MGT602 Business Decision Analytics Report 1 Sample

MGT602 Business Decision Analytics Report 1 Sample

Context:

Fast changing workplaces call for greater flexibility in the ways individuals and work teams make and implement decisions. Alongside the increasing rate of change are the demands for better decision making through understanding and mitigating personal preferences and biases.
This assessment has been designed to:

▪ Appraise your ability to research academic literature on decision making. You are expected to utilise the literature provided in Modules 1 and 2 as a foundation that guides your further academic research.

▪ Select and evaluate the usefulness of a range of decision-making tools and reflect on levels of rationality and intuition utilised during the decision-making process.

▪ Compare, contrast and critically evaluate sources of data as influences in the decision-making context

▪ Identify the relevant sources of influence and limitations in your decision-decision making process MGT602 Assessment 1 writing guidelines:

This assessment draws on learning activities and resources from Modules 1 and 2. It is designed for you to engage in the decision-making process and then reflectively analyse your decision-making process using only theories and concepts from the Business Decision Analytics course (MGT602).

You should include in your reflective report:

▪ The decision-making problem detailed by your learning facilitator

▪ Analysis of your decision-making preferences (see activity Module 1)

▪ Analysis and influence of your personality traits and the impact on your decision-making

▪ Details of the sources of data collected during the decision-making process and how this data was evaluated/analysed

▪ Analysis of the decision-making process using any of the models discussed in Modules 1 and 2 plus any of your further relevant readings

▪ Analysis of written feedback from at least 2 other people from within the MGT602 class on
your decision-making process in the topic nominated by your Learning Facilitator

▪ Discussion of your biases and blind spots uncovered from research of your personality traits
and feedback from your peers.

▪ Relevant visual interpretation of data / trends/ patterns

▪ As a reflective analysis you will present your analysis in the first person.

Solution

Introduction     

I am currently studying for a master’s in engineering management at Torrens University. As per the MBA Assignment Expert, I have primarily selected three options including Swinburne University of Technology, University of Technology Sydney, and Torrens University. Finally, I have selected Torrens to pursue my master's in Torrens. In this journey to decide on the university, I have considered using a decision-making matrix to select the university most suitable for me. This report includes details of the decision-style quiz and other psychometric tests considered along with sources of data used. 

Analysis and evaluation 

Decision-style instrument quiz 

Table 1: Results of decision style quiz statement
(Source: Self-created)

Based on the overall result of this and the style quiz statement it is clear that I depend on my intuition for decision making and I prefer evidence-based decision-making. I tend to observe the impact of decisions on others. 

Other decision-making tools 

Table 2: Results of other decision-making tools

Based on the above table and the results of the decision-making tools it is clear that I prefer intuition while decision making and it is flexible based on possibilities as well as I often think before making the decision thus, I have the ability of critical evaluation and thinking. Based on the Big Five personality test it can be identified that I can manage stressful situations and I am a team worker thus decision making is also influenced by this nature.

My decision-making process 

Based on overall decision-making process while selecting universities I have focused on conducting detailed research regarding the facilities, accommodation, and job opportunities offered by three of universities I have selected in primary stage. Further, I have considered evaluating the reviews for each of universities and then selected Torrance to be best university for studying.  As mentioned by Caldwell (2018) strategic decision-making requires high levels of consciousness and understanding of concepts before decision.  As per my results decision-making tool and big five personalities I have identified that I prefer investigating about matter before making any decision. Similarly, I have considered reviewing online information available about three of universities before making decision. While pursuing a master's in engineering my focus is to access a suitable job opportunity thus, I have reviewed information regarding availability of Joe opportunities from each of three universities I have selected. Further, I have critically reviewed prospects of each of universities to understand learning environment in each for making decision.

Rational decision-making matrix 

Rational decision-making models focus on step-by-step decision-making practices that allow for developing goals and making decisions accordingly (Frahm, 2019). There is an opportunity for rigorous training in problem-solving. There are six stages of decision making including identifying problem, analysing decision criteria, and applying weight to criteria.  Further generating alternatives, evaluation of alternatives, and determining final decisions fall under stages of decision-making. 

Step 1: Identify the problem 

Here my problem was selecting most suitable university as per my academic criteria. 

Step 2: Decision criteria 

I have followed decision criteria to be job opportunities and learning environments for selecting the universities. 

Step 3: Apply weight criteria 

In this stage, I have scored each criterion for each of the university 

Step 4: generating alternatives 

For each of the universities, I have analysed if there are any alternatives present 

Step 5: Evaluating alternatives

I have analysed each of the alternatives for Torrens University and others 

Step 6: Optimal decision 

My optimal decision was to select Torrens University 

Figure 1: Score for three university options based on a rational decision-making model 
(Source: Self-created) 

Based on the rational decision-making model I have considered comparing the decision criteria of three of the universities. This model highlighted a score of 164 for Torrens University and 75 for the University of Technology Sydney. Further 85 score was accessed for Swinburne University of Technology. Based on the overall score I have selected Torrance University for further studies as there was a high score for each of the criteria I have selected. I have equally weighted each of the criteria for clear decision-making in terms of scores for each of the criteria. 

Visual representation  

Figure 2: Visual representation of the decision criteria
(Source: Self-created)

Based on overall analysis and visual presentation it can be identified that in case of a university fee total score is 4 whereas the other two universities score 3 and 

2. Similarly, in the case of accommodation and other criteria, students had highest scores which are four and other universities range scores between 1 to 3. Thus, decision was clear that Torrens University provides better opportunities than other two universities in terms of decision criteria including student support, equality, transparency, and support from professors as well as job opportunities. 

Sources of data 

While completing the rational decision-making matrix I have considered accessing information from university websites, the university websites of three of the universities have been evaluated by me which are presented in the table below. 

Table 3: Sources of information 
(Source: Self-created) 

Analysis of results 

While analysing the results of the rational decision-making model as well as the other personality test and decision-making tools I have identified that I focus on accessing information regarding the situation before making any decision. I also focus on accessing reviews before making the decision. In this context, based on rational decision making I got the opportunity to clarify facilities available in each of the universities based on the criteria I prefer while accessing learning from any university. Overall, I have evaluated each of the universities in terms of decision-making criteria and made the most suitable decision as per my learning criteria and needs.

Analysis of written feedback 

In my intuition, logic, and balance test score one of my classmates mentioned that I have a fast decision-making ability and logical approach to problems will help me to improve my skills in engineering. I have also received feedback regarding my bias that will impact my ability negatively and I have also identified that. Another classmate provided feedback regarding my scores on the Big Five personality test regarding the link of creativity with decision-making. The third classmate mentioned that my rational thinking ability is going to improve my decision-making to be straightforward as per industry requirements. However, all the feedback suggested limiting the negative impact of blind spots in my decision-making. 

Blind spot 

Table 4: Blind spots in decision-making
(Source: Self-created)

The above table highlights the blind spots or biases that I have faced during the decision-making process.

Conclusion

Based on the overall analysis I have identified that rational decision-making process as well as my personality traits and my decision-making ability. Among the three universities I have selected, Torrens University as most suitable for my engineering course as it has a better scope for job opportunities and better accommodation and convenient fees. Overall, the decision-making process has supported me to make the right choices based on my requirements however there are certain biases including self-serving bias, pessimism bias, and distinction bias that have created difficulties during decision making.  

References 

Akinci, C., & Sadler-Smith, E. (2012). Intuition in management research: a historical review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 14(1), 104–122. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2011.00313.x

Caldwell. L. (2018). Introducing System 3: How we use our Imagination to Make Choices. GreenBook Blog. https://greenbookblog.org/2018/04/24/introducing-system-3-how-we-use-our-imagination-to-make-choices/

Florez-Lozano, J. M., Caraffini, F., Parra, C., & Gongora, M. (2020). A robust decision-making framework based on collaborative agents. Ieee Access, 8. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3016784

Frahm, G. (2019). Rational choice and strategic conflict : the subjectivistic approach to game and decision theory. De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110596106
Franke, U. (2022). First- and second-level bias in automated decision-making. Philosophy & Technology, 35(2). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-022-00500-y

He, Y., Dyer, J. S., & Butler, J. C. (2019). A decision-making model with utility from anticipation and disappointment. Journal of Multicriteria Decision Analysis, 26(1-2), 35–50. https://doi.org/10.1002/mcda.1657

Matteo, C., & Pier, L. G. (2020). Core self-evaluations, self-leadership, and the self-serving bias in managerial decision making: a laboratory experiment, 10(64), 64–64. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci10030064

Appendices 
Appendix 1: Activity 1 test result screenshots

Appendix 2: Feedback