CHAPTER 7
Generating Decision Alternatives
When only one course of action is possible (and action must be taken), there are no decision alternatives to compare. Additionally, the best decision cannot be made when there are too few alternatives. The best decisions usually result when many decision alternatives are considered and a strategy exists for arriving at the best decision. An effective strategy consists of three tasks. The first task is to generate a sufficient number of unique alternatives. In the second task, alternatives must be evaluated by defining how well each does on a set of objectives and making value trade-offs for their differences. Having the right information is critical to this task. Task three consists of searching for newer alternatives that provide higher value in meeting objectives than a previously selected alternative under task two. Project managers can increase their chances of arriving at the single best decision alternative by using this strategy. When no strategy exists, not only are important alternatives overlooked but a bad decision can be the result.
This chapter describes searching for alternatives and trades between alternatives and addresses when more information and analysis is needed in order to generate additional alternatives that produce higher value in reaching managerial objectives. How to apply the decision frame in dealing with decision alternatives is also presented.
This chapter presents the following sections:
The Problem Definition Process
Searching for Alternatives
Using All Alternatives to Find Additional Alternatives
Determining the Need for More Information and Analysis
Alternatives and Decision Frames—The Cuban Missile Crisis.
The Problem Definition Process
In this chapter, the focus is on generating decision alternatives. This is a new term being introduced to the project management community. We do not find this terminology in the PMBOK® Guide, in project management training, or in project management organizations. We define a decision alternative as a feasible or candidate solution that has the potential to satisfy stakeholder needs, wants, and desires.
Stakeholder needs, wants, and desires are expressed as functions, objectives, and values that exist for the project management organization and for the product or system being developed by the organization. To develop good decision alternatives, project managers need information that will aid them in understanding the needs, wants, and desires of every stakeholder relevant to the project. How do project managers gather this information? The need is initially defined by a designated stakeholder and is revised through a process we call problem definition.
Every project begins with a problem; the problem must be fully defined before appropriate solutions can be developed. In project management, the project has a problem, the product has a problem, and the organization has a problem. The project must meet cost, schedule, and product performance objectives. The product must satisfy client needs, wants, and desires. The organization must satisfy business objectives. Identification of a problem results in identification of an objective. Problems can be separate and distinct, but in project management objectives are often interdependent.
Project managers cannot perform their functions without organizational support, the product cannot realize its objectives without management and organizational support, and the organization cannot realize its objectives without a successful product. The problem definition process helps stakeholders define their problem before an attempt is made to develop feasible solutions that satisfy objectives. Two examples—the BMW Z3 and the Walkman by Sony—are presented in Appendix A. Each begins with identification of a problem. Organizational and product objectives that address the problem are defined. Project decisions that result in overall project success are made, enabling organizational and product objectives to be met.
The problem definition process consists of three key tasks: stakeholder analysis, functional analysis, and value analysis. As already stated, project managers are concerned with three problem definitions: (1) one for the project, (2) one for the product or service being performed, and (3) one for the project organization. The problem or need is defined by analyzing the stakeholders involved, analyzing the functions of the organization and of the product or services to be provided, and understanding decision-maker values for both the organization and the product.
Stakeholder Analysis
Stakeholder analysis assists the project manager in identifying stakeholders and in identifying their needs, wants, and desires relative to the problem. Stakeholders can include decision makers, consumers, users, clients, owners, bill payers, regulatory agencies, sponsors, project managers, project team members, manufacturers, and marketers.
The project manager must be concerned with the needs, wants, and desires of both the project organization and end users. This can be achieved by performing a literature review of relevant laws, organizational policies, applicable studies previously performed, and pertinent discipline-specific principles and by consulting with every stakeholder relevant to the project. Interviews, focus groups, and surveys are other methods that can be used to gain an understanding of the problem. The output of the stakeholder analysis is a clear definition of the problem, which is negotiated between the decision maker or client and the engineer and project manager.
Functional Analysis
Functional analysis is the second task. It assists the project manager in identifying the key functions and objectives that the selected decision alternative must satisfy. A function is defined as “a characteristic task, action, or activity that must be performed to achieve a desired outcome” (Trainor and Parnell 2008). For the project, a sample function can be “meet cost.” For a product (e.g., an automobile), a sample function might be “conserve gas.” For a company, a sample function might be “generate profit.” Functions are usually identified during the stakeholder analysis process through interviews, focus groups, and surveys. Decision makers or their designated representatives are responsible for validating the functions required to meet project objectives, product objectives, and organizational objectives. The output of the functional analysis process is a functional hierarchy.
A functional hierarchy is a hierarchical display of the functions and sub-functions that are necessary and sufficient to achieve the system objectives (Trainor and Parnell 2008); it is represented by a fundamental objective, functions, and objectives, as shown in Figure 7-1. The fundamental objective is defined by the problem. Objectives support functions, unless sub-functions exist. When sub-functions exist, objectives directly support sub-functions. Functions are represented as verb object phrases, and objectives are represented as “Minimize,” “Maximize,” or “Optimize.”
FIGURE 7-1: Functional Hierarchy
Value Analysis
In value analysis, we are evaluating the future value of the decision alternative based on how well it supports project, product, and organizational objectives. This future value of each decision alternative can be described qualitatively or characterized quantitatively or both. (We will discuss each approach in later sections of this book.) We use information available from stakeholder and functional analysis to create these values that can be used to evaluate decision alternatives. Most, but not all, of the values are defined by stakeholders. In most cases, values are defined by owners, users, and consumers. In the design and development of an automobile, we would be concerned about the values of the maintenance technician (owner), the user (driver), and the consumer (also the driver). In this example, passengers are also considered consumers. Within the project organization, values are likely defined by a number of decision authorities in addition to the stakeholders (the CEO, the CFO, the CIO, accountants, financial analysts, the program manager, the project manager, and the project team).
The output of the value analysis process is a qualitative value hierarchy. A qualitative value hierarchy is a functional hierarchy that includes a value measure for each objective. Examples of a qualitative value hierarchy are shown for a generic project in Figure 7-2 and for the design and development of a vehicle (product) in Figure 7-3. Upon development of a qualitative value hierarchy, a value measure range is developed for each value measure.
FIGURE 7-2: Project Management Value Hierarchy
FIGURE 7-3: Vehicle Design Value Hierarchy
The value measure range is a scale that is used to assess how well each decision alternative satisfies objectives contained in the hierarchy. The range interval begins with a minimal acceptable value and ends with a maximal acceptable value. Value measure ranges are defined by stakeholders.
Using the example in Figure 7-3, stakeholders (users/consumers) might define the value measure range for “mpg” as 20 mpg-35 mpg. In this example, 20 mpg is of minimal value (0), and 35 mpg is of maximal value (1, 10, or 100). Decision alternatives take values of 0 to, perhaps, 100, depending on the miles per gallon attained. This is represented in the table and graph shown in Chapter 8, in Figure 8-5. The decision alternative that best satisfies the fundamental objective based on the value that it provides across all value measures (miles per gallon, horsepower, dollars, cubic feet, and passengers) becomes the decision solution. Projects, products, and organizations can have many functions and objectives. A qualitative value hierarchy presents functions and objectives in an easy-to-read format that makes the assessment of decision alternatives simpler. Value analysis marks the end of the problem definition process.
We view the problem definition process as the most difficult process in project management and perhaps the most important; the wrong problem will most likely produce the wrong solution. At the completion of the problem definition process, project managers should expect to have:
A well-defined problem that meets the approval of key stakeholders
A set of organizational functions and objectives
Defined organizational values used to measure success
A set of product or system functions and objectives
Defined product or system values used to measure performance
A well-defined trade space, the difference between the key alternatives on the value objectives being used to evaluate the alternatives
An initial risk analysis
Definition and development of the required decisions and the decision solutions based on the problem definition.
At this point, we can begin the search for decision alternatives or solutions that satisfy functions, objectives, and values for both the organization and the product or service managed by the project manager.
Searching for Alternatives
Every successful organization has a clearly defined set of managerial objectives. Every successful organization also has an effective strategy for meeting or exceeding its objectives. The strategy is not rocket science nor is it the best-kept secret. The key is making and implementing the right decision solution.
The first step in making a decision is to ensure that information is gathered about every possible decision alternative. For example, information must be gathered on the project location, the type of project organization, resource allocation, and project member skills. Every alternative that is generated is then evaluated based on how each performs in satisfying cost, schedule, and performance objectives. Because each alternative carries with it some degree of uncertainty and risk, the decision solution must also consider techniques to reduce these.
Although there are many techniques for searching for alternatives, certain key elements should be present during the search process (Leigh 1983):
Fluency: The production of a large number of ideas
Flexibility: The production of a large variety of ideas
Elaboration: The development, embellishment, or filling out of an idea
Originality: The use of ideas that are not obvious, banal, or common in the statistical sense.
Techniques that embrace these elements will produce a sufficient number of alternatives relevant to managerial objectives. A basic model for generating alternatives is shown in Figure 7-4. We begin with generating ideas and then we refine those ideas. Refined ideas turn into alternatives. In the final step, we screen or evaluate those alternatives against how well they meet project objectives. This model allows for feedback and iteration.
FIGURE 7-4: The Ideation Process
The remainder of this section outlines various methods or creative techniques that have been found useful for creating and developing alternatives, including brainstorming, brainwriting, and groupware. Some are used best by individuals while others are best suited to group use.
Brainstorming
Brainstorming is a group creativity technique designed to generate a large number of ideas or alternatives for the solution to a problem. Brainstorming is a lateral thinking process in which groups of 8 to 12 people come up with ideas and thoughts that are uncensored and in very rough form—they may even seem at first to be a bit shocking, or perhaps “wild and crazy.” The environment should be relaxed and should include a facilitator who leads the brainstorming session, encouraging participation and writing ideas down as they are contributed orally by group members. During the brainstorming process, preliminary ideas that have been offered by the group are then modified by the group, led by the facilitator, and by the end of the session, those changed ideas have been transformed into useful ideas that can often be stunningly original. This popular technique was developed over 65 years ago and is based on five basic rules (West 2008):
No criticism of ideas: All judgment of ideas is deferred, and participants feel free to voice all ideas without fear of judgment of the idea or themselves. Ideas should be evaluated only at the end of the brainstorming session.
Encourage wild and exaggerated ideas: “Wild and crazy” ideas often contain nuggets of unique insight that can be built upon. Such ideas will be refined and filtered during later concept evaluation.
Seek large quantities of ideas: Brainstorming sessions are fast-paced and spontaneous. Ideas produced in this fashion are not only useful in their own right but are frequently catalysts for other ideas from group members.
Build on each other’s ideas. Ideas offered from one person’s perspective often trigger wholly new ideas from others.
Focus on quantity: This rule is a means of enhancing divergent production, aiming to facilitate problem solving through the quantity of ideas. The assumption is that the greater the number of ideas generated, the greater the chance of producing a radical solution that is effective.
The sole product of a brainstorming session is a list of ideas. Nothing is rejected or criticized in the early stages; however, one disadvantage of brainstorming is the dominance of the group by one or more individuals. In later stages, ideas are evaluated, forged, and modified for acceptance based on their feasibility of meeting managerial objectives.
Brainwriting
Brainwriting is brainstorming in silence, and it is particularly useful with a group of people who are somewhat reticent and would be unlikely to offer many ideas in an open group session like brainstorming. The objective in using brainwriting is to eliminate the influence of dominant individuals and vocal majorities. There are two variations of brainwriting. In structured brainwriting, ideas are written on a piece of paper that is passed from member to member. Ideas are added to the list or existing ideas on the list (made by others) are developed further. In unstructured brainwriting, ideas are written on note cards and collected in a central location. The project manager can sift through the lists generated and make a selection of feasible alternatives.
Groupware
Groupware is term that refers to software that allows geographically dispersed people to collaborate. It has become a popular tool for use in conducting brainstorming sessions and other types of collaboration. A main advantage of groupware over other techniques is that it allows people to work together remotely. Another advantage over traditional in-person brainstorming is that groupware emphasizes anonymity.
Some of the more common reasons people want to use groupware include:
To facilitate communication
To enable communication where it would not otherwise be possible
To reduce travel costs
To bring together multiple perspectives and expertise
To form groups with common interests where it would not be possible to gather a sufficient number of people face-to-face
To save time and cost in coordinating group work
To facilitate group problem solving
Examples of groupware tools include GroupSystems®, email, newsgroups, shared whiteboards, teleconferencing, and video-teleconferencing.
Other valuable techniques exist, but these three techniques are most commonly used in generating alternatives for projects. Another technique, morphological analysis, is presented in the next section.
Using All Alternatives to Find Additional Alternatives
Morphological analysis is a comprehensive way of listing and examining the total set of possible combinations that might be useful in solving a given problem. Current alternatives are laid out in a manner that produces additional alternatives. The process is conducted in five steps (West 2008):
Concisely formulate the problem to be solved.
Localize all parameters that might be important for the solution (decision).
Construct a multidimensional matrix containing all possible solutions (decision alternatives).
Assess all solutions against the purposes to be achieved.
Select suitable solutions for application or iterative morphological study.
Table 7-1 provides an example of a project design using morphological analysis. Morphological analysis breaks an alternative down into characteristics or components. Several possibilities are defined for each characteristic, enabling many alternatives to be identified as a combination of one or more possibilities from each of the characteristics. Table 7-1 provides a simple example for identifying alternatives for setting up the project office. The first column simply counts the number of possibilities in the other columns. The second through fourth columns are labeled with the characteristic names. The cells in a particular column associated with a characteristic are filled in with possible solutions for that characteristic. So for project organization the possible solutions are pure, matrix, functional, and mixed. It is important to note that there need not be the same number of possibilities in each column, but there do need to be at least two possibilities in each column or that characteristic is not worth including. Empty cells in Table 7-1 have been shaded.
When we have adopted the rule that an alternative must include one and only one possibility from each characteristic, the total number of alternatives is the product of the number of possibilities for each characteristic. In Table 7-1 there are 72 possible combinations (4 × 3 × 2 × 3).
TABLE 7-1: Project Design Morphological Box
Determining the Need for More Information and Analysis
Information is necessary to fashion alternatives that are relevant to the managerial objectives. When a sufficient number of feasible alternatives are generated, they are analyzed and evaluated to determine a satisfactory solution. Until this happens, additional information might be required. However, because project managers will never have enough information, they must seek a balance in their search activity among (1) the cost of additional information, (2) the amount of the perceived payoffs, and (3) the amount of time they have to devote to gathering additional information.
At some point, additional information becomes increasingly difficult to obtain, but the cost climbs exponentially (Harrison 1987). And as the cost climbs, marginal value begins to decrease. Only a limited amount of effort should be devoted to the search activity to prevent a cost/payoff imbalance from occurring. Additionally, no matter how much time and money are spent in pursuit of additional information that can be formulated into alternatives, the search can never obtain all the information related to a particular objective (Harrison 1987). The project manager must keep the project on track and operate within the budget for this phase of the project. Do your best—make the best of what you have and move the project forward.
Alternatives and Decision Frames—The Cuban Missile Crisis
As mentioned in Chapter 6, decision frames can help in the task of analyzing decisions. The decision frame captures important information and presents a snapshot view of critical elements that the project manager should consider in making a decision. The limitation of the decision frame is that it provides only the context for the decision. A decision aid, such as those covered in the next chapter and in Appendix C, is needed to make a choice from the alternatives. The case of the Cuban Missile Crisis is presented here to demonstrate how to apply a decision matrix when dealing with alternatives. A decision matrix considers the decision frame in arriving at the best decision alternative to satisfy the problem.
Background
In 1962, President John F. Kennedy was faced with deciding what action to take in response to the Soviet missile buildup in Cuba. The Soviet move began in the spring of 1962. The presence of missiles was revealed on October 14, 1962, when they were nearly operational. The problem with this was the danger of nuclear war. The positioning of long-range nuclear missiles in Cuba placed the Soviets in a position that threatened U.S. security in the Western Hemisphere.
The background of this project defines the context for the decision.
| Cuban Missile Crisis Decision Frame for Responsive Action |
| Context for Decision: |
| Stakeholders: Cuba, Soviets, China, US citizens |
| Resource Constraints: Time |
Environment: Social: good relations with Soviets, worldview Organizational: none Legal: use of nuclear weapons against other nations Natural: impact of radioactive fallout |
| Broad Objectives: destroy missile threat |
| Use Cases: |
The Fundamental Objectives, Uncertainties, and Decision Alternatives
Several objectives that would provide the framework for the decision were identified. Because cost was not a factor, there were no cost objectives. However, time was an important objective. Project success was based on several performance objectives. The United States wanted Soviet removal of the missiles, world support for its position, and a weakening of the Sino-Soviet relationship.
Because of the potential for nuclear war, there was a great deal of uncertainty surrounding the selection of a particular alternative. This was indeed a very sensitive situation. How would the Soviets react to the action taken? What was the possibility of a nuclear war? How would the United States be viewed by the world? These were some of the uncertainties that the United States had to consider when deciding how to act. In search of alternatives, the Executive Committee of the National Security Council was primarily constrained by limited information. This lack of information made it difficult to determine for certain a particular outcome, regardless of the alternative chosen. To meet the overall and fundamental objectives of the project, seven alternatives were defined. The first objective was the movement of missiles out of Cuba. Second, a shifting of world power was intolerable. Third, the defense of the Western Hemisphere had to be preserved. Fourth, a U.S. response should not sway world opinion in support of the Soviets. Fifth, a U.S. response should retain the favor of public opinion in the U.S. Sixth, a U.S. response should not strengthen the relationship between the Soviets and the Communist Chinese. Finally, a U.S. response should not result in a permanent rupture in U.S. relations with the Soviets.
The remaining aspects of the decision frame are presented next.
The Comparison and Evaluation of Alternatives
Although equipped with limited information, the Executive Committee continued its search for feasible alternatives. Its efforts resulted in the following six decision alternatives: (1) do nothing, (2) diplomatic approach to Castro, (3) diplomatic pressure, (4) invasion, (5) surgical air strikes, and (6) blockade. Using a decision matrix, each of the six alternatives was evaluated on how well it satisfied each of the seven objectives.
Jumping ahead of our approach to decision-making, we present an analysis of these alternatives that was published by Harrison (1987). Remember, the ultimate or overall objective is to “destroy the missile threat.” The decision matrix for these alternatives is shown in Table 7-2. The number at the intersection of each alternative and an objective represents the payoff or value to the United States if that alternative were chosen. The scale used is zero to ten. The higher the value of the payoff, the more favorable the outcome to the United States The last column represents the total payoff for each alternative. Because the objectives are equally weighted, the total point value is the sum of payoff for each objective. As noted in Table 7-2, the Blockade alternative receives the highest score in meeting project objectives (Harrison 1987).
TABLE 7-2: Decision Matrix: The Cuban Missile Crisis
This same approach can easily be taken to make decisions necessary to achieve project management success. All management projects have a set of defined objectives; decisions have to be made to meet the objectives. The decisions required are used by the project team to generate decision alternatives, and the choice is made based on information available to the project. Project managers might not always use a decision aid to make the decision. A decision aid assists the project manager in making the best decision. These tools are valuable, yet the use of these tools alone is inadequate. Project managers must remain aware that using a tool does not necessarily mean the project will be managed better. Knowledge of the tool and the quality of the information required for the use of the tool is important.
The Choice
The best choice is usually not the best choice because it is free of risk. The best choice is made based on how well it meets managerial objectives in the face of apparent risk and uncertainty. The Blockade alternative is the best choice given the risk and uncertainty identified in the decision frame. Every course of action will contain some risk. In this case, although a blockade could potentially precipitate Soviet retaliation in Berlin, the benefit would be that it would signify firmness of intention to attack but would not be as extreme as an air strike would be (Harrison 1987). The project manager will do well to understand the risk posed by each alternative as each alternative is evaluated. The decision frame helps to identify all risks and provides additional information required to make a well-informed decision.
Microsoft’s Windows NT
In 1988, Bill Gates reached a decision to make a clean break from the work that had been started on the Windows 3 operating system and its predecessor DOS. He hired Dave Cutler from Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC) to begin the design of what became known as Windows NT; NT stood for New Technology. The Windows NT project started in November 1988 with the goal of delivering the finished product by 1991; the end of March 1991 was set as the official target in October 1989. The driving factors for Windows NT were to take advantage of the new RISC chips that were being developed, to be a UNIX-killer, and to be compatible with OS/2. Early design goals were easy portability to other 32-bit architectures, scalability and multiprocessing support, support for distributed computing (shared resources among multiple computers), support for application programming interfaces (APIs) required by POSIX, and the security features needed to meet U.S. Government Class 2 (C2) capabilities. When the Golden Master for Windows NT was finally delivered in May 1993, the primary design factors had changed to compatibility with the Intel 386 (RISC had never become a driving force); compatibility with OS/2, DOS, and Windows; and a new file system that increased reliability.
Dave Cutler served in the roles of project manager and senior designer (software/systems engineer) even though several project managers had been appointed to run the project. These short-lived project managers could not interject themselves successfully between Cutler and Steve Ballmer, who served as the interface between the project and Bill Gates. Cutler had led the design of the VMS operating system for DEC’s VAX computer prior to joining Microsoft. The key architecture elements of NT were the kernel, the graphical user interface, and the networking components. The kernel (called HAL by Cutler) is the core of the operating system that separates the hardware from the rest of the operating system. So the kernel talks to the hardware but not to the application software. The non-kernel portion of the operating system talks to the application software and kernel but not to the hardware.
As project manager and senior designer, Cutler had key people create high-level specs for the major elements of Windows NT and then instituted a very decentralized network of small design teams (3-5 people) to create the software modules that were integrated into the components for which the specs had been written. Adopting this approach was consistent with Cutler’s beliefs about how to get the most productivity and quality from a large group of programmers—over 250 on the NT project. So Cutler did not consciously evaluate alternative organization structures for the NT staff. However, there are some clear trade-offs for organization structures that many project managers consider when setting up their organizations.
Two of the key design issues that had to be reworked in the last two years of NT development were security and the file system. Networking was a rapidly growing realm of computers in the late 1980s and early 1990s. As networking became more important, security became a bigger and bigger issue. Cutler and his team did not initially appreciate how important security would become and how difficult it was to design security into the operating system. So early in the design process, security was treated as a feature for Windows NT and was not addressed seriously until the fall of 1991. The two key elements of the security architecture that were adopted were “trusted domains with pass-through authentication” and “flexible administration.” The first of these two elements is a very common approach when the bigger network can be secured effectively. However, when people are connected to the Internet (which could not have been foreseen during the design of NT), the approach of trusted domains can be a problem. Then, the concept of flexible administration led to local and global domains with lots of special code and many security holes. This approach also has some performance penalties.
Windows NT has been quite a success in the sense that every release of the Windows operating system from July 1993 to the beginning of 2007 has been based on the NT architecture, as shown in Table 7-3. The latest Windows version, Vista, is the first to take a radically different approach to security by considering how to design security into the architecture from the beginning.
TABLE 7-3: Legacy of Success for the Windows NT Architecture
TABLE 7-4: Windows NT Decision Frame for the Project Organization
This chapter addressed the generation of decision alternatives. However, we emphasized the fact that before a decision alternative can be generated, the problem must be defined. We first laid out the problem definition process and the results of that process. We then described four useful techniques that can be used to generate decision alternatives. Afterwards, we presented the four key elements in each technique that help to make the process easier. We described why more information and analysis might be needed when the first generation process does not produce a sufficient number of feasible decision alternatives; however, the decision to obtain more information must be based on (1) the cost to obtain additional information, (2) the time required to obtain additional information and (3) the amount of perceived payoff. After a sufficient number of decision alternatives have been generated, a decision frame can be used to incorporate project information into a format that will make decision-making easier.
The following specific points were made in this chapter:
A good problem definition is needed before a good decision solution can be found.
Stakeholder analysis is useful in identifying the problem.
Functional analysis is useful in defining project and product functions and objectives.
Value analysis is useful in developing stakeholder values.
The best decision cannot be made when there are too few decision alternatives.
A three-step approach is taken when generating decision alternatives. In step one, a sufficient set of unique feasible decision alternatives are generated. In step two, alternatives are evaluated according to how well they satisfy project objectives. In step three, additional alternatives that add to project value are generated.
Information is necessary in order to fashion alternatives that are relevant to the managerial objectives. When a sufficient number of feasible alternatives are generated, the alternatives are analyzed and evaluated to determine a satisfactory solution. Until this happens, additional information might be required.
Alternative generation techniques include (1) brainstorming, (2) brainwriting, (3) groupware and (4) morphological analysis.
During the process of searching for alternatives, four key elements should be present: (1) fluency, (2) flexibility, (3) elaboration, and (4) originality.
A decision frame is a decision aid that captures important information and presents snapshot views of artificial elements that the project manager should consider in making a decision.
An effective decision solution is one that satisfies the values articulated by the key stakeholders.
As mentioned, the decisions required and the candidate decision solutions are defined and developed based on the problem definition. After the problem has been adequately defined and decision alternatives have been generated, we are now ready to analyze the decision alternatives according to how well they satisfy product and management objectives.
In Chapter 8, we introduce techniques for analyzing decision alternatives and discuss the pros and cons of each technique. We also address the cognitive biases that relate to decision-making.