Business Decision Making final Essay Example

poor transportation links (as shown in Appendix 1) could create problems, particularly for the elderly population. Improvements to accessibility in the surrounding areas may be necessary, but this could cost more money and be time-consuming. The visibility of the scarred land left from coal mining and chemical production would also make it difficult to convince professional staff to work at Site A. Moreover, finding suitable accommodation for potential staff would be challenging and may result in job prospects seeking employment elsewhere (Appendix 1).The technique of Macro-Environment analysis was utilized by HISS to conduct a PESTLE analysis for relocating their head office from London to Hong Kong. The company assessed the Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Environmental, and Legal factors for moving the head office, relying on the information gathered from this analysis to make their decision. Additionally, for undertaking a SOOT analysis, HISS employed Micro-Environment and examined the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats that might affect the decision to relocate. Through researching each area of the SOOT analysis and analyzing the aspects of the business environment, HISS concluded the decision that best served their business. Comparatively, an advantage of Site B's location is its transportation links, with easy bus service accessibility and proximity to the railway station (as evidenced in Appendix 2). Ultimately, this provides Site B with a significant advantage over the other locations which either have poor transportation links or require new links to be built for accessibility and long-term success of the hospital. (The Write Pass, 2012).Site B offers a significant benefit as a sought-after location for professional workers (see Appendix 2), making it advantageous for them to live near their place of

employment, which also incentivizes them to choose this hospital over others. Consequently, the hospital can attract a higher quality workforce, given its availability of accommodation and pre-existing population of professional workers. However, Site B's main setback pertains to the presence of Newts in the surrounding Nature Reserve, which has been declared a special site of interest (see Appendix 5). Newts are a strictly protected species in Britain and their decline results from the loss of their habitat (Frog Life Great Crested Newt Conservation, 2003). The presence of Newts on a development site has previously stalled construction activities since they are rare species. Media Para site's work in Hartsfield had to be stopped by New Scotland Yard officers and the Met Wildlife Crime Unit was brought in to investigate the area (Dan Combs, 2010).

Although Site B may face potential delays due to the presence of Newts, there are alternate options such as building a water feature for them on the land. However, the need to drain the land before commencing work at Site B may result in significant costs for the company. On the other hand, Site B is the most lucrative area among all other locations. The cost and delay caused by the Newt issue can be preemptively addressed by proper planning, and the profits from Site B can compensate for it. Additionally, building a hospital at Site B has the potential to boost the local economy and attract visitors. Site C's advantage is that public health is a significant concern in the area, which would result in high demand for a hospital. The success and growth of the new hospital depend on

high demand, which provides numerous opportunities for not only the medical facility but also the people in the surrounding areas.

The potential for new businesses linked with the hospital could boost the local economy and create more jobs, taking advantage of the hospital's presence in the town. Site C is a desirable location to live, which could attract more skilled workers to the area and optimistically boost the economy. However, the town has a higher proportion of unskilled workers and recruiting highly skilled workers may be challenging and costly. Nevertheless, there are roles available for semi-skilled and unskilled workers like cleaners, gift shop workers, and caretakers at the hospital. (Appendices 3 and 7 provide more information.)Due to the abundance of available space, Site C offers employers a range of options for building a hospital. Nonetheless, its unsatisfactory transportation links would necessitate significant investments in new infrastructure (refer to Appendix 3), which would simultaneously demand considerable time and resources from those managing the project. Nevertheless, because the location boasts convenient access for visitors and workers alike, especially commuters, and because it only sits a short distance from Woolen Town, the hospital would be easily accessible to those coming from the surrounding areas. After evaluating all of the regions and examining the drawbacks and opportunities connected to each, the committee opted for Site B. Dismissing Site A due to concerns that decontaminating and constructing new transportation routes would be too arduous in terms of time and money, Site C presents a comparable challenge with a scarcity of highly skilled laborers and a necessity for new transportation routes. Despite concerns stemming from newts living on Site B, after

researching how other companies addressed such an issue, the group determined that with careful planning it could be managed effectively. Therefore, Site B appears to be the most feasible option.

Site B, owned by the local authority, proved to be the most profitable and convenient location with great access to transportation and hospital facilities which also made it an attractive living option for potential future employees. When deciding on a location for the hospital, working as a group was helpful in mitigating the large financial risk involved and distributing the responsibility of decision-making. Cohesiveness within the group was aided by continuous effort and familiarity outside of a professional setting. However, there were also limitations to the group size as larger groups tend to have lower productivity despite having access to more resources. As noted in 'Introduction to Organizational Behavior', large groups may also face greater difficulties in reaching agreements on a course of action which was consistent with our experience.

Despite a minor problem within our small group where one member insisted on Site A due to the potential for more discussion surrounding its issues, we were able to reach a unified decision thanks to improved synergy and quicker resolution of disagreements. The member in question eventually recognized the value of choosing Site B and acknowledged that Site A's drawbacks outweighed any benefits. While there may have been other factors that influenced our decision, such as the well-known Hawthorne Effect in which productivity increases due to feeling important, we ultimately came to a mutual understanding and worked together effectively.The productivity of individuals may have been lower if they were not being experimentally measured by each other

and pushed to meet deadlines. However, working in a group can lead to problems such as corrupting. Janis (1982) defined corrupting as the deterioration of mental efficiency, poor testing of laity, and lax moral judgment due to in-group pressures. Our group experienced the symptom of illusion of unanimity, where the majority view is assumed to be unanimous without any disruption. This may have happened when a group member wanted to choose a different site but did not want to disrupt the group dynamics. The group worked nominally, with each member presenting their ideas and discussing and prioritizing them together. Stanford University suggests that the faulty assumption of unanimity occurs when no group member is willing to disrupt a clear consensus, leading others to believe that everyone agrees within the group.According to Objectifications.Com, the initial creative stage may see a reduction in group interaction. Although it would have been more efficient to brainstorm together, time constraints and other responsibilities often made this infeasible. One possible explanation for disputes within a group concerning decisions is the devil's advocacy approach, which involves highlighting weaknesses and potential failures in proposed courses of action, as explained by Pennsylvania State University. This approach can be helpful and adaptive, as it prompts rigorous discussion before making a decision. To make the best decision for a group, it is important to consider the philosophy and history behind traditional decision making. The Harvard Business Review explains that in Athens, the first democracy established that consensus on issues is good, but easily achieved consensus can be suspicious.

The fact that members of a group disagreed on which tit to pick was seen as a positive

thing, as it implied that corruption was less prevalent if everyone did not eagerly choose the same site. For this task, the decision making process was non-programmed and required a blend of information and intuition. Due to high levels of uncertainty and ambiguity, the decision was risky, constrained by our bounded rationality. According to Bryan D. Jones (1999), our ability to make rational choices is limited by our cognitive and emotional architecture. As a group, we attempted to use rational decision making, but lacked the necessary information for the classical approach. Our first step was to establish clear goals and priorities, while analyzing each site under the same rationale (PESTLE and SOOT). However, we had to revise and re-evaluate our choices as several assumptions had to be made. This is because, as explained by Herbert A Simon (1959), it is unrealistic to consider every possible alternative when making a rational decision due to various constraining variables.

According to John Scott (2000), the ideal choice for a reasoned individual is to select the outcome that provides the utmost satisfaction. However, such a decision-making process is unattainable due to our limitations, which ultimately result in satisfactory outcomes.
Moreover, it has been highlighted that decision making is deemed uncertain and ambiguous, thereby questioning its existence. We opted for bounded rationality as a more practical solution, given our time constraints, cognitive limitations, and limited information. As a result, we were obliged to make our best possible decision with the information at hand, as exemplified by our inability to choose Site C due to insufficient data, which posed too great a risk when compared with the other sites.