34. EXHIBIT QM –6 Production Data for Virus Software 4R + 6S < 2,400 2R + 2S < 900
35. EXHIBIT QM –7 Graphical Solution to Free’s Linear Programming Problem
36.
37.
38. EXHIBIT QM –8 Determining the Optimum Economic Order Quantity
39. Economic Order Quantity Example Forecast sales: 4,000 units a year Unit cost: $50.00 each Ordering cost: $35.00 per order Carrying costs: 20% of unit’s value.
Notes de l'éditeur
Decision making is a process rather than a simple act of choosing among alternatives. The decision-making process consists of eight steps which starts with identifying the problem, moves through selecting an alternative that can alleviate the problem, and concludes with evaluating the decision’s effectiveness
The decision-making process can fail if the chosen alternative is not implemented properly. Successful decision implementation (step 7) includes identifying those who will be affected by the decision and gaining their commitment to the decision. The last step in the decision-making process (step 8) answers this question: Did the alternative that was chosen and implemented accomplish the desired result.
When confronted by a complex problem, most people will reduce the problem to its simplest level and satisfice by seeking solutions that are satisfactory and sufficient. Eschewing full rationality, they operate within bounded rationality and construct simplified models to extract the essential features of the problem and then behave rationally within the limits of the simple model. Here is how the bounded rationality typically operates: Once a problem is identified, the search for criteria and alternatives usually results in a limited list of choices that are easy to find or highly visible — familiar criteria and tried-and-true solutions. Once this limited set of alternatives is identified, the decision maker will begin reviewing them. The review will not be comprehensive — not all alternatives will be evaluated carefully. Instead, the decision maker will begin with alternatives that differ only to a small degree from the choice currently in effect. Following along familiar and well-worn paths, the decision maker will review alternatives only until one that is “good enough” (that meets acceptable levels of performance) can be found. The first alternative that meets the “good enough” criterion ends the search. So the final solution represents a satisficing choice rather than an optimizing one.
To cope with information overload, we rely on two heuristics, or judgmental shortcuts, when we make decisions: availability and representativeness. Both types create biases in a decision maker’s judgment. Another bias is the tendency to escalate commitment to a failing course of action. Availability Heuristic. Using the availability heuristic, people tend to base their judgments on information that is readily available. Representative Heuristic. People often assess the likelihood of an occurrence by drawing analogies and seeing identical situations where they do not exist. Escalation of Commitment. In spite of negative feedback, some managers escalate commitment to a failing enterprise, “throw good money after bad,” if they believe that they are responsible for the failure. They do so to avoid admitting they made a poor decision and to appear behaviorally consistent. In contrast, effective managers differentiate between situations where persistence will or will not pay off.
Well-structured problems are straightforward, familiar, and easily defined. In contrast, ill-structured (poorly structured) problems are so new that pertinent information is either ambiguous or incomplete. Repetitive, programmed decisions that can be handled routinely are the most efficient way to handle well-structured problems. Programmed decisions rely heavily on previous solutions. In many cases, such decisions are made according to some systematic procedure, rule, or policy. When problems are ill-structured, however, managers must develop unique solutions by using nonprogrammed decision making techniques. Such decisions are unique and nonrecurring. When a manager confronts an ill-structured problem, there is no cut-and-dried solution. A custom-made, nonprogrammed response is needed.
A guide for making programmed decisions is a policy . In contrast to rules and procedures, policies establish parameters for the decision maker rather than specifically stating how or what should or should not be done. A procedure is a series of interrelated sequential steps that a manager can use for responding to a well-structured problem. The only real challenge is to identify the problem. Once the problem is clear, so is the procedure. A rule is an explicit statement of limitations that tells a manager what he or she ought or ought not to do. Rules are simple to follow and promote consistency.
There are several advantages to group decision making. Group decisions provide more complete information than do individual ones. A group will bring a diversity of experience and perspectives to the decision process that an individual, acting alone, cannot. Groups also generate more alternatives, because of a greater quantity and diversity of information. Group decision making increases acceptance of a solution. If those who will be affected by a solution and who must implement it can participate in making it, they will be more likely to accept the solution. Since group decision-making is consistent with democratic ideals, decisions made by groups are perceived as being more legitimate than decisions made by a single person. There are several disadvantages to group decision making. Group decisions are time consuming, and groups almost always take more time to make a decision than an individual would take. There may also be minority group domination, because group members will differ in many ways: for example, status in the organization, experience, verbal skills, or assertiveness. A minority group that dominates the group decision-making process will have an undue influence on the final decision. Another problem focuses on the pressures to conform in groups. This pressure can result in groupthink —group members withhold deviant, minority, or unpopular views in order to give the appearance of agreement . Finally, there is ambiguous responsibility. Since group members share responsibility, who is actually responsible for the final outcome?
![L E A R N I N G O U T C O M E S ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],After reading this chapter, you will be able to:]()