When faced with situations that demand making decisions of a strategic nature, decision- makers must decide how to make such decisions. A study was undertaken, involving interviews with two experienced key decision-makers responsible for seven decision-making processes, in order to identify the decisions taken about the process itself – the metadecisions – and also, to verify the existence of any sort of logical structure between these metadecisions. Four variables were developed for this research: 1. participative dependence, involving the decision about the participants in the decision-making process; 2. phase of the process, i.e. the different steps activated in a decision-making process; 3. analytical structuring, involving the choice between intuition and the structured analysis of information; and 4. influence, i.e. the decision regarding the level of influence to be exerted throughout the decision-making process. The findings indicate that the metadecisions taken during the decision-making process may present some degree of correlation among each other. Specific proposals to explain the subjacent logical structure of the identified correlations are presented. The research approach that was used opens up a new and deeper perspective for the comprehension and management of the decision-making processes, particularly the nonroutine ones.

1. Universidade de São Paulo
Instituto de Pesquisas Energéticas e Nucleares
São Paulo - Brazil
Deciding how to decide:
part 1: The extended structure of unstructured decision processes
Willy Hoppe de Sousa
(author)
Abraham Sin Oih Yu
(adviser)
rev 0
August-2008
1

2. Content
1. Initial remarks
2. Decision making process:“tradicional”
perspective
3. “Problems” with the “tradicional” analysis
4. What are metadecisions?
• Tactics in decision makings
5. Types of metadecisions
• Process
• Solution
6. The structure of unstructured decision processes
7. References
8. For more information...
2

3. Initial remarks
One of the main objetives of this presentation is calling for the
attention of a subject somehow neglected by the academy and
by consultants: the decisions about the decision process itself.
The “traditional” approach involves the so called “bounded
rationality decision process” and one “classical” approach is
presented by the academicists and consultants by stressing the
need to identify the elements of the decision process, namely,
the problem, the objectives, the alternatives and their
consequences, the risk tolerance of the decision makers, trade-
off and interconnected decisions.
But how to identify and analyse all these elements considering
the whole perspective of the decision process in one integrated
framework?
3

4. Initial remarks
In “the real world”, there may be chalenges to make a decision: time
constraints, conflicting interests; decision makers may also have
different knowledge levels about each of the decision elements and
may have doubts about which methods select to help the decision
making.
For our daily personal decisions, usually we don´t have to worry
about the process of deciding how to decide; unfortunately in
organizational environments, the answer may not be the same.
The botton line to decide how to decide is thinking counsciously
about each step in terms of what to do, who involve and when. In
other words, we need to plan the process and have the decision
process under control.
What really is done during the decision processes and the proposal
of an extended structure for unstructured decision processes are the
objectives of this presentation.
The following presentation is based on excerpts of a doctorade thesis presented by the author at the 4
University of São Paulo in 2007.

5. Decision Making Process:
the “tradicional” perspective
Decisions Content of the decision
Conteúdo das decisões
Decision process elements: Elements content
•Problem
•Problema
•Objetives
•Objetivo
•Alternatives
•Alternativas
•Consequences
•Conseqüências
•Risks
•Risco
•Risk tolerance
•Predisposição aos riscos
•Interconected decisions
•Decisões interligadas
Decision decisório
Processoprocess Activated tactics
Táticas ativadas
Descriptive approach
Exemples:
•Politics in decision making
•Naturalistic decision making
•Cognitive bias
Prescriptive approach
Exemples:
•Decision analysis
5

6. The “problem” with the“tradicional”
analysis
Despite the existence of a large literature
focusing on how decisions are or should
be taken, there are few theoretical articles
and almost absence of empirical
evidence explaning how decide how to
decide, something also refered as
metadecision in the scant available
literature.
6

7. What are metadecisions?
Metadecisions are decisions about the decision process
itself and can be classified in planning and switching
decisions (Mintzberg et al, 1976, p.260).
Metadecisions are basically taken at the decision
makers mind. In other words, usually there aren´t
evidence or registers concerning their existence; we
only can identify some evidences based on the
consequences of these choices and by interviews with
the decision makers discussing real cases.
The origin for this presentation is a study of multiple
cases which was carried out in order to better
understand the metadecisions by focusing process
metadecisions – which represent the “results” of
switching decisions and, solution metadecisions –
which are connected to the planning decisions.
7

8. Tactics in decision making*
We refer as tactic any action a decision maker or a group of
decision maker carries out with some purpose and probably will
modify the personnel or collective knowledge status of any of the
following decision element: problem, objectives, alternatives,
consequences, risks, risk tolerance.
There are an infinite numbers of tactics that experienced and/or
skilled decision makers may have at hand and can be selected
and activated during the decision process*.
Some of them are more intuitive (for instance, using analogies to
identify alternatives);
Some of the may be totally structured (decision tree);
Some of them may be “neutral” (individual consultancy) or totally
political (pressure);
Some of them may be carried lonely by the decision maker, other
may be executed in group (consensus).
*Due to practical limits, only some of these tactics will be mentioned in this presentation 8

9. Types of metadecisions*
Process type:
• Refers to the decisions a key decision maker needs to make
concerning the decision process itself. It involves the following
decisions: 1. about what to do (which phase / tactic activate); 2.
about what tactic do alone, what tactic develop together with
someone and which tactic delegate (which defines the dependence
participation of the decision maker within the process); 3. about
how to structure the analysis (which represents the decision of
being more intuitive or use more structured processes); 4. about to
influence or not the decision process and 5.about what tactic do
now and what to do later (tactic temporality).
Solution type:
• Refers to the decisions a key decision maker needs to make
concerning the solution for the problem he faces: 1. search for new
solution or a modified solution; 2. search a solution for now or later
or both.
*types considered for the present proposal 9

10. Types of metadecisions: process
Process
When a key decison
maker selects a tactic he
Activated Tactic is also simultaneously
deciding (counsciously
or not): 1. what decision
Process phase
element he will think
about (in other words,
what process phase to
analise); 2.who should
Influence Participative dependence be involved in this tactic
(participative
dependence); 3. what to
do with the information
Analitical structure available (influence), 4.
being more intuitive or
being more structured in
Tactic temporality the information analysis
process (analytical
structure) and 5.do it
now or later (tactic
temporality)
10

11. Process metadecisions
Process phase
(associated with some tactics exemples)
Problem Objectives Alternative Alternative Risk Decision
definition identificatio generation analysis approach approach
n
Recognition Incremental Memory Decision tree Risk sharing Consensus
reevaluation search
(Mintzberg et al, (Quinn, 1989) (Mintzberg et al, (Clemen e (Hammond et (Schweiger et
1976) 1976) Reilly, 2001) al, 1999) al, 1989)
11

12. Process metadecisions
Participative dependence*
(associated with some tactics exemples)
Only the The key The key The key The key Only the
key decision decision decision decision technical
decision makers with maker with makers makers with staff
maker his interested with his his technical
superiors parts superiors staff
and
technical
staff
Any tactic Pros and cons Individual Devil´s Brainstorming Project
analysis Consultancy advocacy
(Beach & (Vroom, 2000) (Schweiger et (Clemen e Reilly, (Mintzberg et al,
Mitchell,1978) al, 1989) 2001) 1976)
*other participants may considered, The underlying idea here is that, in one
extreme the decison maker is totally independent: tactics can be executed
only by him; on the other extreme he need to fully delegate the tactic
execution. 12

13. Process metadecisions
Influence
(associated with some tactics exemples)
No Information Convincing Oportunistic,
interaction exchange information manipulated,
filtered
information
Tactic activated Rational
Individual Rotulation
solely by the key inspiration
Consultancy
decision maker
or by the (Stone, 2002) (Lussier and
(Vroom, 2000)
Achua, 2004)
technical staff
(according to
the dependence
participation
categories)
13

14. Process metadecisions
Analytical structuring
(associated with some tactics exemples)
No Not Partially Structured
analytical structured structured
processing
Cooptation Intuitive Rational Pilot analysis
evaluation persuasion
(Zhou, 1997) (Isenberg, 1984) (Lussier and (Nutt, 1998)
Achua, 2004)
14

15. Types of metadecisions
Solution
Some tactics are dedicated to generate the
solutions. The selection of these tactics
Preliminar Solution
depends on some preliminars ideas the
decision maker may have about the possible
or prefered solution. For instance, if a total
new solution has to be developed,
brainstorms may be a more appropriate tactic
to identify such solutions. If it´s a matter of
finding a customized solution, then a design
Novelty
tactic based on existent solution may be more
appropriate tactic. Sometimes only a
temporary solution need to be searched, due
to urgency or other factors, meanwhile the
development of a definitive solution may be
postponed. Both solution metadecisions have
a profound impact in the profile of the tactics
Solution temporality activated and consequently in the decision
process.
15

16. Solution metadecisions
(associated with some tactics exemples)
Solutions novelty
Adapted from (Mintzberg et el, 1976)
New Modified Existing
solution solution solution
Brainstorming Project Analogy
(Clemen and (Mintzberg et al, (Courtney and
Reilly, 2001) 1976) Lovallo, 2004)
16

17. Solution metadecisions
(associated with some tactics exemples)
Solutions temporality
Adapted from (Mintzberg et al, 1976)
Now Now and later
later
The solution A partial The “full”
must be solution must solution will be
identified for be identified identified and
imediate now and for implemented in
implementation the future a the future
“full” solution
must be
developed
17

18. The extended structure of unstructured decision processes
1st layer
Decisions Content of the decision
Conteúdo das decisões
Decision process elements: Elements content
•Problem
•Problema Traditional
•Objetives
•Objetivo process decision
•Alternatives
•Alternativas focus
2nd layer •Consequences
•Conseqüências
•Risks
•Risco
•Risk tolerance
•Predisposição aos riscos
•Interconected decisions
•Decisões interligadas
Decision decisório
Processoprocess Activated tactics
Táticas ativadas
Metadecisions variables:
Variáveis metadecisórias...
...de processo:
...process type:
•Fases do processo
•Process phase
•Dependência participativa
•Participative dependence
3 rdlayer •Influência
•Influence
•Estruturação analítica
•Analitical structure
•Tactic temporality Metadecision
focus
...de conteúdo:
...solution type:
•Novelty da solução
•Novidade
•Temporalidade da solução
•Solution temporality
Structural metadecisions
metadecisões estruturais Who does what e quando?
Quem faz o que and when?
18

19. References
BEACH, Lee Roy e MITCHELL, Terence R. A contingency model for the selection of decision strategies.
Academy of Management Review. [S.l.:S.v.], July, p.439-449, 1978.
CLEMEN, Robert T. e REILLY, Terence. Making hard decisions. 2nd ed. Pacific Grove: Duxbury Thomson
Learning, 2001.
COURTNEY, Hugh e LOVALLO, Dan. Bringing rigor and reality to early-stage R&D decisions. Research
Technologu Management. [S.l.]. [v.47], [n.5], p.40-45, Sept/oct 2004.
HAMMOND, John S., KEENEY, Ralph L. e RAIFFA, Howard. Decisões inteligentes: como avaliar alternativas e
tomar a melhor decisão. Rio de Janeiro: Campus, 1999. (portuguese edition)
ISENBERG, Daniel J. How managers think. Harvard Business Review. [S.l.:s.v.] , p.81-90, November-December
1984.
LUSSIER, Robert N. e ACHUA, Christopher F. Leadership: Theory, Application, Skill development. 2ed.
Minessota: Thompson South-Western, 2004.
MINTZBERG, Henry et al. The structure of unstructured decision processes. Administrative Science Quarterly.
[S.l.], v. 21, n. 2, p.246-275, June 1976.
NUTT, P. C. How decision makers evaluate alternatives and the influence of complexity. Management science.
[S.l.], v.44, n.8, p.1148 – 1166, August 1998.
QUINN, Brian James. Strategic change: “logical incrementalism”. Sloan Management Review. [S.l.], [v.30], [n.4],
p.45-60, Summer 1989.
SCHWEIGER, David M., SANDBERG, William R. e RECHNER, P. L. Experiental effects of dialectical inquiry,
devil’s advocacy, and consensus approaches to strategic decision making. Academy of Management Journal.
[S.l.], v.32, n.4, p.745-772, 1989.
STONE, Deborah, 2002. Policy paradox: the art of political decision making. New York: W.W. Norton & company,
Inc, 2002.
VROOM, Victor H. Leadership and the decision-making process. Organizational dynamics. [S.l.], v. 28, n.4, p. 82-
94, 2000.
ZHOU, Xueguang. Organizational decision making as rule following. In: SHAPIRA, Zur (Org.). Organizational
decision making. Cambridge University Press: New York, 1997. 19

20. For more information...
• Thesis file (portuguese):
http://www.teses.usp.br/teses/disponiveis/12/12139
/tde-02042007-072002/
• Full article (english) under evaluation
• paper presentation (portuguese): XXXII EnANPAD
– 07-10 September – 2008 Rio de Janeiro
• contact: willyhoppe@uol.com.br
20