Decision Making Models for CGOs Dr. Fil J. Arenas Capt Kent D.

Morgan Squadron Officer School December 2011

"Nothing is more difficult, and therefore more precious, than to be able to decide." Napoleon Bonaparte
Why Study Decision Making Models? An important factor which distinguishes a leader from their followers is the ability and authority to make decisions. Company Grade Officers (CGOs) are frequently placed in positions where they have the authority to make decisions and can profoundly affect their organizations, their subordinates, and the mission of the Air Force. However, many CGOs have never stopped to think about how they make decisions or how they can improve this skill. Many different models have been developed to aid decision-makers today. The following sections will address several decision-making models that are useful for CGOs today. Each model has its own strengths and weaknesses. Individual leaders have the responsibility to evaluate their own strengths and weaknesses and use the method they deem to be most appropriate or tailor the models to the situation at hand. The Weighted Sum Model The weighted sum model is used to mathematically evaluated different Courses of Action (COAs) based on a weighted set of criteria. It follows the eight-step process listed below: 1. Identification of a Decision 2. Identification of Decision Criteria 3. Allocation of Weights to Criteria 4. Development of Alternatives 5. Analysis of Alternatives 6. Selection of an Alternative 7. Implementation of the Alternative 8. Evaluation of the Decision Effectiveness Process 1. Identification of a Decision In this step the decision-maker must determine what it is they are deciding. To this end they should determine what they desire the end state of their decision to be. It is imperative to be certain that the decision made will support the goals of the decision-maker and their organization

2. Identification of Decision Criteria Criteria are the aspects on which the different COAs will be judged. They should be important to the decision as well as to the organization or individual making the decision. Examples might include cost, ease of implementation, and flexibility. Different decisions will require different criteria to be chosen. 3. Allocation of Weights to Criteria Give each criterion a numerical weight based on how important it is to the decision. These weights will be subjective to the person assigning them. This is why it is important to understand the purpose of the decision and the goals of the organization. The scale of the weights is unimportant (e.g. 1 to 5, 1 to 100, 0.0 to 1.0, etc.) but the same scale must be used for each criterion. 4. Development of Alternatives These are the different COAs that could successfully fulfill the requirements of the decision. The COAs can be simple (such as purchase A or purchase B) or complex strategies to accomplish a mission. Again it is important to understand the purpose of the decision and the goals of the organization and construct the COAs with them in mind. 5. Analysis of Alternatives Each COA must now be evaluated against the criteria chosen earlier. For each criterion you should assign each COA as numerical score. For example, if one criterion was cost, you would likely give expensive COAs a low score and a cheaper COA a high score. Like the allocation of weights, the scale used to score the COAs is unimportant, so long as it is applied the same to each criterion and each COA. The scores of each COA are summed together based on the weights assigned earlier in the model. This is done by multiplying the score the COA was given for a criterion by the weight given to that criterion. See Table 1:

Criteria

8 5 4 10 4 Overall Score: Table 1 Weighted Sum Example

A B C D E

Criteria Weight (0.0 - 1.0) 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.2 0.2

COA 1 COA Score Weighted (1 - 10) Score 2.4 2.5 2.8 2 0.8 10.5

COA 2 COA Score Weighted (1 - 10) Score 4 7 10 3 4 Overall Score: 1.2 3.5 7 0.6 0.8 13.1

In this example each criterion is given a weight between 0.0 and 1.0 and each COA is scored on a scale from 1 to 10. Therefore the maximum weighted score a COA could get any criterion is 10 (1.0 x 10) and the maximum overall score a COA could get is 50 (10 x the number of criteria). However since no criteria in this example were given a weight of

1.0 the actual maximum score (with the weights given) would be 19. According to this model, COA 2 scores the highest against the five criteria. 6. Selection of an Alternative The COA with the highest numerical score is chosen 7. Implementation of the Alternative The chosen COA is implemented 8. Evaluation of the Decision Effectiveness After implementation it is important to evaluate whether or not the desired end state identified in the first step was achieved. If not a new decision-making processes will begin. (Robins & Coulter, 2011) Strengths and Weaknesses The weighted sum model is thorough; given enough time you could list out every criterion associated with a decision. Also, it is analytical; there is a clear best solution. Finally, it is flexible. As mentioned previously, you can tailor the model to work for problems from the very simple to the very complex. There are issues with the weighted sum model as well. If too many criteria are chosen, it can become very time consuming and tedious. Also, if too many criteria are overly subjective the models analytical strength becomes a weakness; the model hides subjective assessments behind numbers and calculations. This can also lead to decision-makers manipulating the model to make it output the result they desire. For example, one could adjust the weights of the criteria after-the-fact to favor a pre-chosen COA. Finally the analytical nature of the weighted sum model can be misleading. Just because a COA has a higher score does not always mean that its better. It simply means that particular COA is more favorable in respect to the criteria chosen. The extent to which a decision maker develops their criteria and criteria weights in the second and third step will therefore determine the overall validity of the model. Military Decision-making Process The Army uses the Military Decision-Making Process (MDMP) extensively. While this model is designed for creating OPORDs, it can be scaled to any level of decision-making. It follows the seven step process listed below: 1. Receipt of Mission 2. Mission Analysis 3. Course of Action Development 4. Course of Action Analysis 5. Course of Action Comparison 6. Course of Action Approval 7. Orders Production 4

Process 1. Receipt of Mission A mission requirement is received from higher headquarters or the need for a mission arises, prompting the beginning of the decision making process. 2. Mission Analysis The commander begins battlefield visualization, the tactical problem is defined and feasible solutions development begins. 3. Course of Action Development Based off the commanders intent, the staff begins developing COAs for analysis and comparison. 4. Course of Action Analysis COAs are evaluated on how well they accomplish the mission and meet the commanders intent. Contingency plans are considered and coordination and resources requirements are identified. Wargaming is often used to determine the expected outcomes of the COAs. 5. Course of Action Comparison COAs are analyzed for their strengths and weaknesses. Feasible COAs are compared against each other as well as the enemys most likely response. 6. Course of Action Approval The commander picks the COA they feel will achieve the best outcome. The commander may reject all COAs and direct the staff to restart the planning process. The commander may choose to refine their intent at this point. Once a COA is selected the staff issues a warning order. 7. Orders Production The selected COA is broken down into clear directions for subordinate units. The commander reviews the final order and the OPORD is issued. Follow up briefings with subordinate units are conducted to insure receipt and understanding. (Field Manual 101-5, 1997) Strengths and Weaknesses The MDMP provides thorough, extensive analysis on multiple COAs for a decision-makers consideration. It provides a common structure that is followed uniformly in the Army, ensuring consistent decision-making. While the MDMP is scalable, it can become cumbersome to use for smaller, quicker decisions. It calls for extensive analysis that can take a great deal of man-hours. The intent is that there will be an entire staff working the MDMP, which may not always be the case. Maximax, Maximin and Minimax These are strategies that are based on the psychological orientation of the decision maker in a situation of uncertainty and risk. They all are based on calculating the expected losses or gains of a particular COA based on multiple unknown states. For example, a particular COA may be beneficial if events unfold in one particular manner but detrimental if events unfold in another manner. The three strategies in this model are as follows: 5

Maximax An optimist will try to maximize their maximum gain Maximin A pessimist will try to maximize their minimum gain Minimax A cautious decision-maker will try to minimize the maximum regret they will have from a decision

Process Maximax Look at each COA and choose the one with the highest possible gain. The maximax strategy assumes that events will unfold in the most favorable manner. Take the example below: Event A Event B COA Occurs Occurs 1 500 $ -200 $ 2 200 $ 0$ 3 400 $ -100 $ Table 2 Maximax Example Here, following a maximax strategy, a decision-maker should chose COA 1, which has the possibility of a gain of $500 whereas COA 2 can make at most $200 and COA 3 can make $400. Maximin Maximin focuses on minimum gains. The COA with the highest minimum gain should be chosen. Maximin assumes the worst case scenario will occur and seeks to maximize the decision-makers position when it does. In the Table 2 example, a maximin strategy would indicate a decision-maker should chose COA 2 as its worst case (0 $) is better than the worst case of both COA 1 (-200 $) and COA 3 (-100 $). Minimax Since it is impossible to predict the future, a decision may not always yield the maximum gain possible. Regret is measured by the difference between actual gains and possible gains given had a different COA been chosen. First, find the highest number in each column, which is the maximum gain possible, given that event occurs. The regret is the difference between that maximum gain for a given event and the actual gain for a COA. Applying this to Table 2 gives us the following results in Table 3: Event A COA Occurs regret 1 500 $ 0 2 200 $ 300 3 400 $ 100 Table 3 Minimax Example Event B Occurs -200 $ 0$ -100 $

regret 200 0 100

Here a decision maker using minimax would chose COA 3, because no other COA will ever yield more than $100 above COA 3 (i.e. COA 3 will never have a regret of more then 100). (Robins & Coulter, 2007) 6

Strengths and Weaknesses The Maximax, Maximin and Minimax model does a good job of guarding a decision-maker against uncertainty. It allows them to analyze multiple COAs against different possible events or future states. Like the weighted sum model, this model also shares the advantage of having a clear mathematical best choice. In fact, it offers up to three best choices based on the goals and risk orientation of the decision-maker and their organization (i.e. whether they are optimistic, pessimistic or regret oriented). The biggest weakness of the Maximax, Maximin and Minimax model is that it does not work well with decisions that do not have easily quantifiable outcomes. It does not have to be money as used in the example above, but subjective gains can be difficult to compare, weakening the results of the model. Recognition Primed Decision Model In the Recognition Primed Decision (RPD) Model a decision-maker draws on their previous experience to quickly reach a decision when faced with a situation they are familiar with. Classic decision-making models often require decision-makers to do calculations and analysis impractical in many crisis situations (firefighters, troops in contact, etc.). RPD bypasses most of this to allow quick, accurate decisions, even in stressful situations. Process This model can vary from simple to complex depending on the time available to make a decision and the familiarity of the decision-maker with the situation. All processes will follow these basic steps: 1. A decision-maker experiences a situation numerous times exposing them to an effective (or multiple effective) method of reacting to that situation. Experience validates the effectiveness of this reaction. The experience can be actual or simulated (i.e. trained). 2. The decision maker then encounters a situation similar or exactly the same 3. The situation is recognized as being one they are familiar with 4. The decision maker then utilizes the previously validated reaction for dealing with that situation, possibly adapting as appropriate to the current situation (Klein & Klinger, 1991) Strengths and Weaknesses The strongest aspect of the RPD model is its speed. It allows a decision-maker to reach a proven solution quickly in situations when it is not feasible to do a more involved, analytical model. Also, it is simple and easy to use. Because it does not involve the computations of the analytical models it is easy to adapt to many different situations and use effectively even in stressful, crisis situations. 7

The biggest drawback of the RPD model is that it rarely incorporates analysis of alternate COAs. Its focus is on quickly reaching a feasible COA, not necessarily the best one. Also, it can fail if the decision-maker does not have experience in the situation they find themselves in. This weakness however can be mitigated through training. Intuition Intuition is similar to RPD, but occurs at a subconscious level. In Malcolm Gladwells book, Blink: The Power of Thinking without Thinking (2005) Gladwell provides the following example of intuition: Vic Braden, a noted tennis coach who apparently has a supernatural ability to predict when a professional tennis player is going to double-fault. Yet Braden cannot explain how he knows the double fault will occur. Clearly decades of coaching tennis have left him with a predictive ability that functions either so rapidly or so subconsciously that he himself does not understand it. (as cited in Norton, 2006) Process This is a very quick strategy with no structure to follow. The decision-maker goes with their gut feeling. (Robins & Coulter, 2007) Strengths and Weaknesses This is the fastest model; decisions are made nearly instantaneously. It takes advantage of the human minds ability to quickly create complex associations on a subconscious level. Unfortunately, there is no way to judge the validity of the decision. It requires the decision maker to be an expert in the area of the decision. Also, there is no way to teach this model to a decision-maker. The only way decision-makers can hone their intuition skills is to learn as much as possible about areas they may be called to make decision in. Conclusion Decision-making is a process that will be unique to every individual and every situation. The models presented here will not always be useful in every situation. Memorizing the steps of these five models is not likely to make a CGO a better decision-maker. However, understanding different models and different strategies that can be used to make decisions will give CGOs a larger set of tools when they are faced with a variety of decisions. The most successful decisionmakers will determine how to combine aspects of the different models to form their own decision-making framework.

References Field Manual 101-5. (1997). Staff Organization and Operations. Klein, G. & Klinger, D. (1991, Winter). Naturalistic Decision-making. Human Systems IAC GATEWAY, 11 (3): 16-19. Norton, Richard (2006, Winter). [Review of the book Blink: The Power of Thinking without Thinking]. Naval War College Review. Retrieved from http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/navy/br10-w06.htm Robbins, S. P., & Coulter, M. (2007). Management (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.