NGT is a facilitated process that has two parts. The following description of how to conduct an NGT session is adapted from The Team Handbook:
NGT PART I - The issue is defined and the team generates ideas.
Introduce and clarify the issue to be addressed by the team. Write the issue on a chartpack where everybody can see it. Allow for clarification, but do not let the group engage in a discussion of the issue itself. Remember to define unclear terms.
Generate ideas to address the issue at hand.
o Working in silence, each team member writes down his or her ideas on a piece of paper. People should not confer with each other and should sit quietly until everyone finishes writing.
o Depending on the complexity of the topic, 5 to 10 minutes should be allowed for the silent process. People need to have enough time to get the broad, general ideas down, but not enough to create long, detailed lists.
Pag
e
90
o Collect the team's ideas. Each team member in turn reads out one of his or her ideas. Write each idea on the chartpack. This round robin should continue until all of the ideas have been offered and recorded. There should be no discussion or side conversations during this part of the session.
NOTE: If post-are available, you may want to ask the participants to write
each of their ideas on a separate sheet and hand them in. You can display the ideas randomly, rather than writing them down. These post- can be used later to create an Affinity Diagram.
Clarify ideas. Read each idea out loud. If clarification is needed, the person who provided the idea should explain it now. This is an opportunity to clean up the wording of any unclear statements. Others may contribute if
necessary.
Combine ideas. Combine like ideas when feasible, but only if both o Originators agree to it. If they cannot agree, leave the two ideas
separate.
Assign a letter designation to each separate idea. As with Multivoting, the facilitator assigns a letter to avoid confusion with the vote tally.
Rank the ideas independently. Each team member writes down the items by their letter designations and assigns them a numeric value based on his or her judgment of what is most important and what is least important. The highest number is assigned to the most important idea and the lowest to the least important idea. For example, if there are 8 items lettered A to H, the most important receives an 8 and the least important, a 1.
NOTE: An alternative approach is to use the one-half-plus-one rule described in
The Memory Jogger. When there is a list with many items to rank, you may want to limit the number of items to consider. Team members then rank one-half the number of items on the list plus one.
For example, if there were 20 items on the list, team members would rank 11 ideas. The most important item receives the highest value—in this case, 11.
Collate the rankings. The facilitator transcribes the team members' rankings onto a chartpack, writing each number next to the corresponding idea.
Pag
e
91
Add the rankings. The facilitator adds the numbers across. The idea with the highest point total is the one of most importance to the whole team. It is the highest priority item.
Rewrite the list. The facilitator rewrites the list of ideas in the order of their importance to the team.
Pag
e
92
Decision:
Making up your mind to do something
Making a judgment on what ought to be done
To do nothing and wait for things to happen can also be a decision
Decision Making vs. Decision Taking:
Decision making involves a series of steps that ultimately culminates in a resolution
Decision taking may be instantaneous, impulsive, unconscious, intuitive Decision making is usually systematic and based on thinking
Decision taking may usually rely on gut feeling
Decision making vs. Problem solving:
Problem solving and Decision making are inter-twined
Information is required for both problem solving and decision making
Why decision making is difficult?
Too many options/ alternatives from which to decide High cost of wrong decisions
Increasingly dynamic environment with greater uncertainties Competitor moves and counter-moves at extremely fast pace
Herbert Simon’s Model of decision making:
Decision making is a rational process comprising three major phases: Intelligence
Design Choice
Simon’s Model: Intelligence Phase:
Scan the environment for a problem.
Determine if decision-maker can solve the problem. Within scope of influence
Fully define the problem by gathering more information about the problem.
Design:
Pag
e
93
This can be a creative activity requiring brain storming, analogies, checklists etc.
Not all alternatives are clearly visible; they have to be unearthed from a heap of possibilities
Only a finite and limited number of alternatives can be finally evaluated
Choice Phase:
Select the solution to implement.
More detailed analysis of selected solutions might be needed. Verify initial conditions.
Analyze proposed solution against real-world constraints.
Phases of Decision-Making:
Simon’s original three phases: Intelligence
Design Choice
He added fourth phase later: Implementation
Book adds fifth stage: Monitoring
Typology of Decisions:
Robert Anthony’s Classification: Strategic Planning
Management Control Operational Control Simon’s Classification
Programmed/ structured decisions
Nonprogrammed/ Unstructured decisions
Properties of Programmed/ structured decisions:
Well-defined decision situation
Some specified procedure or decision rule can be applied Routine and repetitive
Can be modeled as a quantitative model
Can be delegated to lower levels or automated
Properties of Non-programmed/ unstructured decisions:
Pag
e
94
Have no pre-specified procedure or decision rule
Decision situation may be novel one (e.g.: catastrophe)
Or it may be related to recurring problems where conditions change very frequently and so substantially that no decision rule can be specified Can’t be delegated to lower levels and can’t be automated
Semi-structured/ partially programmed decisions:
Decisions falling within the two extremes
Some semblance of structuring is possible, which is then programmed Human judgment is applied to the situational factors which are not
structured and thus not programmed
Classifying Decisions on the basis of - Knowledge of Outcomes:
Decisions under certainty
Outcome of each alternative is fully known Only one outcome for each alternative Decisions under risk
Possibility of multiple outcomes
Probability of occurrence can be attached Decisions under uncertainty
Number of outcomes for each alternative and their probabilities of occurrence not known
Roadblocks to Good Decision Making:
Human cognition
Our mental ability to comprehend and understand something Human perception
Difficulty isolating problems
Tend to think of only narrow range of possible solution Human bias
Tendency to shape responses based on stereotypes, memory, and current position
How to Overcome the Roadblocks:
Decision support systems (DSS) are one tool
A computer-based system that supports and improves human decision making
Helps analyze complex problems Process vast amounts of analytical data Group decision support systems (GDSS)
Pag
e
95
Tool for supporting team decision making Executive information system (EIS)