Lets do a playback!! Can we run through the last one year or for that one month, and play back the number of decisions we took. Then slot them, to what degree of certainty [relatively firm vs a decent possibility] we thought we would end up sticking to the decisions [probably based on extraneous precedent activities]. Then do a check on actually how things happened really. What % of the firm decisions materialized and what % of the possibilities materialized.
Another way of looking at the same conundrum. Lets say we took x no. of stated firm decisions, and we are some maha gentleman or lady and make sure we stick to all our firm decisions over a period of finite time frame. Then at after the decisions are made and a good few weeks later post the time frame – we look back at all our decisions from afar. And assess what % of our firm decisions were correct decisions [based on subsequent info received during the decision time frame].
I somehow have a feeling, - as being the lazy me, I predictably have not carried the exercise myself – that answers to questions for most time frames for most people – will not be very high nos. At least there is a decent possibility, of not arriving a statistically significant result for a high co-relation [say more than 65%, i.e 2/3rd] between a firm decision and a actual happening; or in the second case a firm decision vs. a good decision.
In that sense, why do we need to always take decisions. Communicate stated positions. Why can’t we just have a mental direction and keep changing with every incremental information. I think its about the degree of uncertainty or flux which we can and what to handle at any point in time. Lets call it the magnitude of decision flux. The higher the better for taking an individual decision.
However, when there are multiple stake-holders involved with different levels of accepted decision flux. There is a possibility of a de-stabilisation and/or total sub-optima in terms of mental trauma and/or operational inefficiencies [because of the concomitant leakages associated with factoring uncertainties].
In such a case there would probably be a range for the optimum decision flux. And not a monotonous curve, i.e not more the merrier, higher the better decision flux.
Maybe sometime, I will have the patience theoretical solidity and intellectual rigour to design an experiment and test this.
Some random, thoughts those.
Bhubaneshwar
July 31/Aug 1 2010
ps: When I first thought about blogging on this topic, I had some very different topic. I was actually keen to look at it from the third from last para and create a stroy around it. But interstingly wrote almost a Ph.D synopsis on human [not consumer or biz/work] decision theories.
Pps: What seems intriguing – and that’s what partly triggered the post, and if I wd taken the route in ‘ps’, I might hv painted a small sub-story around…is that while it seems the optimal decision flux density [allow me this jargon] is not expected to close to zero in any case…..why is that….most people sincerity / dependability / compatibility is judged many times on this be as close as possible to zero. Very interesting!!!! nah.??? :)
Another way of looking at the same conundrum. Lets say we took x no. of stated firm decisions, and we are some maha gentleman or lady and make sure we stick to all our firm decisions over a period of finite time frame. Then at after the decisions are made and a good few weeks later post the time frame – we look back at all our decisions from afar. And assess what % of our firm decisions were correct decisions [based on subsequent info received during the decision time frame].
I somehow have a feeling, - as being the lazy me, I predictably have not carried the exercise myself – that answers to questions for most time frames for most people – will not be very high nos. At least there is a decent possibility, of not arriving a statistically significant result for a high co-relation [say more than 65%, i.e 2/3rd] between a firm decision and a actual happening; or in the second case a firm decision vs. a good decision.
In that sense, why do we need to always take decisions. Communicate stated positions. Why can’t we just have a mental direction and keep changing with every incremental information. I think its about the degree of uncertainty or flux which we can and what to handle at any point in time. Lets call it the magnitude of decision flux. The higher the better for taking an individual decision.
However, when there are multiple stake-holders involved with different levels of accepted decision flux. There is a possibility of a de-stabilisation and/or total sub-optima in terms of mental trauma and/or operational inefficiencies [because of the concomitant leakages associated with factoring uncertainties].
In such a case there would probably be a range for the optimum decision flux. And not a monotonous curve, i.e not more the merrier, higher the better decision flux.
Maybe sometime, I will have the patience theoretical solidity and intellectual rigour to design an experiment and test this.
Some random, thoughts those.
Bhubaneshwar
July 31/Aug 1 2010
ps: When I first thought about blogging on this topic, I had some very different topic. I was actually keen to look at it from the third from last para and create a stroy around it. But interstingly wrote almost a Ph.D synopsis on human [not consumer or biz/work] decision theories.
Pps: What seems intriguing – and that’s what partly triggered the post, and if I wd taken the route in ‘ps’, I might hv painted a small sub-story around…is that while it seems the optimal decision flux density [allow me this jargon] is not expected to close to zero in any case…..why is that….most people sincerity / dependability / compatibility is judged many times on this be as close as possible to zero. Very interesting!!!! nah.??? :)
Comments
Post a Comment