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(guò)于依賴自己的直覺(jué)。

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

    他敦促?zèng)Q策人士提出問(wèn)題，并用盡可能多的信息武裝自己。他建議，目前的經(jīng)濟(jì)問(wèn)題可以部分歸咎于那些沒(méi)做到這點(diǎn)的管理者。在接受《華爾街日?qǐng)?bào)》桑斯里諾（Michael Sanserino）的采訪時(shí)，達(dá)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(gè)步驟來(lái)更好地作決策？

    第一，明確決策角色。清楚地確立誰(shuí)是決策者，誰(shuí)對(duì)決策的各個(gè)方面負(fù)責(zé)。

    想想作決策時(shí)使用了哪些信息。我們有著強(qiáng)大的信息工具來(lái)作決策，不過(guò)在很多情況下，信息實(shí)際上并沒(méi)有對(duì)決策造成應(yīng)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(gè)可以引導(dǎo)你完成這一過(guò)程的人征求意見(jiàn)，也會(huì)有所幫助。

    此外，退一步想想，作出這個(gè)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(jìn)行決策，你有可能不會(huì)獲得最佳結(jié)果。

    三大決策錯(cuò)誤是什么？

    最近，我在想"群體思維"這個(gè)概念是什么時(shí)候出現(xiàn)的。"群體思維"指的是一個(gè)小團(tuán)隊(duì)中的每個(gè)人都傾向于以同樣的方式思考。這個(gè)概念早在50多年前就出現(xiàn)了，不過(guò)我們可以想出人們?nèi)栽谶M(jìn)行"群體思維"的很多例子。結(jié)果是，他們不會(huì)得到一個(gè)好的答案。

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

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

    你指哪些分析法？

    我將分析定義為運(yùn)用數(shù)據(jù)和系統(tǒng)性的推理來(lái)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(kù)也可以歸入這個(gè)范疇──用于分析的數(shù)據(jù)。

    沒(méi)什么經(jīng)驗(yàn)和資源的公司該如何在商業(yè)活動(dòng)中應(yīng)用分析法？

    進(jìn)入分析式?jīng)Q策領(lǐng)域越來(lái)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(luò)上有大量的數(shù)據(jù)，可供你用來(lái)分析什么人在關(guān)注你的產(chǎn)品和信息。

    同時(shí)，分析軟件越來(lái)越趨向于按需提供，而無(wú)需購(gòu)買整個(gè)軟件的所有功能。甚至還可以通過(guò)外包方式來(lái)進(jìn)行分析。

    身為領(lǐng)袖，應(yīng)當(dāng)怎樣彌合自身和員工之間的知識(shí)差距？

    對(duì)這個(gè)問(wèn)題，我的想法略有改變。我寫(xiě)過(guò)一本書(shū)，名為《思考型工作者》（Thinking for a Living）,書(shū)中說(shuō)，不用擔(dān)心你手下的知識(shí)型工作者知道的比你多。這就是知識(shí)經(jīng)濟(jì)的特點(diǎn)，你不能指望自己比所有員工懂的都多。

    現(xiàn)在我覺(jué)得，在當(dāng)前的金融危機(jī)中，我們已經(jīng)看到過(guò)一些例子，具有很強(qiáng)分析能力的知識(shí)型工作者能夠欺騙老板。最成功的機(jī)構(gòu)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(chǔ)來(lái)開(kāi)展業(yè)務(wù)。也就是說(shuō)分析者必須能夠更好地用通俗易懂的話來(lái)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(xué)習(xí)。這對(duì)于現(xiàn)代經(jīng)濟(jì)的成功太重要了，切不可盲目做出決定。