990-53产品经理:5 decision-making models to try if you’re stuck 5决策模型，尝试如果你陷入困境

Decisions, decisions. By some estimates, we make 35,000 conscious choices daily.
That number might even be inching upward thanks to the rise of flatter organizational structures, which decentralize decision-making. Instead of top leaders making every call, employees at all levels have the power to make more decisions, and they are more likely to happen collaboratively.
All of this means good decision-making skills are more important than ever. However, making high-quality decisions, and making them efficiently, isn’t easy. If your team struggles to decide even where to order lunch, you know this firsthand.
But what if you had a toolkit to help you make better and faster decisions? And we’re not talking about a Magic 8-Ball and a coin to flip. These tools are called decision-making models. Several models have been identified, but none of them is foolproof. You’ll want to draw on different models in different situations.
Besides becoming familiar with decision-making models, you should also get to know the biases that can lead you to make bad decisions. If you’ve decided you’re ready to dive in, let’s get started.
做决定，做决定。据估计，我们每天要做出35000个有意识的选择。
这一数字甚至可能会缓慢上升，这要归功于扁平化的组织结构的兴起，这种结构使得决策权分散化。不再是由高层领导来做每一个决定，而是由各级员工来做更多的决定，而且这些决定更有可能通过协作来实现。
所有这些都意味着良好的决策能力比以往任何时候都更加重要。然而，做出高质量的决策并有效地做出决策并不容易。如果你的团队连在哪里点午餐都很难决定，你对此有切身体会。
但是，如果您有一个工具包来帮助您做出更好、更快的决策呢？我们不是在谈论一个神奇的8号球和一个硬币抛。这些工具被称为决策模型。已经确定了几种模式，但没有一种是万无一失的。你会想在不同的情况下绘制不同的模型。
除了熟悉决策模型，你还应该了解那些会导致你做出错误决定的偏见。如果你已经决定要一头扎进去，那就让我们开始吧。

Decision-Making Models

Rational decision-making model
Do you need to make a complex, high-stakes choice? Are you making this decision with other people? Are there strong emotions around the different options? And do you have the time for serious thought and research?

Then you’ll probably want to consider using the rational decision-making model. It has six steps:

Define the problem
Identify the criteria you will use to judge possible solutions
Decide how important each criterion is
Generate a list of possible alternatives
Evaluate those alternatives
Determine the best solution
(Some sources identify additional steps, such as testing your solution before fully implementing it.)

The rational model counteracts a lot of the factors – like faulty assumptions – that can lead us to bad decisions. It can minimize risk and uncertainty. This model is also one you can use on your own or as part of a team.

However, it’s not the best model to use when you’re under time constraints or in a fast-changing situation. It’s also important to remember that you won’t always have all the information you need to use this model. And, even if you do, going through the full process isn’t efficient or necessary for some decisions.

Bounded rationality decision-making model
And that sets us up to talk about the bounded rationality model. You may have also heard this model called “satisficing.” Instead of rigorously seeking the best possible decision, you’re just looking for a “good enough” decision.

You can use bounded rationality when you don’t have enough time or information to follow the full rational decision-making model. Sometimes it’s better to have a good enough decision sooner vs. a “perfect” decision that’s delayed. And it burns a lot less mental energy and other resources.

To help you deal with all the information you have to process and all the decisions you have to make in a day, your brain likes to take shortcuts.

Vroom-Yetton Decision-Making Model
There’s no one ideal process for making decisions. Instead, the best process to use will change based on your situation.

That’s the idea behind the Vroom-Yetton decision model (sometimes known as Vroom-Yetton-Jago). The first part of this model uses seven yes-or-no questions. Here’s an example: “Is team commitment to the decision important?”

Your answers to the questions then guide you toward one of five decision-making processes to use. Options range from making the decision based on what you know now without consulting your team to reaching a group consensus with your team.

The flexibility of the Vroom-Yetton model is one of its strengths. Anyone at any level can use it, and it can work even if you’re in an unfamiliar situation. However, it doesn’t consider personal factors for the decision-maker, the questions may not be precise enough for some situations and it may not work as well for larger groups.

Intuitive decision-making model
You might be surprised to learn that even when you make a decision intuitively or instinctively, you’re still following a decision-making model. Intuitive decisions can happen almost instantly. But that doesn’t mean they just pop into your head. Your brain is actually doing lightning-fast pattern recognition. It’s quickly reviewing everything you’ve learned from similar past situations to help you make a decision in your current situation.

Researchers have found that an intuitive decision-making model yields good results when you’re dealing with areas where you have a lot of expertise or experience. But going with your gut is less effective and efficient when you’re in an unfamiliar circumstance, like a new job. This is because you don’t have enough experience to quickly recognize patterns yet.

An interesting side note here: Sometimes a decision that we think is rational and logical is actually a lot more intuitive. If you’ve considered additional options only to go back to your initial choice, you may have been following the retrospective decision-making model.

理性决策模型
您需要做出复杂、高风险的选择吗？ 你是和其他人一起做这个决定的吗？ 不同的选择是否存在强烈的情绪？ 您有时间认真思考和研究吗？

那么您可能会考虑使用理性决策模型。 它有六个步骤：

定义问题
确定用于判断可能解决方案的标准
确定每个标准的重要性
生成可能的替代方案列表
评估这些替代方案
确定最佳解决方案
（一些来源确定了其他步骤，例如在完全实施解决方案之前测试您的解决方案。）

理性模型抵消了许多可能导致我们做出错误决策的因素，例如错误的假设。 它可以最大限度地减少风险和不确定性。 您也可以自己或作为团队的一员使用此模型。

但是，当您受到时间限制或处于快速变化的情况时，它并不是最好的模型。 同样重要的是要记住，您并不总是拥有使用此模型所需的所有信息。 而且，即使您这样做了，对于某些决策来说，完成整个过程也不是高效的，也不是必要的。

有限理性决策模型
这让我们开始讨论有限理性模型。 您可能也听说过这种模型，称为“令人满意”。 您只是在寻找“足够好”的决定，而不是严格寻求最佳的决定。

当您没有足够的时间或信息来遵循完整的理性决策模型时，您可以使用有限理性。 有时，尽早做出足够好的决定比推迟做出“完美”的决定更好。 而且它消耗的精神能量和其他资源要少得多。

为了帮助您处理一天中必须处理的所有信息和必须做出的所有决定，您的大脑喜欢走捷径。

弗鲁姆-耶顿决策模型
没有一种理想的决策流程。 相反，最佳使用流程将根据您的情况而变化。

这就是 Vroom-Yetton 决策模型（有时称为 Vroom-Yetton-Jago）背后的想法。 该模型的第一部分使用七个是或否问题。 这是一个例子：“团队对决策的承诺重要吗？”

然后，您对问题的回答将引导您选择要使用的五个决策流程之一。 选项包括根据您现在所知道的情况做出决策而不咨询您的团队，以及与您的团队达成集体共识。

Vroom-Yetton 模型的灵活性是其优势之一。 任何级别的任何人都可以使用它，即使您处于不熟悉的情况下它也可以工作。 然而，它没有考虑决策者的个人因素，对于某些情况，问题可能不够精确，并且对于较大的群体来说可能效果不佳。

直观的决策模型
您可能会惊讶地发现，即使您凭直觉或本能做出决定，您仍然遵循决策模型。 直觉决定几乎可以立即发生。 但这并不意味着它们会突然出现在您的脑海中。 你的大脑实际上正在以闪电般的速度进行模式识别。 它会快速回顾您从过去类似情况中学到的所有内容，以帮助您在当前情况下做出决定。

研究人员发现，当您处理拥有大量专业知识或经验的领域时，直观的决策模型会产生良好的结果。 但是，当您处于不熟悉的环境（例如新工作）中时，凭直觉行事的效果和效率就会降低。 这是因为您还没有足够的经验来快速识别模式。

这里有一个有趣的旁注：有时，我们认为合理且合乎逻辑的决定实际上更加直观。 如果您考虑了其他选项只是为了回到最初的选择，那么您可能一直在遵循回顾性决策模型。

Recognition-primed decision-making model
The recognition-primed model has a lot in common with the intuitive model. Here’s how it works:

The decision-maker recognizes a pattern in available information.
They then pick a course of action and run through that “action script” in their mind.
If the action script seems like it will work, the decision-maker moves forward. If it doesn’t seem like it will work, the decision-maker either tweaks the script or ditches it and starts over with a new script.
Like the intuitive model, the recognition-primed model works best in situations where you can draw on deep experience or expertise. In those cases, it’s an especially handy model to use when you’re under time pressure.

Common decision-making biases
Now that you know a variety of decision-making models, deciding should be a snap, right? Well, not quite. To help you deal with all the information you have to process and all the decisions you have to make in a day, your brain likes to take shortcuts. Sometimes those shortcuts are helpful. But sometimes they can lead to really lousy choices.

Be alert for these common mental biases any time you make a decision. Even just knowing that they exist and that you are vulnerable to them can help you make better decisions.

Confirmation bias
Confirmation bias means paying attention to evidence that confirms your beliefs – and ignoring anything that doesn’t. Let’s say you’re helping choose someone to fill a new position at your organization. The process is down to the two finalists. Based on their resumes, you prefer Candidate B over Candidate A. But you’re keeping an open mind.

Or are you? During their interviews, confirmation bias could cause you to pay attention to anything that shows Candidate B is an amazing fit for the role, while ignoring possible red flags. Meanwhile, during Candidate A’s interview, you gloss over answers that point to them as the better choice, while seizing on any information that could be a bad sign.

Confirmation bias causes us to seek out information that supports our existing views. But it also encourages us to interpret information in a way that proves we’re right. Thanks to confirmation bias, two people with different beliefs could draw different conclusions from the same set of statistics.

To outsmart your confirmation bias, seek out people and information sources that challenge your opinions, even if you’re already sure that “all the evidence” supports what you want to do. You might be surprised that things aren’t so cut and dried.

Availability heuristic
The availability heuristic leads us to make decisions based on how easily something comes to mind. For example, if your friend just went through a long flight delay with an airline, the availability heuristic could cause you to avoid that airline for your upcoming business trip – even though it actually has a better on-time record than the carrier you ultimately choose. Because you can quickly recall your friend’s experience, you overestimate how likely future flight delays are with that airline.

The availability heuristic can really trip us up because our thoughts feel like reality. But you will make better decisions when you can pause, second-guess yourself, and see if there really is information that supports your perceptions.

Survivorship bias
The survivorship bias causes us to make decisions based only on examples of success – all while assuming that we have the full story.

A common example of the survivorship bias is using other organizations’ success stories to decide what your organization should do. Sure, Company A may have succeeded wildly by using a particular strategy, and everyone is singing their praises. But what we hear less about is that Companies B, C and D used the same strategy and now they’re out of business.

To avoid survivorship bias, train yourself to be more skeptical. Before making a decision based on success stories, ask yourself whether those stories are taking only the “survivors” into account.

Confirmation bias causes us to seek out information that supports our existing views.

Anchoring bias
Anchoring bias causes us to use an initial piece of information to make subsequent judgments. For example, the initial price offer sets the course in a negotiation. But even being exposed to an arbitrary and random cognitive anchor can affect your choice. In one study, participants spun a roulette-style wheel and then were asked to guess the percentage of U.N. countries that are in Africa. Those who got a high number on their spin guessed higher percentages.

The anchoring bias is another good reason to slow down your decision-making process when possible. By being aware of how vulnerable humans are to this bias, you have a better chance of recognizing when you need additional information.

Halo Effect
We all know the power of first impressions, but we often overlook just how powerful they can be. We think we’re hiring a contractor because he’s intelligent and organized. However, we might just be assuming all of that because he’s tall or has a firm handshake.

That’s the halo effect in action. It works in reverse, too. If someone spills wine on you at a networking event, you’re probably going to put less stock in the opinions they share later.

Stay vigilant to your brain’s efforts to save labor with the halo effect. When you’re making a decision, ask yourself whether you are basing it on a first impression. What additional evidence do you have for believing or doubting that impression?
认知主导的决策模型
识别启动模型与直觉模型有很多共同点。 它的工作原理如下：

决策者认识到可用信息中的模式。
然后，他们选择一个行动方案，并在脑海中运行这个“行动脚本”。
如果行动脚本看起来可行，决策者就会继续前进。 如果看起来不起作用，决策者要么调整脚本，要么放弃它并重新开始新的脚本。
与直观模型一样，识别启动模型在您可以利用丰富经验或专业知识的情况下效果最佳。 在这些情况下，当您面临时间压力时，这是一个特别方便的模型。

常见的决策偏差
现在您已经了解了各种决策模型，应该很容易做出决定，对吗？ 嗯，不完全是。 为了帮助你处理一天中必须处理的所有信息和必须做出的所有决定，你的大脑喜欢走捷径。 有时这些快捷方式很有帮助。 但有时它们可能会导致非常糟糕的选择。

每当您做出决定时，请警惕这些常见的心理偏见。 即使只是知道它们的存在并且您很容易受到它们的影响，也可以帮助您做出更好的决策。

确认偏差
确认偏见意味着关注证实你信念的证据，而忽略任何不能证实你信念的证据。 假设您正在帮助选择某人来填补您组织中的新职位。 该过程取决于两名决赛入围者。 根据他们的简历，您更喜欢候选人 B 而不是候选人 A。但您保持开放的态度。

或者你是？ 在面试过程中，确认偏见可能会导致你关注任何表明候选人 B 非常适合该职位的事情，而忽略可能的危险信号。 与此同时，在候选人 A 的面试过程中，你掩盖了那些表明他们是更好选择的答案，同时抓住了任何可能是坏兆头的信息。

确认偏差使我们寻找支持我们现有观点的信息。 但它也鼓励我们以证明我们是正确的方式解释信息。 由于确认偏差，两个具有不同信念的人可能会从同一组统计数据中得出不同的结论。

为了克服你的确认偏见，即使你已经确定“所有证据”都支持你想做的事情，也要寻找挑战你观点的人和信息来源。 您可能会感到惊讶，事情并没有那么简单。

可用性启发式
可用性启发法引导我们根据某件事浮现在脑海的容易程度来做出决策。 例如，如果您的朋友刚刚经历了某家航空公司的航班长时间延误，可用性启发法可能会导致您在即将到来的商务旅行中避开该航空公司 - 即使它实际上比您最终选择的承运商有更好的准点记录 。 因为您可以很快回忆起朋友的经历，所以您高估了该航空公司未来航班延误的可能性。

可用性启发式确实会让我们陷入困境，因为我们的想法感觉像是现实。 但当你能够停下来，事后反思一下自己，看看是否真的有信息支持你的看法时，你就会做出更好的决定。

幸存者偏差
幸存者偏差导致我们只根据成功的例子做出决定——同时假设我们掌握了完整的故事。

幸存者偏差的一个常见例子是利用其他组织的成功案例来决定您的组织应该做什么。 当然，A公司可能通过使用特定的策略而取得了巨大的成功，每个人都在称赞。 但我们很少听到的是，B、C 和 D 公司采用了相同的策略，但现在他们倒闭了。

为了避免幸存者偏差，训练自己更加怀疑。 在根据成功案例做出决定之前，问问自己这些故事是否只考虑了“幸存者”。

确认偏差使我们寻找支持我们现有观点的信息。

锚定偏差
锚定偏差导致我们使用最初的信息来做出后续判断。 例如，最初的报价决定了谈判的方向。 但即使接触任意和随机的认知锚也会影响你的选择。 在一项研究中，参与者旋转轮盘赌式的轮盘，然后被要求猜测联合国国家在非洲的百分比。 那些在旋转中获得较高数字的人猜测的百分比更高。

锚定偏差是尽可能放慢决策过程的另一个好理由。 通过意识到人类对这种偏见的脆弱性，您就有更好的机会认识到何时需要更多信息。

光环效应
我们都知道第一印象的力量，但我们常常忽视第一印象的力量有多大。 我们认为我们正在雇用一名承包商，因为他聪明且有条理泽德。 然而，我们可能只是假设所有这些，因为他很高或者握手有力。

这就是行动中的光环效应。 它也可以反向工作。 如果有人在社交活动中把酒洒到了你身上，你可能就不会那么相信他们稍后分享的观点了。

对你的大脑通过光环效应节省劳动力的努力保持警惕。 当你做出决定时，问问自己是否基于第一印象。 您还有什么其他证据来相信或怀疑这种印象？