This week's session notes - Week 6 (4 and 6 September 2018)

Hi everyone

On Tuesday we started with our usual revision test from the previous week.

We then moved on to a discussion around Assignment 2. I clarified a few things for students, including a rough (very rough) word guide for this assignment, of around 2,000 to 2,500 words. Please remember that the important thing is to complete the tasks that I will be awarding marks for and to ensure that you have included enough quality in your work to secure the available marks. Remember also that this assignment should be presented as a business proposal, in which you show off your understanding of PSDM, including referencing to academic work and other sources.

Following this, I asked you, “how do you open your banana?”

The usual way that I have always opened a banana is by tearing the stalk end of the banana and it appears that most students in the class do the same thing. However a few students have different techniques, including squeezing the opposite end of the banana to split the end open. This latter technique has some advantages over the former and it is something that I have tried using in recent years.

The question of “how do you open your banana?” may seem like a frivolous question but it has some quite revealing things to tell us about the way we approach problems and decisions. In my case, I have always opened the stalk end because that is what I was shown at an early age and all my friends and acquaintances used the same technique. In fact, this method became so familiar to me that I never stopped to think that there could be another way of doing it.

This example shows us how powerfully embedded some of our expectations and responses can be. In fact, if we take our own sets of experiences as our reference base, then it follows that our responses to problems may be heavily influenced by our existing biases, assumptions, preferences and perspectives. Seen in this light, it is worth asking ourselves how many things that we take for granted could possibly be done in other (maybe better) ways?

Leaving the banana behind, we moved on to a discussion about problems and decisions. We tried defining what a problem actually is and we noted several definitions, some of which are included in the following list:

* A desire to move from one state to another

* A barrier that needs to be overcome

* A matter or situation regarded as unwelcome or harmful and needing to be dealt with and overcome

* A perceived gap between the existing state and a desired state (or a deviation from a norm, standard, or status quo)

* A situation, person, or thing that needs attention and needs to be dealt with or solved.

We then tried grouping the ideas within these definitions into three key themes.

* States / things (e.g. gaps, barriers, obstacles, challenges which need to be addressed). This is the obstacle or hurdle metaphor where we need to move from somewhere or over / around something else.

* Perceptions / feelings (e.g. undesirability, dissatisfaction, imperfection that we want to change). This is the broken ladder metaphor where something needs to be fixed.

* Actions (e.g. transition, change, solution that we want to move towards). This is the ‘change ahead’ sign metaphor.

We then looked at how problems can be categorised depending on how difficult they are to solve. Under this schema, we have problems which range from tame (very simple and easy to address) through to wicked (difficult, complex and resistive to being solved). We also looked at super-wicked problems which may be inherently insoluble because of complexity or because they are beyond our ability to understand properly.

These discussions lead us to programmed and non-programmed decision making.

Programmed decisions are routine and almost automatic. Examples include:

* Managers making decisions which they have made many times before

* Situations where there are rules or guidelines to follow

* Examples such as deciding to reorder office supplies.

Non-programmed decisions relate to unusual situations that are not addressed very often. With non-programmed decisions:

* There are no existing rules to follow since the situation is new

* These decisions are made based on information, and a manger’s intuition, and judgment

* Example: Should the firm invest in a new technology?

We looked at some simple maths problems (e.g. what is 4x4?) to illustrate programmed problems and decisions which we have been trained to solve through repetition and practice.

As an example of a non-programmed problem / decision we tried counting squares in a 3x3 design. This is a simple exercise once we ‘programme in’ how the rules work and what we are looking for. However, the first time that we do this it is non-programmed and we can make errors through omission and misdetection.

We also spent a bit of time thinking about how problems can be dealt with. Generally, we think of problems being solved, but it is also possible to resolve or even dissolve them.

* Solve – optimum solution

* Resolve – ‘good enough’ solution

* Dissolve – remove the problem.

A good example of this is when we get hungry. We can solve the problem of hunger by eating a meal (which is the optimum or perfect solution). Alternatively, we can resolve it with a ‘good enough’ solution such as a handful of sweets to keep us going. Another solution is to dissolve the problem through a distraction such as kicking a football around.

Then we moved on to heuristics.

Heuristics are ‘rules of thumb’ which we use to get us through problem situations. We use these when we don’t have time or opportunity to make a more detailed analysis of a situation. Often, our heuristics are so familiar to us that they act as programmed responses. So, heuristics are:

* A resolution method

* Mental shortcuts

* Rules and strategies that are ‘mostly right’.

We then tried to find various heuristics that we use for simple tasks such as:

* Crossing a road

* Forecasting the weather

* Going to the supermarket.

More specifically, we looked at particular examples of various types of heuristics:

* Special: Limit of 3 per customer! (anchoring heuristic)

* We generally buy what we are use to (familiarity heuristic)

* If it is rare / expensive then it must be valuable / good (scarcity heuristic)

* If others buy it then I should buy it too (acceptance / endorsement heuristic)

* If someone I trust recommends it then I will try it (authority / trust heuristic).

Finally, we tried our hand at a relatively simple critical thinking exercise in which we had to move orcs and hobbits from one side of a river to another.

The rules for this exercise were quite simple:

* Move everyone to the other side of the river

* Boat can hold only two at a time

* Never leave more orcs than hobbits on either side, or the orcs will eat the hobbits!

This exercise was quite interesting for a number of reasons. One of the things that I noticed was the way that the group members interacted in this exercise, and you might like to reflect on the group dynamics as we will talk about group decision making later in the semester.

The other interesting thing was the way that the group progressed from attempting to solve the problem ‘on their feet’, to using pen and paper and then trying to solve the problem in practice. In effect, the group was trying different methods as they realised the limitations of each previous method. Some of the challenges here included trying to accommodate six people’s ideas, while dealing with complex information and trying to solve an unusual (and unfamiliar) problem.

We then worked through ‘the proof’ that the exercise could be done within the rules and noted that this is actually an example of a problem which requires critical thinking. At its simplest, this problem is a mathematical exercise, with a clear-cut solution in the form of a set sequence of actions. Each time that we cross the river there is only a set number of possible combinations (one hobbit; one orc; two hobbits; two orcs; one hobbit and one orc) and we can even create a decision tree showing what each permutation leads to.

There are no ‘creative’ solutions to this problem (e.g. dam the river and walk across) and we have to rely on a series of logical steps, with if-then logic (e.g. “If an orc and a hobbit make the first trip across the river then the hobbit must make the return trip alone”). Next week we will contrast this sort of problem with other types of PSDM approaches.

On Thursday, we started looking at PS and DM in the workplace. We asked: What sort of problems do we encounter in the business world? I asked you to think about problems which you might have encountered in the workplace and to list these problem area.

We came up with a wide range of answers, including people, communication, workload, market, financial, security and cultural problems.

Some of these problems can be grouped as follows:

* HR / People problems (staff, customers, public)

* Production problems (quality, workflows)

* Logistical (distribution, storage, etc.)

* Management (decisions, strategy, governance, etc.)

* Market intelligence (predictions, foresight, trends)

* Other?

I the split the class into four groups and I asked each group to search for jobs, using one of the following search terms and sources.

Group

Keyword / search term

Source

Group 1

‘Problem solving’

Seek.co.nz (www.seek.co.nz)

Group 2

‘Problem solving’

TradeMe (www.trademe.co.nz/jobs)

Group 3

‘Decision making’

Seek.co.nz (www.seek.co.nz)

Group 4

‘Decision making’

TradeMe (www.trademe.co.nz/jobs)

Our interest was in finding out what sort of PSDM jobs there are and whether the job advertisements can give us any insights into what the PS or DM roles require. The powerpoints from each group are up on Moodle for you to look at.

Some of our findings from previous years include the following:

* Employers are looking for people who can solve problems for clients

* Employers are looking for people who can solve basic problems without the need to be supervised by managers or other employees

* Employees who work away from base need to be able to identify and implement solutions as they develop.

You might also like to try this exercise when you are browsing for jobs. In theory, you should be able to impress a prospective employer if you can identify relevant problems and discuss solutions with them. By understanding the problems that various businesses face, we can improve both our knowledge of PSDM and our value as employees.

Have a good weekend and I will see you all on Tuesday.

Cheers

Phil