content_model

example

slideshow

Decision Workshops provides tools to help understand, plan, and focus on the politics of decision making. It uses Confrontation Analysis and the Dilemma Explorer software to model complex multi-party issues. The process involves defining the problem, players, and their goals; developing strategies through analysis; testing and refining strategies in workshops; and presenting a clear strategy. The software helps structure decisions, communicate desires, understand dilemmas, and indicate progress through negotiation rehearsals. Decision Workshops has been used in various scenarios including government, military, and business deals.

These gentlemen had a lot of experts to advise them, but they misjudged how others would behave.  Even with lots of advisors, they were still basically muddling throughSo perhaps we should listen to others

Philip E. Tetlock, now the Leonore Annenberg University Professor in Democracy and Citizenship at Penn, provided exceptional support for the Seer-Sucker Theory with his 2005 book, Expert Political Judgment. The book describes the findings from Tetlock’s 20-year study of 284 political and economic experts and their 82,361 forecasts during that time. As it turned out, the experts’ forecasts were no more accurate than those of novices

Here is an experiment that was done. At the bottom here we have a selection of different situations, they are all things that actually happened, but they are quite obscure and disguised   Here’s an artist’s protest, A fight about TV channel distributions, A Takeover, do I invest, A Takeover, and a Nurses dispute.  Now each of these situations actually happened, we know the outcome.  So what we did was took the real outcome, and mixed it with other things that may have happened, as a multiple choice test and then saw how good we are at predicting what will happen,

Now because this is a multiple choice test, you can often get the right result, just by guessing, there’s six choices for artist’s protest, 1 in 6 chance of getting it right by guessing,  three for the distribution channel, one in three chance of guessing and so on. So (on average) we would expect to get about 27% right just by guessing. Let’s see how we did using other methods.

FIRSTLY   Unaided judgement. Nearly all decision making is of this form. If we just tell people to estimate what happens we get this…. We do worse than guessing some of the time, better at others, but on average, we do miserably, Hardly better than guessing, 

SECONDLYIf we use mathematical techniques such as Game Theory to predict the outcome, we do even works that with unaided judgment.  This would have been better if the participants had not scored 0 on the “Telco takeover” package.

THIRDLYIf we use role play we do much better.  Role playing does seem to be able to predict the outcome of negotiations.