The Framework for Strategic Management
2.8 Feedback Phase
Provision must be made throughout the decision process for feedback. Feedback occurs, intentionally or unintentionally, at many stages in the decision process.
Much of this feedback is internal to the process, resulting in a recycling of a
particular phase in order to achieve further refinements and modifications. The feedback that has an impact on the entire decision process generally occurs at two points: (1) after the decision has been made and action programs have been initiated, and (2) whenever internal demands are created within the organization.
In both cases, new demands (inputs) may be generated, causing the process to recycle.
Information monitoring and reporting is particularly important after a decision has been reached. This feedback is necessary to provide continuous testing of expectations against actual results. Even the best decision has a high probability of being wrong. Even the most effective decision eventually becomes obsolete. Failure to provide for adequate feedback is one of the primary reasons for persisting in a course of action long after it has ceased to be appropriate or rational. The advent of the computer has made it possible to compile and analyze great quantities of feedback data in a relatively short time period. It must be recognized, however, that computers can handle only abstractions. Abstractions can be relied upon only if they are constantly checked against concrete results.
Unless decision makers build their feedback around direct exposure to reality, their decision may result in sterile dogmatism [16].
A basic aspect of the decision process is the development of a predictive capacity within the organization to identify changing conditions that might necessitate modifications in the selected course of action. Controls should be developed for a given solution by:
1. Defining what constitutes a significant change for each variable and relationship that appears as a component in the decision;
2. Establishing procedures for detecting the occurrence of such changes;
and
3. Specifying the tolerable range within which the solution can be modified if such changes occur and beyond which new solutions must be sought.
3 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Although this prescriptive model of decision making is present in eight distinct stages, it would be misleading to assume that real-life problems are obliging enough to permit an easy, logical sequence of attention. As Joseph Cooper observed, problems
conceal their true nature so that halfway down the path of a decision you may find that you must retrace your steps for a new beginning. Or you may have alternatives for decisions presented to you which, in your belief, are not the only and best possible courses. This, too, will send you back to the beginning [17].
Alternatives seldom are created by moving in an orderly sequence from the first stage to the last. It is not uncommon for new alternatives to occur from time to time while data are still being collected. Moreover, in a complex situation, different phases of the process may develop at different rates. For example, the stage of alternative formulation may be reached for one aspect of a complex problem, while other parts of the same problem are still at the stage of definition and analysis. Thus, in a complex, difficult problem situation, various stages may appear simultaneously in different aspects of the same problem.
Nevertheless, it is necessary to approach the patterns of decision making stage by stage in order to adequately analyze the process. Only in this way is it possible to uncover meaningful and useful insights into how the process can be improved.
ENDNOTES
1. For a further discussion of general systems theory and its applications to organi- zations, see: Ludwig von Bertalanffy. General Systems Theory. New York: George Braziller, 1968; W. Ross Ashby. An Introduction to Cybernetics. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1963; Alan Walter Steiss. Models for the Analysis and Planning of Urban Systems. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, 1974, chapter 7; Alan Walter Steiss. Strategic Management and Organizational Decision Making. Lexing- ton, Mass.: Lexington Books, 1985, chapter 2.
2. Charles E. Lindblom. The Intelligence of Democracy. New York: Free Press, 1965.
3. Herbert A. Simon. Administrative Behavior, 2nd edition. New York: Macmillan, 1957.
4. Herbert A. Simon. Administrative Behavior, 2nd edition. New York: Macmillan, 1957, chapter 9.
5. Amitai Etzioni. Mixed scanning: a third approach to decision making. Public Administration Review. Vol. 27, December 1967, pp. 309–390.
6. Filmer S. C. Northrup. The Logic of the Sciences and the Humanities. New York:
Macmillan, 1947, p. 1.
7. David A. Easton. A Systems Analysis of Political Life. New York: John Wiley &
Sons, 1965, p. 38.
8. John Dewey. Logic: The Theory of Inquiry. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1938, p. 105.
9. David A. Easton. A Systems Analysis of Political Life. New York: John Wiley &
Sons, 1965, p. 21. (Easton makes a distinction between inputs and withinputs, the latter referring to demands that are generated from within the organization.) 10. John Dewey. Logic: The Theory of Inquiry. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
1938, p. 105.
11. Anatol Rapoport. What is information? ETC: A Review of General Semantics.
Vol. 10, Summer 1953, p. 252.
12. Peter F. Drucker. The effective decision. Harvard Business Review. Vol. 45, January–
February 1967, pp. 92–104.
13. Peter F. Drucker. The effective decision. Harvard Business Review. Vol. 45, January–
February 1967, p. 95.
14. Robert W. Morell. Managerial Decision-Making. Milwaukee, WI.: Bruce Publish- ing, 1960, p. 22.
15. Peter F. Drucker. The Practice of Management. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1954, p. 363.
16. Peter F. Drucker. The effective decision. Harvard Business Review. Vol. 45, January–
February 1967, p. 95.
17. Joseph D. Cooper. The Art of Decision-Making. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1961, pp. 15–16.