Topic:

Techniques in
Group Decision Making

Prepared by: Leoniv A Crisostomo

Subject: PA 205-Managerial Decision Making
Professor: Dr. Elenita L. Tan
GROUP DECISION MAKING
Group decision making (also known as collaborative
decision-making) can be defined as a type of
participatory process in which multiple individuals acting
collectively, analyze problems or situations, consider and
evaluate alternative courses of action, and select from
among the alternatives a solution or solutions.
Assembling employees into decision-making groups is
one method of tackling an issue or problem in the
workplace. The more minds working on a single problem
the more potential solutions are created. However, making
a final decision in a group may be difficult in certain
circumstances. Group decision-making techniques help
businesses turn ideas into action plans.
 The Techniques in Group
Decision Making are:
Brainstorming
Nominal Group Technique
Delphi Technique
Stepladder Technique
Devils Advocacy
Fishbowling
Didactic Interaction
Brainstorming is a popular group decision-
making technique that is used for generating
ideas.

In brainstorming, the leader of the session

presents a problem or question, clarifies the
rules of the session and then the group offers
ideas in a round-robin format. Ideas are written
down so that every member can see them.
Madison Avenue advertising executive Alex
Osborn developed the original approach to
brainstorming and published it in his 1953
book, "Applied Imagination.
Applied Imagination.

Osborn described brainstorming as "a

conference technique by which a group
attempts to find a solution for a specific
problem by amassing all the ideas
spontaneously by its members".
During brainstorming, group members are
encouraged to state their ideas, no matter how
wild they may seem, while an appointed group
member records all ideas for discussion.

Osborn claimed that brainstorming was more

effective than individuals working alone in
generating ideas, although more recent
research has questioned this conclusion.
 Two Principles that contribute
to Ideative Efficacy
1. Defer judgment
2. Reach for quantity
The four general rules of brainstorming
established with intention to:
Reduce social inhibitions among group members,
Stimulate idea generation
Increase overall creativity of the group.

1. Focus on quantity: This rule is a means of enhancing divergent

production, aiming to facilitate problem solving through the maximquantity
breeds quality. The assumption is that the greater the number of ideas
generated, the greater the chance of producing a radical and effective
solution.

2. Withhold criticism: In brainstorming,criticismof ideas generated

should be put 'on hold'. Instead, participants should focus on extending or
adding to ideas, reserving criticism for a later 'critical stage' of the process.
By suspending judgment, participants will feel free to generate unusual
ideas.
3. Welcome unusual ideas: To get a
good and long list of ideas, unusual
ideas are welcomed. They can be
generated by looking from new
perspectives and suspending
assumptions. These new ways of
thinking may provide better solutions.

4. Combine and improve ideas:

Good ideas may be combined to
form a single better good idea, as
suggested by the slogan "1+1=3". It
is believed to stimulate the building of
ideas by a process of association.
 Brainstorming is a popular method of group interaction
in both educational and business settings. Although it
does not provide a measurable advantage in creative
output, conventional brainstorming is an enjoyable
exercise that is typically well received by participants.

When managed well, brainstorming can help you

generate radical solutions to problems. Brainstorming can
also encourage people to commit to solutions, because
they have provided input and played a role in developing
them. To be successful, the leader of a brainstorming
session must understand the problem and be able to
create a relaxed and creative air.
NOMINAL GROUP TECHNIQUE (NGT)

This group decision-making technique is used to

identify problems or to evaluate alternatives.

This technique was originally developed by Andre Delbecq

and Andrew Van de Ven at the University of Wisconsin and
has been applied to adult education program planning by K.
R. Vedros.

This process is designed to ensure that each group

member has equal participation in making the
group decisions.
 It involves the following steps:

STEP 1:
STEP 1: Each
Each group
group member
member writes
writes down
down
individual ideas
individual ideas on
on the
the decision
decision or
or problem
problem
being discussed.
being discussed.

STEP 2:
STEP 2: Each
Each member
member presents
presents individual
individual ideas
ideas
orally. The
orally. The ideas
ideas are
are usually
usually written
written on
on aa board
board
for all
for all other
other members
members toto see
see and
and refer
refer to.
to.

STEP 3:
STEP 3: After
After all
all members
members present
present their
their ideas,
ideas, the
the
entire group
entire group discussed
discussed these
these ideas
ideas simultaneously.
simultaneously.
Discussion tends
Discussion tends to
to be
be unstructured
unstructured and
and
spontaneous.
spontaneous.

STEP 4:
STEP 4: When
When discussion
discussion is
is completed,
completed, aa secret
secret ballot
ballot is
is
taken to
taken to allow
allow members
members to to support
support their
their favourite
favourite ideas
ideas
without fear.
without fear. The
The idea
idea receiving
receiving the
the most
most votes
votes is
is adopted
adopted
and implemented.
and implemented.
Advantages

Voting is anonymous
There are opportunities for equal participation
of group members

Distractions (communication "noise") inherent

in other group methods are minimized

Prevents the domination of discussion by a

single person, encourages the more passive
group members to participate

Results in a set of prioritized solutions or

recommendations
 Disadvantages

Opinions may not converge in the

voting process
Cross-fertilization of ideas may be
constrained

The process may appear to be too

mechanical
When to Use Nominal Group
Technique

When some group members are much more vocal than others.

When some group members think better in silence.

When there is concern about some members not participating.

When the group does not easily generate quantities of ideas.

When all or some group members are new to the team.

When the issue is controversial or there is heated conflict.

 Nominal Group Technique
Considerations

Discussion should be equally balanced among all ideas.

The facilitator should not allow discussion to turn into
argument. The primary purpose of the discussion is
clarification. It is not to resolve differences of opinion.

Keep all ideas visible. When ideas overflow to additional

flipchart pages, post previous pages around the room so all
ideas are still visible to everyone.
DELPHI TECHNIQUE
The Delphi method was originally developed in the
early 1950s at the RAND Corporation by Olaf Helmer
and Norman Dalkey to systematically solicit the view of
experts related to national defense and later in
controversial sociopolitical areas of discourse

It is a structured variant of the traditional expert polls

and is usually used in forecasting.

The Delphi technique involves circulating

questionnaires on a specific problem among group
members, sharing the questionnaire results with them,
and then continuing to recirculate and refine individual
responses until a consensus regarding the problem is
reached.
 The administrators of the Delphi method make a
decision based on the results of the rounds.

The Delphi method helps the group reach consensus

without the influence of strong members of the group
and the tendency to rush for a decision at the end of a
meeting.

In contrast to the nominal group technique or

brainstorming, the Delphi technique does not
have group members meet face to face.

The success of this process depends upon the member's

expertise and communication skill.

Each response requires adequate time for reflection and

analysis.
The formal steps followed in the
Delphi Technique are:

STEP 1: A problem is identified.

STEP 2: Group members are asked to offer solutions to

the problem by providing anonymous responses to a
carefully designed questionnaires.

STEP 3: Responses of all group members are

compiled and sent out to all group members.

STEP 4: Individual group members are asked to generate a

new individual solution to the problem after they have studied
the individual responses of all other group members.

STEP 5: Step 3 and 4 are repeated until a consensus

problem solutions is reached.
 The major merits of the Delphi process are:

Elimination of interpersonal problems.

Efficient use of expert's time.

Diversity of ideals.

Accuracy of solutions and predictions.

The key characteristics of the Delphi method:

Anonymity of the participants. Usually all participants remain

anonymous. Their identity is not revealed, even after the completion
of the final report. This prevents the authority, personality, or
reputation of some participants from dominating others in the
process. Arguably, it also frees participants (to some extent) from
their personal biases, minimizes the "bandwagon effect" or "halo
effect", allows free expression of opinions, encourages open critique,
and facilitates admission of errors when revising earlier judgments.

Structuring of information flow. The initial

contributions from the experts are collected in the
form of answers to questionnaires and their
comments to these answers. The panel director
controls the interactions among the participants by
processing the information and filtering out
irrelevant content. This avoids the negative effects
of face-to-face panel discussions and solves the
usual problems of group dynamics.
Regular feedback Participants comment on their own forecasts,
the responses of others and on the progress of the panel as a whole.
At any moment they can revise their earlier statements. While in
regular group meetings participants tend to stick to previously stated
opinions and often conform too much to the group leader; the Delphi
method prevents it.

Role of the facilitator. The person coordinating the Delphi

method is usually known as a facilitator or Leader, and facilitates the
responses of their panel of experts, who are selected for a reason,
usually that they hold knowledge on an opinion or view. The facilitator
sends out questionnaires, surveys etc. and if the panel of experts
accept, they follow instructions and present their views. Responses
are collected and analyzed, then common and conflicting viewpoints
are identified. If consensus is not reached, the process continues
through thesis and antithesis, to gradually work towards synthesis,
and building consensus.
Stepladder Technique

The Stepladder Technique is a simple tool that

manages how members enter the decision-making group.

Developed by Steven Rogelberg, Janet Barnes-Farrell and

Charles Lowe in 1992, it encourages all members to contribute on
an individual level BEFORE being influenced by anyone else. This
results in a wider variety of ideas, it prevents people from "hiding"
within the group, and it helps people avoid being "stepped on" or
overpowered by stronger, louder group members.
The Stepladder Technique is similar to theDelphi Method,
another tool that's often used in groups to preventGroupthinkand
to encourage participation.
While both tools have the same objective, they differ in a few key
ways:
In the Delphi Method, an objective facilitator or leader manages
the group. In the Stepladder Technique, all members are equal.

The Delphi Method keeps members anonymous. The facilitator

manages the flow of information, and members may have no idea
who else is in the group. The Stepladder Technique involves face-to-
face meetings, so everyone knows who the other members are.

The Delphi Method is a lengthy process, while the Stepladder

Technique is much quicker.

The Delphi Method is often used for major decisions that need
input from a large number of people. The Stepladder Technique
works best with smaller groups that make a wide range of decisions.
DEVILS ADVOCACY
The devil's advocacy is a decision-making
technique where the group is allowed to
become the critic in the proposed decision.
This technique helps prevent groupthink and
increases the chance of a high-quality
decision.

Three Types of Devil's Advocacy

Three types of devil's advocacy have been discussed in the
business and public administration literatures.

1.The first is the basic devil's advocate approach in which

a person within a decision-making group is appointed to
critique a preferred plan or option. This person attempts to
point out weaknesses in the assumptions underlying the plan,
its internal inconsistencies, and problems which may lead to
failure in implementation.
2. A variant of this basic devil's advocate approach is called
multiple advocacy. This technique involves the use of several
devil's advocates drawn from the organization's internal or
external critics. Each group critical of a preferred option or plan
can be represented by their own devil's advocate.

Alexander George, in his book Presidential Decision-Making,

claims that multiple advocacy should be superior to the use of
devils advocates because it includes more advocates and more
options.

In the multiple advocacy system, representatives of minority

opinions and unpopular views present these to decision-makers in
order to encourage them to question the assumptions
underlying the prevailing or favored policy.
 3. Mason and Mitroff (1981) have summarized research on
another variant of devil's advocacy. They call this technique
dialectical inquiry and in its elaborated form, Strategic
Assumptions Analysis.

Dialectical inquiry is a group decision-making technique

that focuses on ensuring full consideration of alternatives.

Essentially, it involves dividing the group into opposing

sides, which debate the advantages and disadvantages of
proposed solutions or decisions.

The approach can be traced back to the dialectic school

of philosophy in ancient Greece. Plato and his followers
attempted to synthesize truths by exploring opposite
positions, called thesis and antithesis.
 Although it stimulates programmed conflict, it is a
constructive approach, because it elicits the benefits and
limitations of opposing sets of ideas.

Organizations that use dialectical inquiry create teams of

decision makers. Each team is instructed to generate and
evaluate alternative courses of action and then recommend the
best one. Then after hearing each teams alternative courses of
action, the teams and the organizations top managers meet
together and select the best parts of each plan and synthesize a
final plan that provides the best opportunity for success.
FISH BOWLING
Fish-bowling is a variation of the brainstorming but is
more structured and is to the point.

The decision making group of experts is seated

around in a circle with a single chair in the centre of the
circle. One member of the group is invited to sit in the
centre chair and gives his views about the problem and his
proposition of solution in discussion The other group
members can ask him questions but no cross talk is
allowed. Once the member finishes and his viewpoint is
fully understood, he leaves the center and joins the group
in the circle.

Exchange between the center chair and the group

members continues until the chair is vacated. All
exchanges must be between the center and the group and
no two group members are allowed to talk directly
 This technique results in each member favoring a
particular course of action, since all members are acting upon
the same database and also since each idea offered by the
central members is thoroughly questioned and examined.

After all the experts have expressed their views, the

entire group discusses the various alternatives suggested and
pick the one with consensus
WHEN TO USE THE FISHBOWL
TECHNIQUEThis technique is based on the premise that you can
identify two or more groups of people who hold distinctly
different views on an issue that is important to your
company.
DIDACTIC INTERACTION
This technique is applicable only in certain
situations, but is an excellent method when such a
situation exists. The type of problem should result
into a yes-no solution.

There are two groups, one favoring yes and

other favoring no. The first group will list all the
pros of the problem solution and the second group
will list all the cons.

These two groups meet and discuss their

findings and their reasons. After an exhaustive
discussions, the groups switch sides and try to find
weaknesses in their own original viewpoints.

This interchange of ideas and tolerance and

understanding of opposing viewpoints results in
mutual acceptance of facts as they exist so that a
solution can be built around these facts and opinions
relating to these facts and thus a final decision is
reached
CONCLUSION
In business, decisions are an everyday occurrence.
The challenge we all face is when to make decisions
based on a group input as opposed to making a decision
on individual input. There are advantages and
disadvantages to both concepts, and truth be told, neither
is really right or wrong.

You see, if we make a decision as a group, we are

getting aconsensus, which is a cohesive, agreeable
decision made by more than one person. This consensus
takes into account the different viewpoints, backgrounds
and perspectives of the individuals that made the
decision. Truly, it is a team decision and one that can
bring individuals in an organization together to fix a
common problem.