Dynamic Choices and Static Choices, Example in Host City Selection Flow

Monday, November 18, 2013
There are two types of Decision Making; 'pros and cons on one proposal' and 'choose from several proposals'.

"RINGI", a traditional unique Japanese business practices, is a Workflow that is to make a decision over 'one proposal', to approve or not. (Collecting signatures (stamps) from a terrible number of people. So the paper almost looks red.)

In the other hand, the following Workflow is a example of a Selecting Workflow to choose from 'multiple choices'.
In this example, "Host City candidates" will be enumerated in the upstream operation together with study on benefits and problems of each them. And in the "Host City" is determined in the downstream operation. You can put it to practical use such as a serious business of "selection of the seminar venues" or 'choosing destination of company outing', an easy one.

As a matter of course, the options for the final decision will differ each time. That means, even if you want to show the options in the selection interface at the downstream operation, they will not be the same depending on each matter in question. In such a case, I use a technique that to display data which was entered in each line of "String type multiple line" in the upstream process, as "options of the downstream process". For example, if texts in three lines;

are entered in the [Host City Candidates] at upstream operation, 'Tokyo/Madrid/Istanbul' will be listed in the Selectbox (or Radio button) of [Host City] in the process of downstream.

[Olympic Games Host City Selection flow]

By the way, the essential problem of RINGI which is Japanese way of decision-making, is not the numerousness of the signatures. Rather it is the point that relying the entire selection process to the subordinates through the planning process. Subordinates describe the final proposal and the entire considerations to reach the conclusion, but what superiors do is only to determine whether good or bad. They should engage in the selection process more aggressively, besides criticizing against the final proposal.
  • 'Ask them more discount!'
  • 'Clarify the difference between competing estimates!'
  • 'Search and study for more other possibilities!'

Truly, there is an excuse that it is difficult to record the appendix in a Workflow by paper.
If you hope to improve the decision-making speed drastically, you should let the subordinates to propose quickly by reducing the work of them to enumerate about three nominees and to create evaluation materials. The superiors can determine quickly because the selection has been narrowed down. If a superior think need further discount, he/she should better do it his/her own.

We should consider more aggressively on shifting the flow of "Proposal > Approval > Final decision" into "Enumeration > selection > Final decision".

[Olympic Games Host City Selection flow;'1. ' screen]

[List of Process Data Item]

<Similar Models>
<<Related Articles>>