The value of Decision Praxis

Case Study 1

A FTSE 100 Facilities Management company was loosing reputation and market share. The MD asked Decision Praxis to help him decide why this was so, and design a strategy to change their situation.

Using our Decision Analysis and Support techniques we first helped the executive team explore the circumstances they found themselves in and identify the master questions they needed to answer. We then proposed new decision-making processes and facilitated their introduction. Finally, using our Strategy Decision Development techniques we enabled the team to design a balanced strategy to improve performance.

Some 12 months later this strategy was working well. Market share had increased by 20% and the group’s reputation had been re-established. (And the MD was still employed).

Case Study 2

A university with a high ranking for applied research had an existing strategy to attract interest from potential sponsors. Decision Praxis was asked to help them decide why it was not working.

Using our Decision Testing and Gaming techniques we first helped them identify and explore some flawed thinking, assumptions and cognitive bias (i.e. believing the impossible) in their strategy. We also identified the primary problem to be a lack of governance (i.e. oversight and direction) by those responsible for delivering the strategy. Then, using our then Maximising Decision Performance techniques we facilitated a workshop to decide on a governance model and behaviours best suited to the task.

Within 2 years of adapting their strategy and adopting a revised governance model the university had become a ‘preferred partner of choice’ with its target audience, and gained a 5 year, multi-million pound contract.

Case Study 3

When challenged by a rapidly evolving and complex issue that had stopped progress towards their objectives, an NHS Clinical Commissioning Group invited Decision Praxis to help them review their decision options.

Using our Decision Analysis and Support techniques we identified each decision by problem type, and recommended solution-generating techniques. We then designed an options assessment model, allowing each to be graded according to different success criteria sets. Then, using our Decision Testing and Gaming techniques we facilitated a set of ‘table top’ simulations to explore how various combinations of decisions worked, or did not. Throughout, we enabled the group to introduce ‘divergent’ thinking to their approach. Finally, we explored various contingencies (‘what ifs’) and identified when decisions would need to be taken to prevent them becoming crises.

Over the next 18 months, the Group’s risk levels declined significantly and they resumed progress towards their objectives.