A5: NOTIONAL HIERARCHY*

...there might be limitations that might necessitate the analyst to build a notional decision hierarchy first, before building the complete DECISION HIERARCHY.

* * *

Sometimes, it is hard to begin with a blank decision hierarchy, which might take a long time to complete. However, building a decision hierarchy without involving the decision maker(s) to speed up the process might introduce bias.

Usually, when the time for discussion is limited, it is necessary to trade-off precision with a more efficient process without sacrificing rigor. In the case of building a decision hierarchy, if done after an issue raising session, it might make sense to build a notional decision hierarchy first. It is easier for people to have a discussion when they do not start from a blank piece of paper.

When the analyst injects her knowledge in the process, there is always a chance of introducing bias as well. In the issue raising session, it would not be surprising to have decisions that people disagree on about whether they have already been decided, will be decided later, or should be decided now. In order to minimize the bias, the analyst should place these decisions wherever she sees fit in the hierarchy but should make sure that all the stakeholders confirm their places before finalizing the hierarchy.

Therefore:

• When the time frame is limited, and there are various stakeholders with different points of view, build a notional decision hierarchy first.
• Make sure that the decisions on which there were disagreements in the issue raising session (and were therefore flagged) are discussed individually before finalizing the decision hierarchy.
• Remember that the decision hierarchy is a contract on which the group will agree. Therefore, when you ask the group whether it looks right, they should be able to say so.

* * *