PrOACT Approach - Decision Making

PrOACT Approach- Decision Making


Name of Institution



PrOACT Approach- Decision Making

Making smart and informed decisions is definitely one of the greatest nightmares not only to newly recruited and inexperienced managers within an organizational setup, but even to highly experienced and seasoned managers. The management of organizations adopts different techniques and measures in a bid to come up with the most effective and efficient decisions which are not only healthy to the life of a business, but that would be productive at the end of the day (Mustajoki & Hämäläinen, 2006). In effect, this case study perfectly demonstrates various factors often looked into by the organizational managers during the decision-making process.

As indicated by this case study, the PrOACT decision making model is one of the best decision-making mechanisms. Developed by John S. Hammond et al, the model has extensively been used by many business entities in bid to making smart and very strategic business decisions—ideally founded on the achievement of decisions. In contrast to the general better performance perception usually attached to incredibly unmatched organizational structures, very few business entities prosper without taking tough and decisive operational mechanisms inculcated in their decisions.

Joan Salmon, a 35-year-old daughter of Garret Salmon is apparently faced with a lot of predicament as far as the management of her father’s company—Invitations Inc is concerned. Although Joan is a degree holder in Business Management, but she lacks experience to effectively run father’s business entity. This is despite Joan has been closely monitoring business skills being employed in the day to day management of Invitations Inc Company (Mustajoki & Hämäläinen, 2006). Joan’s ex-husband was indeed one of the pillars as far as making day to day management decisions were concerned. Currently, Garrett contemplates on playing a second fiddle in the management of business affairs probably because Joan has graduated should thus take the mantle. Altogether, Garret would actually wish to retire from the business and leave everything to Joan. However, Joan’s reluctance to buying into this idea is pegged on the fear of fitting on garret’s shoes. In fact over the last two years, Invitations Inc has considerably done well netting 1.5 million sales despite Garrett’s old business mindedness devoid of techniques. Garrett is feared and respected in equal measure by those who have been at the helm of running daily activities of the company. For instance, the CFO and vice president of the company are contented with Garrett’s leadership style whereas some middle management staff have since alleged of Garrett’s overbearing nature (Keeney et al, 1999). Whichever is right, Joan must now start the art of critical decision making to spring this company to the next growth and development cadre.


Apparently, this is one of the best business decision making models which would probably facilitate Joan’s desires to not only fit into Garrett’s shoes, but also bring new and remarkable growth and development to Invitations Inc. according to Blenko et al, the PrOACT decision making model is a culmination of five key elements that Joan cannot afford to take into consideration (2010). The five elements constituting the PrOACT decision making model entails Problem, Objectives, Alternatives, Consequences and Tradeoffs in that order hence the PrOACT.  In the case study, each of the aforementioned elements of effective decision making could be revealed to facilitate the overall process in the management of Invitations Inc. For instance, the Invitations Inc is apparently facing transitional leadership problem since Garrett, who has been in the helm of company’s leadership is seriously contemplating of retiring. Therefore, Joan needs to admit the existence of predicaments which are likely to face Invitations Inc immediately after Garrett quits. Admitting the existence of either present or looming problems would lead to the assessment—a factor that will be important in finding the solution in more decisive and effective manner. Secondly, Joan in collaborative with other likeminded stakeholders as well as the already motivated staff will have to design strategic goals and objectives of a newly revamped business entity. Apparently, Joan recognizes the need to incorporate marketing strategies that would conform to “modern technological advancements”, such as online-based marketing (Mustajoki & Hämäläinen, 2006). The organizational strategic planning department must also set straight the mechanisms that would be used to fulfill those goals and objectives.

Thirdly, Joan will be expected to have alternatives while making informed decisions to enable the effective and efficient implementation of the firm’s goals and objectives. Imperatively, setting up creative and imaginative alternatives is as important as realizing an achievement. The management will definitely choose from a basket full of ideas without limitations and only implement potently productive business decisions. Garrett will definitely leave indelible mark which must not only be kept alive, but enriched to achieve even bigger goals than before. Joan will have to ask where the company has been left to be able to be able to focus on the set goals and objectives.

The fourth element that Joan will obviously consider while making serious business decisions is the consequences likely to be attributed to adopting alternative ideas. Ideally, business consequences impose serious impacts on strategic goals and objectives—and can be beneficial or detrimental in the achievement of the outlined goals and objectives. (Mustajoki & Hämäläinen, 2006) The fifth element that must be considered in informative, critical and impactful decision making is tradeoffs that could be experienced in the day and day management of the business. The tradeoffs should consistently be monitored and evaluated and corrected using appropriate measures.


















Blenko, M. W., Mankins, M. C. & Rogers, P. (2010). The decision: Driven organization. Harvard Business Review, 1-10.

Keeney, Hammond & Raiffa. (1999). Smart choices: A practical guide to making better decisions", Harvard Business Press: PrOACT, 1-6.

Mustajoki , J. & Hämäläinen, R. P. (2006). Smart-Swaps – decision support for the PROACT process with the even swaps method. Helsinki University of Technology Systems Analysis Laboratory Research Reports, 1-19.

$ 10 .00


Load more