Collab Decisions Blog

 Choosing by Advantages (CBA) is a collaborative and transparent decision making system developed by Jim Suhr, which comprises of multiple methods. CBA includes methods for virtually all types of decisions, from very simple to very complex (Suhr 1999). Perhaps the most used CBA method is the Tabular Method, which is used to choose among two or more mutually exclusive alternatives that are not of equal cost. Examples of decisions where a team needs to choose from mutually exclusive alternatives are in everyday business include: choosing a building material, a general contractor, an equipment, a building design, and who to hire. The CBA Tabular Method can be used for moderately complex to very complex decisions, allowing for documenting these decisions in a transparent fashion.

The main purpose of the CBA method is to help decision makers to differentiate alternatives and to understand the importance of those differences. In CBA, decisions are based on advantages of alternatives, which are positive differences, not advantages and disadvantages; this avoids double counting. For example, let’s say John is 6 feet high, and Peter is 5 feet high, the difference in height is one foot. If we use the rule “the taller the better” as criterion for judgment, one foot difference can be seen as an advantage of John or a disadvantage of Peter. Therefore, in CBA we only count the one feet difference as an advantage of John. Then we will find other differences between Peter and John, such as difference in speed or power, and we will set criteria for judgment to describe those differences as advantages. Once the advantages of each alternative are decided, decision makers need to assess the importance of these advantages by making comparisons among them. By following the CBA method, decisions are anchored to relevant facts, and decisions are particular to a given context, such as choosing a Basketball player for the school team. 

Have you ever thought about which method you use for making decisions? Probably not, but you probably have asked yourself whether or not you made a good decision. Well, the two questions are related. We can never be 100% sure we have made a good decision, but we can make sure that we follow a good decision-making method and do the best with the available information.

A good decision-making method can increase the chances of arriving at the best decision. The following phrase summarizes the importance of our decision-making method:

“Among the most important of all the decisions the world's people will ever make are their decisions about how to make decisions, because their decisions about how to make decisions will strongly influence all the other decisions they will ever make. Furthermore, human performance — including organizational performance — is a decision-making process. Therefore, by improving the way they make decisions, the world's people will be able to make substantial improvements in both individual and organizational performance. And this will improve their quality of life.” (Jim Suhr)

Most people understand that decisions will lead to actions and that actions will have outcomes and consequences. However, most people do not realize that they are missing and important piece in this chain: the decision-making method. Decision-making methods produce decisions, decisions trigger actions, and finally, actions cause outcomes. Consequently, if the outcomes matter, then the selection of decision-making methods should also matter (Suhr 1999).

Organizations make multiple types of decisions on a daily basis, such as: hiring people, selecting technologies, designing operations, etc. It is logical to think that different types of decisions will require different types of decision-making methods. Roy (1974) made a classification of decisions types. These can be summarized as follows.

Describing: Description of each alternative and its main consequences.
Sorting: Sorting all the alternatives into classes or categories.
Ranking: Constructing a ranking of all admissible alternatives.
Choosing: Select one and only one alternative (or a combination), the best of all.

There are also other types of decisions described later by Belton and Stewart (2002).

Selecting a Portfolio: To choose a subset of alternatives from a larger set of possibilities.
Designing: To research for, identify or create new decision alternatives to meet the goals and aspirations revealed though the decision process.

Different types of methods can support these types of decisions. Belton and Stewart made a useful classification of multiple-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods. In addition, Arroyo (2014) also added a new category, which is CBA (developed by Jim Suhr). We can categorize MCDM methods under four categories:

1. Goal-programming and multi-objective optimization methods (linear optimization)
2. Value-based methods (e.g., AHP and WRC)
3. Outranking methods (e.g., ELECTRE)
4. Choosing by advantages (e.g., CBA Tabular Method)

When it comes to the choosing problem, defined as selecting one and only one alternative (or a combination), the best of all, Choosing By Advantages (CBA) is a method that stands out from others. As explained in the previous blog, 4 types of Multiple-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) methods exist in the literature:

1. Goal-programming and multi-objective optimization methods (Linear Optimization)
2. Value-based methods (e.g., AHP and WRC)
3. Outranking methods (e.g., ELECTRE)
4. Choosing by advantages (e.g., CBA Tabular Method)

As discussed in the first blog, a “good” decision-making method is one that is consistent, one that helps in organizing the information in a transparent fashion, one that is anchored to the context of the decision, one that helps in preventing double counting information, one that helps in reaching consensus, one that can be documented, and one that helps in explaining the decision easily.

I recently joined a large international project as a Lean Manager. To join the project team I moved to another country and left the most of my professional network behind. I was a bit nervous when I started my new job. How would they perceive lean? Where do I find support and inspiration? In the last +10 years I have implemented lean on various projects and learned that a strong network is necessary for success. There are several reasons for this, but the two most important reasons are to get inspiration and to get support.

The need for continuous improvement applies not only to the projects but also to the lean specialists and consultants. You need to actively seek inspiration so that your own learning can progress whether you are working internally in a company or externally for clients. The way you approach people, ask questions, and act in the change process is crucial in successfully implementing the culture and tools associated with Lean and to ensure that the customers get the benefits as well. By actively seeking inspiration, knowledge, and feedback; lean consultants have an opportunity to also refine the way they work. Of course, the client can give valuable feedback too. However it is very beneficial to get feedback and inspiration from other lean specialists who share similar experiences and values.

I always start the training of new Lean Practitioners with a general warning. They risk to be constantly frustrated after being trained as Lean Practitioners. If they do not think they can handle it they should leave the training immediately. This is partly a gimmick to get their attention but it is also true that if you are working as a Lean Practitioners you risk being constantly frustrated. To clarify this I divide the personal development as a new lean practitioner into four general development phases: 1) Skepticism, 2) Excitement, 3) Frustration and 4) Optimism.

Being skeptical is healthy
Many of my colleagues have a healthy sceptical attitude towards Lean Construction when first introduced to the general principles. This is perfectly fine. Nobody should uncritically adapt new methods or approaches. I expect them to raise questions, challenge and listen to my explanations. Sometimes; however, they forget to listen due to lack of clarity on the difference between being busy and adding value. If my colleagues are too busy to listen, I as a Lean Manager could either back off, show the results or keep nudging until they are ready to move from the "Skeptical Phase".