Tools and techniques in research and practice

decision making tool.

Forced Field Analysis: a decision making tool

In business applications, health care, or private life there arise many occasions when one is faced with making a major decision. Although many individuals face such instances with their wits alone, relying on his or her "gut feelings" to assist them in their quandary, many find that such an unscientific approach can lead them to the wrong action. Indeed, when one lacks a basic "tool" approach to decision making, the odds of coming to the correct or workable solution is significantly reduced in most circumstances. Having a method such as the "Forced Field Analysis" tool is extremely useful.

In simple terms, Forced Field Analysis involves identifying, compiling a list concerning, discussing and evaluating the possible "forces" in favor of as well as against a possible change or decision. In essence, the technique helps the decision maker see the true context of the problem by allowing a thorough analysis of the forces affecting the proposed change, as well as allowing the individual (or group) to see the pros and cons of the action. The value of such a method is that by having a clear picture of the logically foreseeable pros and cons, one can develop a working strategy to, perhaps, buffer the possible impact of any "opposing" or negative forces (known specifically as Restraining forces") while bolstering the supporting, or "driving" ones.

The overwhelming utility of Force Field Analysis lies in its ability to help one produce a solid "action plan" with which one can actually implement a proposed change. Specifically, its strength lies in its capacity to determine the existence or absence of needed support, identify obstacles to the change's success, as well as its ability to highlight possible actions that might reduce the strength of any foreseeable obstacles to the change.

The actual method with which one begins the implementation of the Forced Field Analysis technique involves considering "force types." Commonly identified ones include:

Available resources

Traditions

Vested interests

Organizational structures

Relationships

Social or organizational trends

Agencies

Attitudes of individuals

Regulations

Individual or group needs

Present or past practices

Institutional polices or norms

Values

Events

Desires

People

Costs

It is only after one identifies the force types that the process begins. It is implemented by first beginning with a well-defined proposed change. After this is clearly identified one draws a "force field diagram." This is accomplished by writing the "change" on the top of a piece of paper, and dividing the paper into two columns. One of the columns is labeled "Driving Forces," while the other is labeled "Restraining Forces." Then, using brainstorming techniques the individual or the group lists those forces in the appropriate column. When this is completed one moves on to the "question" phase of the process.

The question phase basically entails asking a list of pre-determined questions with which the "forces" are evaluated. They are:

Are the forces valid? How does one know?

How significant are they?

How strong are they?

Which ones can be changed? How quickly?

Which ones cannot be changed?

Which ones would produce the most rapid change?

Which ones would produce only slow change?

What special skills or information is necessary and available?

Can the skills or information be obtained?

After asking these questions, the next step is to assign a score to each force from 1 (weak) to 5 (strong). These numbers are based on the strength of the force as well as the degree to which it is possible to change the force. When this is completed, one calculates the total score of each column -- depending on the result, one then decides if the change is feasible.

The following is an example of the tool in action:

Proposed Change: To clear the local stream of debris by August.

Driving Forces (the pro's)

Restraining Forces (the con's)

Popular support by wildlife groups (1)

Local authority supports the action (5)

Public climate favors cleaning up the waterway for Salmon runs (2)

There exists a willing volunteer pool.(2)

Sufficient funds exist.(4)

The work is possibly dangerous.(5)

Private landowners may resist clean up procedures.(3)

Insurance issues may be cost prohibitive (3)

Clean up efforts may cause erosion of banks (4)

Process is expensive and may arouse criticism (1)

Conclusion: change is not feasible.