Facing a tough decision? Don't rely too much on your gut.

    That's one message from Tom Davenport, a management professor at Babson College in Wellesley, Mass., and co-author of a book on strategy and decisions called 'Competing on Analytics: The New Science of Winning.'

    He urges decision-makers to ask questions and arm themselves with as much information as possible. He suggests that current economic problems could be attributed, in part, to managers who failed to do this. He spoke with The Journal's Michael Sanserino about how to make better decisions. Here are edited excerpts of the conversation:

    What are three steps that managers can take to make better decisions?

    One would be to clarify the decision roles. Clearly establish who the decision-makers are and who's responsible for different aspects of the decision.

    Think about what information you're using to make the decision. We have powerful information tools to make decisions, but in many cases, the information doesn't actually influence the decision as much as it might. You need to acquaint yourself with information tools that are available. In many cases it helps to have someone who can guide you through that process.

    [Also] step back and say, 'What's the best way to make this decision?' If you just immediately decide in the way that's most comfortable to you, chances are you're not going to get the best outcome.

    What are three decision-making mistakes?

    I was looking recently at when the concept of 'group think' first emerged -- where everybody in a small group tends to think the same way. That idea came up more than 50 years ago, but we can think of lots of examples where people still engage in group think. They don't arrive at a good answer as a result.

    Another mistake would be to assume that everybody is thinking rationally. People are often irrational about decision issues in a whole variety of ways. One is they are overly influenced by any numbers that they previously heard or any statement of the problem the so-called anchoring effect.

    The third problem is that people rely on intuition too much. It's easy, it's comfortable, but in general it should be the last resort, not the first. If you can't get data, if you have a lot of experience, maybe intuition is OK. But in general you want to look for the more analytical approaches than just your intuition.

    What sort of analytical approaches do you mean?

    I've defined analytics as the use of data and systematic reasoning to make decisions. [Analytics tools are] mostly software. The IT industry typically calls it business intelligence software. You could say data warehouses fall into that category as well data set aside for analysis.

    What can companies with little experience and few resources do to use analytics in their business practices?

    It's getting easier to enter into the area of analytical decisions. For one thing, almost everybody has better data than they ever had before. If you have any Internet presence whatsoever, the Internet generates a vast amount of data you can use to start making analytical decisions about who's paying attention to your products and information.

    [Also] analytical software is increasingly provided by the drink rather than having to buy the whole software capabilities. And it's even possible to get analytical capabilities in an outsourced way.

    What can leaders do to bridge the knowledge gap between themselves and their employees?

    My thinking has changed a little bit on this. I wrote a book called 'Thinking for a Living,' and said, 'Ah, don't worry about it if your knowledge workers know more than you do. That's the nature of the knowledge economy, and you can't expect to know more than every one of your employees.'

    Now I think in the current financial crisis, we've seen examples where highly analytical knowledge workers were able to snow their bosses a little bit. The most successful organizations have been those who've said, 'If you're a manager and you don't understand this type of analysis, don't base your business on it.' What that means is the analyst has to become better at explaining what they do in common-sense terms. And it probably means managers are going to have to bone up a bit and maybe go back to school. It's just too important to the success of the modern economy to make these decisions blind.

    你正面臨艱難的抉擇嗎？不要過于依賴自己的直覺。

    這是馬薩諸塞州巴布森學院（Babson College）管理學教授達文波特（Tom Davenport）的忠告之一。達文波特與人合著了探討戰(zhàn)略與決策的書《分析層面之競爭：贏的新科學》（Competing on Analytics: The New Science of Winning）.

    他敦促決策人士提出問題，并用盡可能多的信息武裝自己。他建議，目前的經(jīng)濟問題可以部分歸咎于那些沒做到這點的管理者。在接受《華爾街日報》桑斯里諾（Michael Sanserino）的采訪時，達文波特談了如何更好地作決策。采訪節(jié)錄如下：

    管理者可以采取哪三個步驟來更好地作決策？

    第一，明確決策角色。清楚地確立誰是決策者，誰對決策的各個方面負責。

    想想作決策時使用了哪些信息。我們有著強大的信息工具來作決策，不過在很多情況下，信息實際上并沒有對決策造成應有的影響。你需要讓自己了解可以使用的信息工具。很多情況下，向一個可以引導你完成這一過程的人征求意見，也會有所幫助。

    此外，退一步想想，作出這個決策的最佳方式是什么？如果你只是馬上按照自己最舒服的方式進行決策，你有可能不會獲得最佳結果。

    三大決策錯誤是什么？

    最近，我在想"群體思維"這個概念是什么時候出現(xiàn)的。"群體思維"指的是一個小團隊中的每個人都傾向于以同樣的方式思考。這個概念早在50多年前就出現(xiàn)了，不過我們可以想出人們仍在進行"群體思維"的很多例子。結果是，他們不會得到一個好的答案。

    第二種錯誤是，以為每個人都是理性思考的。人們常常對決策問題并不理性，表現(xiàn)方式各種各樣。有一種是，人們受到過去聽到的數(shù)據(jù)或問題陳述的影響，也就是所謂的"先入為主".

    第三種錯誤是，人們過于依賴直覺。依靠直覺作決策既簡單又舒服，但是通常這應該作為最后一招，而不是第一招。如果你無法獲得數(shù)據(jù)，如果你有豐富的經(jīng)驗，或許直覺還行得通。不過通常來講，你應該尋求分析為主的途徑，而不是僅僅依靠直覺。

    你指哪些分析法？

    我將分析定義為運用數(shù)據(jù)和系統(tǒng)性的推理來做出決定。分析工具絕大部分都是軟件。IT行業(yè)通常稱之為商業(yè)智能軟件。數(shù)據(jù)庫也可以歸入這個范疇──用于分析的數(shù)據(jù)。

    沒什么經(jīng)驗和資源的公司該如何在商業(yè)活動中應用分析法？

    進入分析式?jīng)Q策領域越來越容易了。一方面，幾乎所有人都擁有比以前更好的數(shù)據(jù)。只要能上網(wǎng)，網(wǎng)絡上有大量的數(shù)據(jù)，可供你用來分析什么人在關注你的產(chǎn)品和信息。

    同時，分析軟件越來越趨向于按需提供，而無需購買整個軟件的所有功能。甚至還可以通過外包方式來進行分析。

    身為領袖，應當怎樣彌合自身和員工之間的知識差距？

    對這個問題，我的想法略有改變。我寫過一本書，名為《思考型工作者》（Thinking for a Living）,書中說，不用擔心你手下的知識型工作者知道的比你多。這就是知識經(jīng)濟的特點，你不能指望自己比所有員工懂的都多。

    現(xiàn)在我覺得，在當前的金融危機中，我們已經(jīng)看到過一些例子，具有很強分析能力的知識型工作者能夠欺騙老板。最成功的機構秉承這樣的信條：作為經(jīng)理，如果你不明白這種分析方法，那就不要以此為基礎來開展業(yè)務。也就是說分析者必須能夠更好地用通俗易懂的話來解釋他們所做的事情。這或許意味著管理人員必須臨陣磨槍一番，或是重新學習。這對于現(xiàn)代經(jīng)濟的成功太重要了，切不可盲目做出決定。