Decision Support & Executive
Information Systems:
-
The Strategic Choice Approach
An Example of Soft Operational
Research
Amare Michael Desta
What does “Soft” OR Mean?

Not soft headed, irrational or lacking in
rigour;

But interpretative, qualitative and an
alternative to quantitative methods.
Rational Comprehensive Planning – A
‘Hard’ Decision Making Paradigm
Identify your goal or objective;
 Identify your possible courses of action;
 Predict the consequences of your
possible actions;
 Evaluate the consequences of your
possible actions;
 Select the action that best achieves
your objective or goal.

Hard v Soft Analytical
Characteristics
Hard
 Data available
 Single objective and
optimisation
 People are passive
 Attempts to abolish
uncertainty
Soft
 Data Unavailable
 Multiple objectives
and non-optimisation
 People are active
subjects
 Accepts uncertainty
and encourages
flexibility
Contribution of Soft OR
Some approaches view organisations as
machines that can be fine tuned;
 Soft OR views organisations as groups
of humans each with their own interests
and motivations;
 Soft OR contributes to understanding
the dynamics upon which organisations
work.

Contribution of Soft OR

Soft OR techniques allow a common
understanding of perspectives, roles,
worldviews and their interrelationships;

They make these perspectives explicit,
so that they can be understood by
others, discussed and acted upon.
Common Characteristics of
Soft OR Techniques
Do not claim to be able to define what
is true;
 They try to interpret, define, explore,
use (and possibly change) various
perspectives in the organisation;
 They enhance learning, understanding
and debate.

Hard v Soft OR
Hard OR is:
Soft OR is:
•
Tangible
•
Rather intangible
•
Easy to explain
•
Harder to explain
•
Easy to use
•
Harder to use
Problem Structuring Methods
Primary focus is usually on the people
involved with the problem;
 Secondary focus will be on the problem
itself;
 This can change our view of what we
mean by a successful intervention.

Origins of the Approach
•
•
•
•
•
More empirical than theoretical;
Describes some methods for dealing with
complex decision problems;
Based on observations of how managers cope
with dilemmas;
A mixture of practical and intuitive methods;
Recognises the importance of uncertainty,
and responses to types of uncertainty.
UE
UV
We need
clearer
policies
Uncertainty
about guiding
values
Uncertainty
about related
agendas
We need
more
information
How do we
respond to
this choice?
We need
broader
perspectives
Uncertainty
about our
working
environment
UR
Issues
Progress
Package
Shape
Decisions
Choose
Preferences
And
Uncertainties
Problem
Focus
Design
Compare
Range of Strategies
Crime is a real problem in this country. We
are spending more and more on locking up
increasing numbers of people in prisons,
yet crime goes on rising. Many of those in
prison are there for reasons connected with
medical problems (e.g. drug addiction,
mental illness) yet when they come out
these problems are unresolved and so they
go straight back to crime. Perhaps the
answer is longer prison sentences.
Dynamics of Strategic Choice
Shaping Mode

Decision areas are described as
questions – areas where alternative
courses of action are possible;

The decisions are then presented on a
decision graph.
Build more
Prisons?
Impose longer
Sentences?
Improve prison
Medical care
Increase rewards
For informing?
Identify Problem Focus
Select three or four decision areas;
 Usually these are important, urgent
and/or connected;
 Add any factors as necessary to the
uncertainty list.

Example Problem Focus
Build more prisons?
 Impose longer sentences?
 Increase rewards for informing?


Can we find more sites to build more
prisons (UE)?
Dynamics of Strategic Choice
Designing Mode
For each problem focus we:
List a small number actions in each
area;
 List incompatible options;
 List all feasible decision schemes by
selecting an action from each area.

Example Option Graph
Lines Show Incompatibilities
Build More Prisons?
Yes
No
Yes
Five More Ten More
No
Increase Rewards
For Informing?
Yes
No
Yes
Impose Longer Sentences?
Feasible Decision Schemes
Scheme
A
B
C
Build more Longer
Increase
prisons?
sentences? reward for
informing?
No
No
No
Yes
Five more
Yes
Ten more
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Uncertainty List
The list of uncertainties now has two
more factors:
1.
2.
3.
Can we find sites for more prisons
(UE)?
Will ten prisons be too many (UE)?
Will Government/legal profession
support longer sentences (UV)?
Dynamics of Strategic Choice
Comparing Mode
In this mode we compare the decision
schemes using:
1.
2.
Identifying comparison areas;
Within each area assign a value to
each scheme.
Example Comparison Areas
1.
2.
3.
4.
We can compare each scheme in
terms of:
Capital cost (£ millions);
Running costs (£ millions);
Acceptability to government (1–10
scale in which 1 is not acceptable) ;
Acceptability to the public (1-10
scale).
Comparison of Schemes
A
B
C
Capital
Cost
Running
Cost
Gov. View
0
200
400
0
40
75
3
5
9
Public
View
5
3
1
Comparison Schemes
In comparing schemes we must always
be aware of the uncertainty areas. In
comparing schemes A and B we must
consider the uncertainties associated
with scheme B.
Dynamics of Strategic Choice
Choosing Mode
We construct a commitment package
which consists of:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Decisions taken now;
Explorations to reduce uncertainty;
Decisions to be deferred until later;
Contingency plans.
Example Commitment
Package
Decisions taken now – none;
 Explorations
- identify sites for 5 prisons;
- consult government/legal agencies
over longer sentences;
 Decisions deferred – final decision on
scheme B;
 Contingency plans – none.

Conclusions
Technology
Provides a set of tools to facilitate and
structure communication. The way that
discussion sessions are structured and
run is important.
Conclusions (Contd…)
Organisation
The emphasis is on temporary groupings
of staff that cut across organisational
boundaries.
Process
Emphasis is on flexibility rather than strict
adherence to procedures.
Conclusions (Contd…)
Products
The process can produce not only visible
products like agreed actions and policy
changes, but also invisible products in the
form of changed perceptions and views of
participants.
Next week
Soft
Systems approach - Examples
SSM Methodology
And the CATWOE approach