In recent years much has been written about evidence-based and fact-based decision-making. The core idea is that decisions by hard facts and sound analysis supports probably be better than decisions based on instinct, folklore or informal anecdotal evidence are made. And many companies have invested heavily in IT infrastructure and analysis tools on the assumption that a better evidence-based decision-making is based on these investments follow. But research by the authors … Read more »

In recent years much has been written about evidence-based and fact-based decision-making. The core idea is that decisions by hard facts and sound analysis supports probably be better than decisions based on instinct, folklore or informal anecdotal evidence are made. And many companies have invested heavily in IT infrastructure and analysis tools on the assumption that a better evidence-based decision-making is based on these investments follow. But research by the authors suggest that evidence may not be as likely to think of an input to a decision-making process as a manager. Instead, what happens is evidence decision-making managers even sometimes without understanding that it happens. The authors address three central questions: Why Evidence-decision making occur in organizations? Decision making is evidence that necessarily bad? And if decision making is evidence in organizations is inevitable, what can be done to reduce the negative impact? To answer these questions, the authors explain how the decision by the contexts in which problems are presented and how these contexts may require different ways of using evidence, depending on whether the evidence is used to make informed, or supports a decision is affected.
«Hide

from
Peter Tingling
Source: MIT Sloan Management Review
8 pages.
Release Date: 1 July 2010. Prod #: SMR361-PDF-ENG
Is the decision making Evidence-Based necessarily bad? HBR case solution

[related_post themes="flat"]