The two researchers demonstrate that the type of decision maker- an individual or a team makes a vital difference in an interactive economic environment, regardless of it being the investment and marketing strategies of companies and funds managers or the budget and monetary policy-making of governments and central banks. Small teams take efficient decisions compared to decisions taken at the individual level as they work better at processing information and better at other decision-makers choices. The mounting relevance of teams in firms, consulting and decision-making in general makes these findings very pertinent. (Teams Make Better Decisions than Individuals) Consensus in its true sense implies fulfilling the needs of everybody. Consensus decision-making is planned to negate the responsibilities of sections or parties and promote the expression of individuals concerns. The technique also enhances the possibilities of unexpected or creative solutions by contrasting dissimilar ideas. As it looks forward to make the resistance the least, it is popular with the voluntary organizations in which the decisions have an enhanced possibility of being executed when they are consented by a wide cross-section of people. Consensus methods are enviable when enforcement of the decision in impractical, such that it will be necessary on the part of every participant to act on the decision independently. (Consensus decision making: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Improvement of Decision making process:-

While people speak of continuous improvement, they are in fact implying continuous change. To achieve a continuous change, there has to be certain factors, which makes people cohesive. A common purpose ought to be present, and each member must appreciate his responsibilities. When genuine, long-term change is desirable; in that case one ought to have a method of concentrating people on the change not as individuals, rather as a cohesive unit. Human capital is vital; however, the belief that people are the most vital asset is not true. The most vital asset of an organization is not its people, its technology, or even it's highly paid managers. Every component can be important, but each one in isolation is just an instrument. Even the most talented personnel will not be successful in case they operate in a system that is devised to be unsuccessful. Therefore the corporate system of drawing people together for mutual purposes is a critical factor to success.

In case some great integrating factor is able to draw normal, diligent people in a cohesive manner and aids them see their significance and their position inside the organization, those people will be able to make an immense contribution. On the contrary, a loose endeavor or approach to launching a change will likely to meet with failure. Also people working very...

Perceptibly, it would be ideal to have exceptional people as well as exceptional system of introducing change, but an exceptional system of introducing change is what matters. (Creating a system for continuous improvement - improving an organization's decision-making process)
In an ideal situation, fulfilling evaluations must allow a facilitator to detect the strength and weakness of a group and choose appropriate interventions to assist the group to enhance it effectiveness. The various approaches to evaluation of group decision making has been criticized by John Rohrbaugh and Bradley Wright and recommend that evaluations must concentrate on processes instead of results, deal with the group rather than individual role and behaviors, and view the group in organizational perspective rather than in isolation. Building on the Competing Values Approach or CVA to organizational evaluation, they describe four perceptions on group decision processes. These are empirical, rational, political and consensual. (Evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of group decision-making processes: A Competition Values Approach)