What's driving you? Data vs. Decisions
Photo by HARUN BENL?: https://www.pexels.com/photo/chessboard-game-3701276/

What's driving you? Data vs. Decisions

The mantra “Data drives decision making” is a familiar refrain in the professional world, emphasizing the importance of basing decisions on accurate and timely information. While this principle is generally accepted, it’s worth contemplating whether there are instances when decisions should lead, not follow, the data.

Challenging the conventional wisdom that data should dictate decisions, this article explores the concept of?decision-driven data. Despite sounding unconventional, there are merits to this approach.

It might sound odd to some people. Isn’t data supposed to drive “better” decisions based on cold, hard facts? Let’s dive in and see how “sometimes” it may better to go with your gut instead of just following the data.

The Pros of Decision-Driven Data:

Context is King:?Decision-making allows for nuanced understanding by analyzing data within its context. Consider a real-life example involving a bank whose data showed a concerning spike in robberies. Upon closer inspection, the security director discovered a flaw in the reporting system, revealing an actual decline in robberies

Agility and Adaptability:?Decision-driven data enables quick responses unencumbered by rigid datasets. The Battle of Thermopylae in 480 BC illustrates this. If the Spartans had solely relied on data, they would have retreated instead of fighting a battle they were certain to lose. King Leonidas’ decision to seek out strategic data in a narrow pass demonstrated the value of adaptability. The Persians won the battle, but at great cost, as their previously invincible reputation crumbled, eventually leading to their withdrawal from Greece and setting the stage for Western Europe’s rise to prominence.

Depiction of Spartans defending the pass at Thermopylae

Human Touch:?Decision-making incorporates human intuition and expertise, aspects unmatched by algorithms. Trusting instincts and considering human perspectives can enhance decision quality. There are situations where gut feelings prevail over data.

Cons of Data-Driven Decision Making:

  1. Analysis Paralysis:?Relying solely on data may lead to endless analysis, akin to facing a restaurant menu with too many options. Breaking free from analysis paralysis requires occasional trust in gut feelings and taking calculated risks.
  2. Biased Insights:?Data can be influenced by biases or flawed methodologies. Leaders must critically evaluate data, recognizing the impact of inherent biases and surrounding themselves with diverse perspectives to challenge decisions.
  3. Lack of Creativity:?Over-reliance on data may stifle innovation. Balancing analytical and imaginative approaches is crucial for fostering truly innovative solutions.

Tips on Leveraging Data Effectively

Photo by "

  1. Define Clear Objectives:?Start with well-defined goals to guide relevant data collection aligned with desired outcomes.
  2. Embrace Diverse Perspectives:?Foster collaboration among analysts, decision-makers, and experts to gain holistic insights into problems.
  3. Validate and Verify:?Question data, challenge assumptions, and validate findings through multiple sources. Accuracy is paramount, and intuition should not be discounted.

Conclusion:

While data’s importance cannot be overstated, decisions should ultimately guide the collection and interpretation of data. A balanced approach, merging intuition with analytical insight, unleashes the true potential of data. Placing decision-making at the forefront ensures success in our ever-evolving landscape.

Scott Hayes, LL.M., CPP, ABCP

Security Management | Business Continuity Planning | Transforming challenges into triumphs |

11 个月

Great article Luc! Secondary thought I have had about relying on data, which I think dovetails into what you are saying. Yes, we need to rely on data, but we have to make sure we aren't creating a feedback loop wherein we end up skewing the data output. Example: a police agency puts out a "grid warning" to the banks for [Person], then when the banks reply to the notice, investigators use that to justify implication in an offence. The problem is, but for the police putting out a grid warning, the [Person] would not have been reported as conducting a suspicious transaction. It ends up being a self-perpetuating cycle. My only point is, I think we have to make sure we don't feed data into a system that artificially points us in a specific direction. (For the non-police people, replies to grid warnings often don't mean the person has done anything suspicious)

回复

要查看或添加评论,请登录

社区洞察

其他会员也浏览了