Productive Outcomes

I have experience with quite a few of the different decision-making techniques. Certainly, the rational model is interesting, and utilizes parts of some of the other models, such as cost-benefit analysis. I’ve been involved a little bit with focus groups, used brainstorming, and done variations on cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness. I have less familiarity with some of the other decision-making models that we studied.
I feel that the most valuable is really the cost-benefit, which requires a lot of rational analysis. First, cost-benefit focuses ones efforts. We all know that resources are limited. As individuals we are limited in terms of time and energy. If we are going to expend these resources on something, and we are presented with more options than we can reasonably pursue, then we need to focus on energy on efforts that deliver the highest level of return for us personally, however we choose to define return.
Further, the cost benefit analysis technique forces you to think about the cost side. Often, we view costs in terms of what can we afford. In government, that mode of thinking will often result in deficits because large governments that can issue debt or have access to massive tax bases can always technically afford something. When forced to think about cost in relation to benefit, the decision becomes about more than just the benefit. Certainly elected officials are more tempted to think about benefit because that is usually what they are rewarded for. But the cost side of things is important, too, and taking that into account would certainly change some of the decisions.
It is interesting, however, to think about how these different approaches will yield different outcomes. Cost-benefit is a rational form of decision-making, but it really is suited well for companies, whereas in governments there are projects that are really about what good the government can do, and while costs be quantified, benefits cannot always be distilled down to dollars. Furthermore, if you are an elected official, this mode of decision-making is less appealing because you have to win votes, which makes more emotional, less rational, more democratic forms of decision-making much more appealing. So there are definitely some good arguments in favor of other approaches.