Factors Which Affect Decision Implementation Essay Example for Free

Factors Which Affect Decision Implementation Essay Correct decisions, the two previous papers elaborately developed, can be arrived at only if the requisite process of ponderously putting many influencing factors in perspective is observed. Since errors in decision-making can end up being costly both for the company and its stakeholders alike, it has been seen that the use of critical thinking has proven to be essential in guiding decision makers in choosing the best options that will generate best results. But if one were to think that arriving at a logical and well-thought out decision ends the entire process of decision-making, one definitely takes the dangerous path of frustrating the process all together. A correct decision, one may argue, only proves to be beneficial to a company or organization when its implementation would translate the rigors of critical analyses into tangible results. Langdon, if only to mention, argues along the same line of thought. He maintains, â€Å"Decision makers will never leave the point of the decision without thinking about the steps necessary to implement the decision successfully† (Langdon, 2001, p. 15). Ethical Implications and Other Factors Affecting Implementation of Decision The previous discussion was able to zero in on the viable options that may gleaned from the map drawn to help BAE Systems establish greater presence in the island of Kava. It may be wise to be reminded of the decisions that were suggested hitherto: first, the company needs not only to â€Å"sustain its existing accounts, but also to set up new client-accounts done through aggressive advertisement and in-shore sales campaign† so as to ensure that the â€Å"sale of its products is commensurate with its desired expansion rate†; second, it needs to see through the â€Å"creation of an efficient and result-generating human workforce†; and third, it also is imperative that it should â€Å"create a larger warehouse, if not an adjacent processing plant in the island, so as to meet the demands of the market† It is noteworthy to mention that there are certain risks attached to the cited options. The purpose why the last paper identified them is to further inform the decision maker of the resulting benefits and costs that must be anticipated in the event of making the decision. However, to outline the varying factors that may affect th e implementation of any decision – which, if only to mention, concerns greatly the company and its stakeholders – is another area that must also be carefully looked at. Surely, the three above-cited options will generate ebbs of impact for the company in general. Two major factors can determine the success of the implementation of the suggested paths: the internal coherence of the decision itself, and the external receptivity of the stakeholders involved. The first factor pertains to the logic from which any decision is drawn; and this has already constituted a large portion of the previous studies. Every decision, if only to repeat, is arrived at after a ponderous circumscription of the problems at hand, and the generous gathering of facilitative facts to throw light into one’s judgment. If the problems were well stated, chances are, the solutions are going to be suited. The next factor is however different. This time, one has to consider other areas that affect the success rate of the decision. Roozen, De Pelsmacker and Bostyn have identified some of them: â€Å"the influence of stakeholders, organizational commitment, personal values, goals of the organization and socio demographic characteristics of individuals†, among others (2001, p. 87). In the light of the three suggested decision paths for BAE Systems, what Roozen (and company) points are certainly of paramount importance. For instance, since the company’s goal to establish a greater presence in Kava is heavily dependent on the expansion of its new sales accounts, the decision to equally expand the workforce and to create newer intra-island processing plants must be leveled against the impact such will have on the stakeholders – e. g. , will the company owners allow for an increased budget allocation to defray the expansion cost? , will the company managers be willing to oversee difficult but potential market areas within the island? , will the commitment of the newly hired sales representative be aggressive enough to meet expectations? , or will the vision of the company itself be willing to risk so much for a return of investment which will come later on? It is very important to note that BAE Systems’ vision is intricately knitted with the amount of available resources the company has, or is willing to risk for investment purposes. One way or another, the welfare of both the company and its stakeholders is the friction force that shall determine how fast or slow the implementation of the decisions pertinent to BAE Systems’ expansion in Kava island would be. Key to the company’s success in Kava is also anchored on the ethical implications the decisions have on its stakeholders. In order to clarify the moral basis for sticking into a decision, Rodgers and Gago has sought to identify many differing ethical motives in a study they conducted. They suggest that there are at least six â€Å"pathways† that justify, and thus serve a basis for a particular decision to be pursued: â€Å"psychological egoism, deontology, relativist, utilitarian, virtue ethics, and ethics of care philosophy† (Rodgers Gago, 2001, pp. 358-359). Without having to go through their respective details, it may be good to note that the suggested options for BAE Systems are largely motivated by the â€Å"utilitarian† pathway. What does this mean? This means that the company which seeks to expand a venture must be seen primarily in terms of its ability to survive the risk. Thus, in a utilitarian approach, the company is more defined by a ‘consequentialist’ attitude in decision-making policies, in that it tries to see to it that any decision would generate the â€Å"greatest good (for) the greatest number of people† (Rodgers Gago, 2001, p. 359). Conclusion One may properly recall that, in the Business Scenario, Alex once quipped that economics is what drives the company to further expand its presence in an island of Kava. In many ways, what he said was correct, if not telling. The overarching reason why one needs to surmount the seemingly impossible difficulties, by identifying all the contributing factors relative to the company’s vision, is indeed driven by economics. But having economics alone as the moving force behind the desired expansion of a certain company may not capture the entire picture. Any decision driven by economics therefore, one must remember, must also be tempered by the opportunities it creates for the involved stakeholders, and the ethical implications it generates seen from their perspective. Critical thinking, as always, can always help ensure that these seemingly non-economic aspects of doing business are given their due importance.