Scientific Method Analysis
The principal characteristic of a scientific research method is that researchers allow the reality to speak for itself. According to Zikmund and Barbin, “A scientific research method is the way researchers go about using knowledge and evidence to reach objective conclusions about the real world” (Zikmund & Barbin, 2010 p.7). This paper will evaluate the scientific method used in the research article, “Consensus in team decision making involving resource Allocation,” by Philip S. Chong and Omer S. Benli. It will evaluate the methodology employed in the article as well as provide interpretations of the results and conclusion.
specifically for you
for only $16.05 $11/page
The purpose of the research was to develop a practical method that can be applied in team decision making especially in the distribution of financial resources in business enterprises. The use of a hypothesis proves that the methodology employed in the research paper was scientific. The research proposed the hypothesis that, “the selected team consensus strategy from among all available strategies must have a minimum sum of squares of monetary regrets” (Chong & Benli, 2005 p. 1147).
A statistical representation of the hypothesis was established. When making decisions in an organization, it should be ensured that every member of the organization is satisfied. The paper, therefore, hypothesized that this can only be achieved through team decision making.
During the study, a framework was developed as a scientific decision making tool. The hypothesis was represented algebraically and three college department heads with three business strategies were used to demonstrate the hypothesis. To come up with the algebraic representation of the hypothesis, it was presumed that there are m distinct ways of allocating shared resources amongst n parties. To achieve its objectives, the study focused on obtaining compromise by selecting a group of pure plans that reduced the variance. This was followed by developing an approach to acquire the best process that all team members could agree.
The procedure was then interpreted through mixed methods and a theoretic interpretation of the problem was finally represented. The study applied the stated hypothesis to explicate the decision-making procedure. Calculations were done for the three cases whereby A, B and C strategies were applied in the first case. Strategies A, B and C together with strategy AB were applied on cases II and III (Chong & Benli, 2005 p. 1156).
Interpretation of the study results
The hypothesis of the study was interpreted as “Nash Equilibrium” and this involved mixed approaches. The study showed that since each team member, “must be flexible and willing to give up something to reach an agreement,” the best approach was a consensus agreement (Chong & Benli, 2005 p. 1148).It further showed that quantifying compromise was an effective way of team decision making in an organization.
It stated that when a team made a decision, it was agreeing to a compromise process in lieu of the practice. That is, it provided it with the highest payoff. According to the paper, the disparities in payoff were referred to as the team’s opportunity loss. By observing the behavior of individuals and decision makers in a team while selecting financial distribution formula, the research proved that the hypothesis was true for the specific procedure undertaken by the three departmental heads.
100% original paper
on any topic
done in as little as
Decision making involving the distribution of resources in an organization requires that compromises be made amongst team members to arrive at a common agreement. Strategies that are based on reason should be developed and resource distribution calculated. However, it is postulated that the strategy that is finally chosen has the least variance of financial regrets. This research paper acts as an effective guide in organizational team decision making.
Chong, S., & Benli, S. (2005). Consensus in team decision making involving resource allocation. Journal of business decision. 43(9), 1147-1160.
Zikmund, G. & Babin J – 2009. Business research methods. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.