERS HAVE THREE DECISION MAKING STYLES

AUTOCRATIC CONSULTIVE PARTICIPATIVE

FACTORS AFFECTING CHOICE OF STYLE:

1. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PROBLEM
HOW IMPORTANT IS THE QUALITY OF THE DECISION? IS THE PROBLEM WELL-STRUCTUERED? IS TIME CRITICAL? HOW IMPORTANT IS SUBORDINATE COMMITMENT TO THE CHOICE?

2. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE MANAGER

DOES THE LEADER HAVE GOOD INFORMATION TO MAKE THE CHOICE?

3. CHARACTERISTICS OF SUBORDINATES
WILL SUBORDINATES ACCEPT THE LEADERS DECISION? DO SUBORDINATES SHARE THE ORGANIZATIONS GOALS? IS CONFLICT LIKELY AMONG SUBORDINATES (OVER THE CHOICES)? CAN THEY CONTRIBUTE GOOD INFORMATION TO MAKE THE CHOICE?

VROOMS DECISION STYLES

A1 YOU SOLVE THE PROBLEM YOURSELF, WITH YOUR OWN INFORMATION A2 YOU OBTAIN INFORMATION FROM YOUR SUBORDINATES, THEN SOLVE THE PROBLEM YOURSELF C1 YOU SHARE THE PROBLEM WITH YOUR SUBORDINATES INDIVIDUALLY, WITHOUT BRINGING THEM TOGETHER AS A GROUP. YOU CONSIDER THEIR IDEAS, THEN MAKE THE DECISION BY YOURSELF C2 YOU SHARE THE PROBLEM WITH YOUR SUBORDINATES AS A GROUP, COLLECTIVELY GETTING THEIR IDEAS, THEN YOU MAKE THE DECISION BY YOURSELF G2 YOU SHARE THE PROBLEM WITH YOUR SUBORDINATES AS A GROUP. TOGETHER YOU ATTEMPT TO REACH A CONSENSUS ON A SOLUTION. YOUR ROLE IS CHAIR, AND THE GROUPS SOLUTION SHOULD BE THE ONE IMPLEMENTED

DEFECTS IN GROUP DECISION MAKING

DISCUSSION LIMITED TO A FEW ALTERNATIVES (ONE OR TWO) FAILURE TO REEXAMINE THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE FOR WEAKNESSES AND POTENTIAL RISKS

NO SEARCH TO FIND ADVANTAGES FOR OTHER ALTERNATIVES, AND NO SEARCH FOR WAYS TO MAKE OTHER OPTIONS FEASIBLE
LITTLE OR NO ATTEMPT TO OBTAIN EXPERT OR OUTSIDE ADVICE A TENDENCY TO IGNORE FACTS AND OPINIONS THAT DO NOT AGREE WITH THE PREFERRED PLAN OF ACTION NO CONTINGENCY PLANS ESTABLISHED IN CASE SOMETHING GOES WRONG NO ATTEMPT TO LOOK AT THE SITUATION FROM A CONTRARY OR ANTAGONISTIC VIEWPOINT LAUGHING AT DANGER SIGNALS; MAKING LIGHT OF INDICATIONS THAT ALL IS NOT PROCEEDING SMOOTHLY LEADERS WHO DOMINATE DISCUSSIONS AND MAKE THEIR SUGGESTIONS EARLY, BEFORE OTHERS HAVE HAD THEIR SAY

SYMPTOMS OF GROUPTHINK
JANIS (72)

A VERY COHESIVE GROUP THAT IS LIKELY TO MAKE POOR DECISIONS

OVERESTIMATION OF THE GROUP

ILLUSION OF INVULNERABILITY (Superiority) ILLUSION OF MORALITY

CLOSEMINDEDNESS
RATIONALIZATION (Discounting Warning Signs) STEREOTYPED VIEWS OF OUTSIDERS (Not Trusted & Not Very Smart)

PRESSURE TOWARD CONFORMITY

SELF-CENSORSHIP OF MEMBERS DIRECT PRESSURE APPLIED TO DEVIANTS MINDGUARDS (Dont Let Others/outsiders Influence Us) ILLUSION OF UNANIMITY (Silence Means Agreement?)

REMEDIES FOR GROUPTHINK

ASSIGN EVERYONE THE ROLE OF CRITICAL EVALUATOR
SENSITIZATION

LEADER MUST BE IMPARTIAL

DO NOT INITIALLY STATE YOUR PREFERENCES

APPOINT AN INTERNAL DEVILS ADVOCATE

USE OUTSIDE EXPERTS TO CHALLENGE THE GROUP

THEY MAY STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH WHAT YOU WANT TO DO

DIVIDE INTO TWO OR MORE SUBGROUPS TO WORK INDEPENDENTLY ON THE SAME PROBLEM
HAVE EACH GROUP REPORT BACK

HOLD SECOND CHANCE MEETINGS TO REAFFIRM EARLIER THINKING AND DECISIONS

HAVE A CONFIRMATION VOTE LATER

BRAINSTORMING
USED TO GENERATE NEW IDEAS OR ALTERNATIVES RULES: FREEWHEELING IS WELCOME --- OFFER ANY IDEAS THAT COME TO YOU QUANTITY IS DESIRED --- DONT WORRY ABOUT QUALITY OR RISK RIGHT NOW NO CRITICISM OR PRAISE OF IDEAS IS ALLOWED

NO QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION OF IDEAS --- THAT WILL COME AT A LATER MEETING

COMBINATION AND IMPROVEMENT OF IDEAS IS ENCOURAGED --BUILD ON OTHER PEOPLES IDEAS AND SUGGESTIONS

NOMINAL GROUP TECHNIQUE

EACH MEMBER GENERATES A LIST OF THEIR IDEAS AHEAD OF TIME

IDEAS ARE SHARED WITH MEMBERS EITHER AS AN EXHAUSTIVE LIST, OR ARE PRESENTED ONE AT A TIME WITHOUT COMMENT
MEMBERS VOTE BY SECRET BALLOT TO SELECT THE BEST IDEAS WHICH THEY WANT TO PURSUE FURTHER EACH ITEM IS DISCUSSED AND EVALUATED PUBLICLY (Pros and Cons) FINAL VOTES ARE TAKEN BY SECRET BALLOT

REDUCES THE EFFECTS OF POWER AND STATUS DIFFERENCES ALL MEMBERS CAN PARTICIPATE AND GET THEIR IDEAS BEFORE THE GROUP MEMBERS ARE NOT INTIMIDATED BY A DOMINANT MEMBER

DELPHI TECHNIQUE
CAN PROBE THE VIEWS OF INDUSTRY EXPERTS MATRERIALS SENT TO PARTICIPANTS FOR REACTIONS OPTIONS ARE INDIVIDUALLY WRITTEN AND SENT BACK SUMMARIES ARE SENT OUT FOR FURTHER COMMENT ROLE OF THE IN-HOUSE COORDINATOR IS CRUCIAL THE GROUP NEVER MEETS TOGETHER NO FINAL DECISIONS ARE MADE BY THIS GROUP

THIS IS A VIRTUAL GROUP WHICH CAN BE INTERNET CONNECTED PROCESS GATHERS THE BEST THINKING & JUDGMENT OF EXPERTS SUCCESSIVE FEEDBACK REDEFINES AND FOCUSES IDEAS FINAL DECISIONS ARE MADE BY COMPANY OFFICIALS, NOT THE GROUP