Decisions can be made by an individual or by a group. In many organizations, groups have become the preferred way of making decisions. In Carrel et al. (1997) and Mintzberg et al.
(1976) , decision-making process is divided into three or more steps, phases or stages.
Paper II (Saarelainen et al. 2007) describes simplified decision-making process based on the processes discussed by Carrel et al. (1997) and Mintzberg et al. (1976). This
decision-making process has three stages: problem identification, development of the solution and selection of the final decision.
These three stages are in turn divided into six steps: problem identification, resources for the decision-making, search/development for the alternatives, evaluation of alternatives, choice of the best alternative and authorization of the decision.
Furthermore, in Paper II (Saarelainen et al. 2007), it was investigated how the decision-making was organized in modernization cases. In other words, it was studied whether or not the modernization decision-making process was similar to the process created in this study (in accordance with the literature), and whether it was group- or individual-based. In addition, the interviewees’ attitudes toward using groups in decision-making were examined. In Paper II, the first interviews were analysed and thus, an interviewee could be someone who did not have expertise in the IT sector.
In most of the organizations in question, groups were found to be used in the decision-making. Interestingly, the interviewees had different views on group decisions. Some of them stated that a group decision is one in which groups are used in the preparation phase of the task and the others stating that the group decisions are those which take place in the actual decision-making phase (Table 4).
Table 4 Using groups in decision-making
Organization Only preparation Preparation and decision No answer
Private 6 9 1
Public 2 10 0
Based on these views, a simple decision-making process was divided into a preparation phase and a decision-making phase (Figure 2).
Figure 2 Distribution of the decision-making process
The preparation phase includes actions taken before an actual decision-making situation. The decision-making phase is the situation where decisions are fixed, for example, in board meetings.
The interviewees had mostly positive or neutral attitudes toward group decisions (Table 5). Attitudes in public organizations were more positive than attitudes in private organizations. This might be due to the bureaucratic history of decision-making in the public sector. Thus, group decisions were seen as a new and better method of making decisions.
Table 5 Attitudes towards group decisions
Organization Positive Negative Neutral No answer
Private 3 2 11 1
Public 6 0 6 0
These results raised two questions:
1. Would the results be the same if people, with both IT-sector experience and experience with modernization decisions were interviewed?
Decision-making
2. Why are groups used in the modernization of information systems?
Paper III (Saarelainen 2011) used both interview materials. In Paper III, groups were found to be widely used in the decision-making in organizations in question. However, in the public sector, groups were used slightly more during the preparation phase only (Table 6). In the private sector, groups were used slightly more in the preparation and decision phase than in the preparation phase only.
Table 6 Use of group decisions in different phases of decision-making
Only preparation Preparation and decision No answer
Private 6 9 1
Public 8 6 0
While, the differences between the public and the private sector were not remarkable, these findings differed from the results of Paper II. One of the reasons for this might be due to the different definition of an expert. As described earlier, in Paper II, an expert could be someone, who did not have IT-sector experience and did not work in IT administration. Thus, their views on modernization decision-making could be different than those of IT professionals.
The reasons why groups were used in decision-making were as follows: getting experts’ opinions, getting users’ opinions, sharing responsibility, and special reasons (Table 7).
Table 7 Reasons for the group decisions Getting experts’
Although decision-making is presumed to be different within both the public and private sectors, it was found that groups are used in in both sectors. Furthermore, the reasons why groups
are used in decision-making were found to be quite similar. The reasons “getting experts’ view” and “sharing responsibility”
came up in both sectors. Of course, these results speak more about decision-making in the studied organizations than decision-making in public and private organizations in general.
The stated reasons tell that the decisions concerning the modernization of information systems appear quite influential and important. Reasons such “getting experts’ view” and
“getting users’ view” illustrates that groups are used to gain important information to make successful decisions. The
“special reasons” shows that groups are used in difficult cases.
Finally, “sharing responsibility” speaks to the fact that groups are used because these decisions are so important and demanding that no-one dares to be responsible for them alone.
These findings highlight that groups are used to collect significant information and involve the right people so as to make the best decisions possible. As Carrel et al. (1997, 343) and West (2004, 8) state, a group’s contribution can be seen as greater than the sum of its individual members’ contributions.
Furthermore, West (2004, 9-10) argues that groups are faster, support organizational learning, and make high-quality and innovative decisions. In addition, the findings of Paper III suggest that groups are used to share responsibility.
In Paper IV (Saarelainen & Hotti 2011), a real-life decision-making case was presented. Paper IV was based on the executive group records of The National Project for IT in Social Services (Tikesos). Tikesos aimed, among others, to harmonise the data used in client information systems (CISs) for Social Services, to improve the interoperability between CISs, and to produce specifications for the nationally organised electronic preservation and sharing of documents. Thus, it was a huge modernization project of information systems.
Certain issues were found in the decision-making of the executive group. First, the executive group meetings included with discussions about important issues, but they lacked real decisions. It seemed that the executive group tried to communicate and reach shared understanding, which both are
in important role in group decisions. Unfortunately, the group repeated this process constantly. Such repetition may be due to the composition of the group, which varied in different meetings, with many of the members regularly not present.
Second, acceptance procedures varied in the executive group, and third, it was typical for group to pass on decisions and responsibility to the ministry or work groups founded by the executive group. Again, these issues may have been due to weak attendance in the group meetings. If the majority of the executive group members were regularly not present, they might not understand the bigger decision-making picture and thus, making it easier to pass the decisions on to the others.
Indeed, West (2004, 10-11) argues that using groups may lead to less effective, innovative and satisfactory work.