National Framework and Decision-making Tools

Discuss about the Measurement and Decision Making.

This paper will elaborated on presenting a review of the main article on the topic of decision making. The article chosen for this literature review is- “A national framework for the development of decision-making tools for nursing and midwifery practice”. All the major theories and models have been reviewed first and then they are followed by some of the considerations which might provide different explanations and contexts for them. The paper would also shed light on the positive and the negative points of article through researching it and reviewing it. The paper would also present a brief analysis of the different methods and models along with different frameworks and taxonomies on the subject of decision making, made by different theorists and researchers.

In an environment with a dynamic health care such as Australia, where change is a continuous feature, the midwives and the nurses are expected to be very flexible as well as to respond to the change in the manner the provides advantages to the health consumers. The article “A national framework for the development of decision-making tools for nursing and midwifery practice” has provided a brief analysis of the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia (the National Board) that undertakes the functions that are set by the Australian Practitioner Regulation National Law (Jefford, Fahy and Sundin 2011). It has analysed and assessed the national decision making framework and according to it, it comprises of two different parts. The very first one is the set of principles that forms the foundation for the evaluation and the development process of the tools of decision making while the next part comprise of two different templates for the tools of decision making- one for the midwifery and the other one for nursing, in context of the dissimilarities in between the two professions. It has also assessed the National Principles for the process of development of the tools for decision making. The As per Karmiloff-Smith (2018), reality is very complex but the human cognition is very restricted and limited. With the same, the decision makers do not have that amount of exhaustive knowledge of all the different possible alternative and also, they would not have all the required skills and knowledge in order to sufficiently rank all the alternatives as well as to calculate their costs along with benefits- rationality is bounded. Based on this, the decision makers do not attempt for finding the optimum solutions the problem. He has also stated that many a times the aim of an organisation could not be linked directly to the operations of its. It would lead to the process of identification of one subordinate goal or say, “subgoal identification”. With the same, it is also to note that the subgoals are not always unique and their definition are subjected to decision makers, their knowledge, experience as well as the environment in which they involve (Jones et al. 2015). With the increase in complexity, the process of decision making gets divided among many of the specialists and their works are coordinated through the authority relations and communication.

Template Tools for Decision-making in Nursing and Midwifery Practise

The article has also shed light on the template tools for the decision making process in the midwifery and nursing practise. Kennedy et al. (2015) in this context have stated that the template tools are significant based and they are also sustainable over the period of time. The decisions that are made by making use of these templates are always grounded in the informed professional discretion and are guided by the principles. According to the article, the differences in terms of competence of a person, his education as well as experience are regarded in using these template tools. It is been said that the midwives and the nurses who are registered have a significant role to play in the process of coordination and the supervision of the others who might assist them in the provision of care to the consumers. Palermo, Power and Ashby (2017) have argued that the means and the ends are interlinked. The process of decision making is not to be called as discrete event, instead it gradually becomes a step by step process that considers incremental changes right from status quo towards the problem solving instead of decision making towards the attainment of any particular goal. Trianni, Cagno and Farne (2016) further have argued that for him, the process of decision making is one of the evolutionary processes, instead of a revolutionary one. It is also to note that this view of Incrementalist is akin to the concept of “learning by doing”. The incrementalist view puts much effort on the process of implementation of decision instead of the analytical steps which precedes the decision but also focus on the continuous learning process from the implemented decision and the multiple feedback loops as well as the decision adjustments in order to reach to the planned goal (Cascetta et al. 2015). As per Heyler et al. (2016), the decision are regarded as the outcomes of the standard of organisation that are the operating procedures instead of a stand-alone and specific decision making process. Garg (2017) too in this context have argued about the advantages or the benefits of the organisational experiences that are codified so that the decision making input could move all through the standard operating processes and result to a decision. The codified organisational experience would make sure that each and everyone understands the rational and the outputs of the process of decision making. However, notwithstanding the fact, Block et al. (2016) have considered this view as “avoidance mode”. They have regarded that any systematic process of decision making like the standard operating procedures could take away the thinking piece of the decision making. They were afraid that in such type of environment, the decision making is made at the cost of innovation.

Individual Difference Perspective

The article has presented the research on the individual difference perspective. This perspective lays emphasis on the individual decision making process, instead of on the group or organisational process of decision making. Royo-Vela and Hunermund (2016) in this context have presented their views stating that the managers make use of different processes and methods so as to come to different conclusions, not depending on the rational choice but on their management style, experience and personality. As because of the fact that most of the decisions are perceived in order to emanate from the process of group decision making and a method which could be regarded as “standardised” for the use within any organisation, so that it could move in any one direction. It has also been stated in this article that the process of decision making within a sound risk management, regulatory, professional and legislative framework is considered to be a rational process which enables the nurses for working in their potential scope of the practices. The statements of the principle set out below the provided guidance to the nurses and the others regarding the processed which would help in ensuring that safety is never compromised while making decisions in nursing practise regarding whether or not to delegate the activities to the others. As stated by Conrado et al. (2016), experience is said to be the nexus of naturalistic perspective of decision making. Deb (2014) have argued that the process of decision making does not follow any rigorous process of the identification of solution and that is the primary phase of the theories of decision making. He has posited that the context in which the issue is been posed in the key. The decision makers have recognised a specific situation, the context as well as its potential outcomes and the solutions as well. As such, the experience is the fundamental and this is due to the fact that more skilled and experienced the decision maker is, the easiest it would be to recognise the issue. If the situation is  once recognised, the decision maker then forms a scenario and that would then be twisted until and unless the decision makers is pretty comfortable with it. The article has also described about the multiple perspective approach. This approach claims that each and every issues could be perceived from various different angles. Reisigi (2017) have also argued in this context stating that that no matter how meticulous the process of decision making is, it would always be tainted from the perspective of all the actors who are involved in the process of decision making (Borman 2017). Hence, in order to reach any decision which is as comprehensive as it is possible and would comprise of the technical, organisation, as well as the individual views, many of the stakeholders must be consulted in that case.  De Hollander et al. (2016) have claimed that the former theories of decision making have recommended that while undergoing uncertainty, the decision makes must search for the additional accurate and relevant information. This in turn would help them in delaying the process of decision making and with the same, to alter or to change the performance results and actions. Marraccini et al. (2016) have also showed that the speeder the process of decision making is, the better it is as the resultant. Their work have depicted that the most of the successful companies tend to analyse more relevant data and they consider many alternative side by side and hence, make the process of decision making faster.  To support this evident, Uzelac et al. (2016) too have concluded that the faster process of decision making has a very productive and positive impact on the growth and profitability.

Multiple Perspective Approach

As per Couet et al. (2015), there are many approaches for understanding or presenting the process of decision making. According to the process oriented view or perspective, the process of decision making must be regarded as a process. Graham, Harvey and Puri (2015) in this context have stated that it is a process of selecting an alternative way from a collection of alternatives so as to attain the defined goals and objectives. As stated by most of the authors, the most used model of decision making is BOGSAT. BOGSAT is the acronym for the “Bunch Of Old Guys Sitting And Talking” (Jett 2014). This term might be a little rude but it is also to note that it holds a little truth in it. In many of  the cases, the models  of decision making and the various different processes are not thought enough in the organisations where there are fewer resources in order to allocate into the processes other than the main business functions. However, even though some of the tools that are supporting the decision making could have been used and the “old guys” might have both the vision and experience, the cognitive limitations could act as a barrier to the outcome. Hence, the process of decision making and the decision making alone could be improved through the adaptation of the tested practices Hanson (2016).

Synder and Diesing (2015) have suggested that the three phased decision making process of Herbert Simon is the most accepted one. However, Lewin et al. (2015) in this  view goes through the different schools of thought in the process of defining the decision making as well as the differences in describing the proves comprising of the Simon’s model. He have stated that the strategic decision making process of Mintzberg is one among the widely popular descriptions as well as the most comprehensive (fig 3). Khanagha, Volberda and Oshri (2014) have argued that the processes of strategic decision making are very complicated and dynamic in nature but still, they could be rationalised within different structures. The model of Mintzberg is one of the example of such. This model was formed through analysing and observing twenty five different processes of decision making in various different types of organisation right from the institutional organisations to the governmental, the service companies and the manufacturing companies (Hoefer and Green 2016). These decision ranges from purchase making of the new equipment as well as developing of the new products to the Human Resource Management (HRM) decision. This model is been formulated through the observation of various processes as well as finding the similarities and differences in between the processes. Also, in this model the decision making process is classified into a total of three different stages. The very first stage is the identification which comprise of the recognising the requirements for decision and diagnosis (Lamb, Becker and Nunes 2017). Such recognition of needs for any decision starts from seeing a difference in the current and the desired situation but it takes much effort for all the decision makers for recognising the requirements from all the information which passes through him. The diagnostic process is all about going through the present sources of information as well as possibly collecting some new ones as well. Then, the next stage is the development of the alternatives, which is a process which consists of the two different kinds of the routines and they are planning and searching. Planning refers to the building of a solution (Mueller et al. 2018). On the other hand, searching is regarded as the process such as the name itself indicates- searching for alternatives. The routine of searching could be further divided into four different parts and they are-

• assessing the organisational or the personal knowledge
• passive “waiting”
• Employing the “agents” for the search
• Active searching.

Process-oriented View of Decision-making

Finally, the final stage is the selection process. The list of alternatives that are collected in this last step are then screened and the remaining alternatives are then evaluated and finally the selected alternative is accepted through getting the authorization from the team of management (Plataniotis et al. 2015). It is also to note that the process of evaluation has three different methods and they are- Judgement evaluation, bargaining evaluation and analysis evaluation. Judgement refers to the process of internal decision making in between the people. Bargaining refers to the various persons using the judgement and then their setting up of the choices in between them. On the other hand, the analysis process of decision making is dependent on the relevant or valid facts that make the method of “cold logic”. The model of the process of decision making that is created by Mintzberg is comprehensive in nature and therefore, I want to state that this is only a description of it in a concise manner (Malfait et al. 2017). The article has also provided a guide for the Midwifery practice decisions.

The article is well structured and is written in a way that minimize the barriers of the readers to entry. The opening of the paragraph at the start is short and concise. It is short as well as easy to engage with. The article is providing value and is encouraging the reader to expend their efforts. With the same, the article is also visually appealing to the readers. Although, the article is not that short and is quite big in content, still the author has managed to address every key elements and points in relation to the article topic. In general, the author has shorten everything, especially the presentation of the important points in tabular form has described every key points in all. However, the most significant negative point of this article is that the structure of the article appears to be disjointed. With the same, the analysis of the data is superficial and descriptive. However, there is no citation provided in statistical information, which is quite necessary. Therefore, the credibility of some of the sources is questionable.

Conclusion

From the above discussion in context to the article of decision making, it can be said that the process of decision making could be examined in many different levels and viewpoints. The same thesis has also scratched the surface of the multidisciplinary subject of decision making but a strong focus, which has allowed the procuring information which is hopefully beneficial for the organisations, institution or any different authority. The main aim of the article was to collect skills and knowledge regarding the subject of the process of decision making through analysing, researching and assessing the subject in the light of the knowledge that are acquired in the interviews and surveys in the Australian region. It was done to improve the readiness for the process of decision making through mapping out the various different relevant data, theories, tools and studies in order to provide a brief review of what must be known to all for having a good premise for the purpose decision making. During the literature review it became very obvious that the methods, theories, tools and practices play a significant role in the process of defining and understanding the decision making process. The National Board sets the registration standards and the professional codes, guidelines and standards that sustain safe and capable practice. They also assist in clarifying the expectations of the National Board on a wide range of the matters. However, as because of the fact that there are very less number of sources, the author has used to write up this article therefore the data has little value because it cannot be assessed properly. The article has concluded on many points, particularly on the fact that the national decision making framework of Australia has been developed in the context of the national workforce strategies that is promoting the responsiveness, pliability and diversity in the workforce. It displays a whole of the perspective of health workforce in Australia.

BOGSAT Model of Decision-making

References:

Block, L.G., Keller, P.A., Vallen, B., Williamson, S., Birau, M.M., Grinstein, A., Haws, K.L.,

Borman, M., 2017. Applying multiple perspectives to the BPO decision: a case study of call centres in Australia. In Outsourcing and Offshoring Business Services (pp. 413-454). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.

Cascetta, E., Carteni, A., Pagliara, F. and Montanino, M., 2015. A new look at planning and designing transportation systems: A decision-making model based on cognitive rationality, stakeholder engagement and quantitative methods. Transport policy, 38, pp.27-39.

Conrado, S.P., Neville, K., Woodworth, S. and O’Riordan, S., 2016. Managing social media uncertainty to support the decision making process during emergencies. Journal of Decision Systems, 25(sup1), pp.171-181.

de Hollander, G., Labruna, L., Sellaro, R., Trutti, A., Colzato, L.S., Ratcliff, R., Ivry, R.B. and Forstmann, B.U., 2016. Transcranial direct current stimulation does not Influence the speed–accuracy tradeoff in perceptual decision-making: evidence from three independent studies. Journal of cognitive neuroscience, 28(9), pp.1283-1294.

Deb, K., 2014. Multi-objective optimization. In Search methodologies (pp. 403-449). Springer, Boston, MA.

Garg, H., 2017. Generalized Pythagorean fuzzy geometric aggregation operators using Einstein t?norm and t?conorm for multicriteria decision?making process. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 32(6), pp.597-630.

Graham, J.R., Harvey, C.R. and Puri, M., 2015. Capital allocation and delegation of decision-making authority within firms. Journal of Financial Economics, 115(3), pp.449-470.

Hanson, M.E., 2016. Improving Operational Wargaming: Its All Fun and Games Until Someone Loses a War. ARMY COMMAND AND GENERAL STAFF COLLEGE FORT LEAVENWORTH KS FORT LEAVENWORTH United States.

Heyler, S.G., Armenakis, A.A., Walker, A.G. and Collier, D.Y., 2016. A qualitative study investigating the ethical decision making process: A proposed model. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(5), pp.788-801.

Hoefer, R.L. and Green Jr, S.E., 2016. A rhetorical model of institutional decision making: The role of rhetoric in the formation and change of legitimacy judgments. Academy of Management Review, 41(1), pp.130-150.

Jefford, E., Fahy, K. and Sundin, D. (2011). Decision-Making Theories and their usefulness to the midwifery profession both in terms of midwifery practice and the education of midwives. International Journal of Nursing Practice, 17(3), pp.246-253.

Jett, D.C., 2014. The Nontraditional Route. In American Ambassadors The Past, Present, and Future of America’s Diplomats (pp. 59-91). Palgrave Macmillan, New York.

Jones, R.M., O’Grady, R., Nicholson, D., Hoffman, R., Bunch, L., Bradshaw, J. and Bolton, A., 2015. Modeling and integrating cognitive agents within the emerging cyber domain. In Proceedings of the Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation, and Education Conference (I/ITSEC) (Vol. 20).

Karmiloff-Smith, A., 2018. Précis of Beyond modularity: A developmental perspective on cognitive science. In Thinking Developmentally from Constructivism to Neuroconstructivism(pp. 64-94).

Kennedy, C., O’reilly, P., Fealy, G., Casey, M., Brady, A.M., McNamara, M., Prizeman, G., Rohde, D. and Hegarty, J., 2015. Comparative analysis of nursing and midwifery regulatory and professional bodies’ scope of practice and associated decision?making frameworks: a discussion paper. Journal of advanced nursing, 71(8), pp.1797-1811.

Khanagha, S., Volberda, H. and Oshri, I., 2014. Business model renewal and ambidexterity: structural alteration and strategy formation process during transition to a C loud business model. R&D Management, 44(3), pp.322-340.

Lamb, L., Becker, G.V. and Nunes, M.P., 2017. The strategic decision-making process in mergers and acquisitions: the perspective of acquired companies from the south of brazil. BASE-Revista de Administração e Contabilidade da Unisinos, 14(2), pp.75-91.

Lewin, S., Glenton, C., Munthe-Kaas, H., Carlsen, B., Colvin, C.J., Gülmezoglu, M., Noyes, J., Booth, A., Garside, R. and Rashidian, A., 2015. Using qualitative evidence in decision making for health and social interventions: an approach to assess confidence in findings from qualitative evidence syntheses (GRADE-CERQual). PLoS Medicine, 12(10), p.e1001895.

Malfait, S., Van Hecke, A., Hellings, J., De Bodt, G. and Eeckloo, K., 2017. The impact of stakeholder involvement in hospital policy decision-making: a study of the hospital’s business processes. Acta Clinica Belgica, 72(1), pp.63-71.

Marraccini, M.E., Weyandt, L.L., Rossi, J.S. and Gudmundsdottir, B.G., 2016. Neurocognitive enhancement or impairment? A systematic meta-analysis of prescription stimulant effects on processing speed, decision-making, planning, and cognitive perseveration. Experimental and clinical psychopharmacology, 24(4), p.269.

Mintzberg and Waters, Pettigrew, and Butler’, Organization Studies, 11, pp. 1-16. In Revival: The Bradford Studies of Strategic Decision Making (2001) (pp. 23-38). Routledge.

Mueller, J., Melwani, S., Loewenstein, J. and Deal, J.J., 2018. Reframing the decision-makers’ dilemma: Towards a social context model of creative idea recognition. Academy of Management Journal, 61(1), pp.94-110.

Palermo, T., Power, M. and Ashby, S., 2017. Navigating institutional complexity: The production of risk culture in the financial sector. Journal of Management Studies, 54(2), pp.154-181.

Plataniotis, G., De Kinderen, S., Ma, Q. and Proper, E., 2015, July. A conceptual model for compliance checking support of enterprise architecture decisions. In Business Informatics (CBI), 2015 IEEE 17th Conference on (Vol. 1, pp. 191-198). IEEE.

Royo-Vela, M. and Hünermund, U., 2016. Effects of inbound marketing communications on HEIs’ brand equity: the mediating role of the student’s decision-making process. An exploratory research. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 26(2), pp.143-167.

Trianni, A., Cagno, E. and Farné, S., 2016. Barriers, drivers and decision-making process for industrial energy efficiency: A broad study among manufacturing small and medium-sized enterprises. Applied Energy, 162, pp.1537-1551.

Uzelac, B., Bauer, F., Matzler, K. and Waschak, M., 2016. The moderating effects of decision-making preferences on M&A integration speed and performance. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27(20), pp.2436-2460.