Thought of the Day - Complex Decision Making

I just read an article in the 'Boss' supplement from The Australian Financial Review which was a reprint from the Harvard Business Review (June 2006). It concerns something that i have given a fair amount of thought to but never really considered from this angle; how to get a group to decide between many options.

In the past i have largely focused on tools like; the Pugh Matrix, Analytic Hierarchy Process, Impact-Effort Matrix and simple voting. While these techniques result in a decision, what i failed to consider is that just because an option is selected doesn't mean that there is broad agreement with the decision. The article focused on the CEO/Leader as a deadlock breaker and the negative aspect that they become a 'dictator by default' and while i suspect that is a frequent occurrence, the problem is equally valid in groups of peers.

The crux of the problem is summed up in this quote; "majority wishes can clash when a group of three or more people attempt to set priorities among three or more items ... different subsets of the group can generate conflicting majorities for all possible alternatives". E.g. Persons 1 and 2 agree on option A but persons 2 and 3 also agree on option C, by selecting option A you satisfy 1 and 2 but C would have been an equally valid choice as you satisfy 2 and 3.

Once you accept that point, it suggests that it is impossible to resolve this conflict. However this assumes that there are only fixed options, the article advises that you carry out the following steps to come to a better solution:
1) Articulate clearly what outcome you are seeking - Classic problem solving, you can't solve a problem until there is a common understanding of what the problem is.
2) Provide a range of options for achieving the outcome - Again classic problem solving, brainstorm as many solutions as possible.
3) Surface preferences early - There is no point wasting time on options that no-one has any interest in, by eliminating them you don't waste time on pointless debate. This step can be done through voting, possibly weighted, or other techniques.
4) State each option's pros and cons - See the good and bad on both sides, in the article it is recommended for someone to present the pros and another person to present the cons, one may have to play devils advocate.
5) Devise new options with the best features of existing ones - Again classic problem solving technique, synthesize new options by combing the best parts of old ones.

While these steps don't solve the decision making dilemma they will help. I think most important of all is to acknowledge that this problem exists, preferably within the group making the decision, so that you know the pitfalls while you are making the choice.