Decision Making in Business: Recommendations for Onetech

Introduction: Onetech's Transition Challenge

Onetech is a publicly funded organization specializing in the provision of development services for staff employed in the Information Technology sector. The organization is currently considering a transition from its current publicly funded model to a self-funding one. The principle of this new business model is that client firms would pay an annual membership fee, based on which they would continue to benefit from the services provided by Onetech.

The dilemma raised at this level concerns the nature of the services still to be provided, the downsizing processes that would be required, and the appropriate size of the membership fee. Three service-model alternatives have been put forward for consideration:

Aside from the services component, the organization must also decide on the effective means of implementing the change process and the budgetary implications of such an action. Three options have been devised in this sense and are presented and analyzed below.

Option 1 — Moving to a more cost-effective facility:

Option 2 — Moving to an even smaller premise:

Option 3 — Massive downsizing:

Evaluating the Three Restructuring Options

In order for the analysis to be conclusive, it must be conducted in two directions. The first is to assess the three alternative options on their own merits; the second is to assess the revenue structures for the most desirable alternative. The analysis of the three alternatives is conducted using a systematic model of pros and cons for each option.

Option 1 — Moving to a more cost-effective facility:

Pros:

Cons:

Option 2 — Moving to an even smaller premise:

Pros:

Cons:

Option 3 — Massive downsizing:

Pros:

Cons:

Revenue Structure and Membership Fee Analysis

The costs associated with Options 2 and 3 are more than Onetech can reasonably bear, and the advantages of Option 1 are necessary to ensure a successful transition. It is therefore recommended that the firm focus on moving to a more cost-effective facility, preserving its staff and their intellectual capital, and striving to consolidate its position.

Based on this analysis, it is clear that the best alternative for Onetech is to preserve its current staff structure and relocate to a more cost-effective premises. With that decision made, the analysis proceeds to examine the revenue structure to be implemented throughout the change process.

The table below analyses the three revenue scenarios through the lenses of optimism, pessimism, and regret.

The revenue structure of £600,000 appears the most pertinent, representing a medium value between the optimistic and pessimistic scenarios. The principal difficulty with the optimistic revenue target of £900,000 is the challenge of attracting a sufficient number of customers.

Under a fixed membership fee of £6,000 per year, the required customer numbers are as follows:

Under a fixed membership fee of £4,000 per year, the required customer numbers are as follows:

All of these alternatives are difficult to assess with precision, given the variables of uncertainty, the organization's relatively limited commercial experience, and changing economic conditions. Nevertheless, in the context assessed here, it is recommended that the company adopt a medium revenue target of £600,000 by charging an annual membership fee of £4,000.

Such a strategy would require Onetech to attract 150 customers, which is a relatively high number. However, this objective could be achieved through marketing efficiencies (Wreden, 2007) and by emphasizing the lower membership fee. A lower price point helps customers make purchasing decisions in favor of the services offered by Onetech (Tybout and Calder, 2010).

From a financial standpoint, the recommended strategy is expected to generate a profit of approximately £310,000, estimated as follows:

Financial Projections and Recommended Strategy

This strategy of relocating to a cost-effective facility, retaining staff, and pursuing medium revenue targets would serve as a temporary solution enabling the firm to complete its transition from publicly funded to self-funded. The transition period is expected to last no more than two years. Once the transition is complete, Onetech would reassess its position and make new decisions based on the context and situations that arise during the transition.

While further strategic review will be necessary, it is currently recommended that the firm ultimately move toward a pricing structure based on the particular services offered to each individual client. Throughout the transition period, Onetech would build efficiencies and consolidate its position. In the longer term, it is recommended that the company pursue a strategy of diversification, as this would better satisfy customer needs, attract new clients, and thereby generate greater market power for the firm (Markides, 2007).

The decision-making process at Onetech is quite complex, revealing both strengths and weaknesses. Decisions are made at board level and are informed by the expertise of the organization's key executives. However, they are made with little emphasis on the input that employees could provide.

In order to better evaluate the decision-making process at Onetech, it is appropriate to analyze it through the lens of the rational decision-making model. This model comprises a series of stages that must be followed in order to arrive at a well-founded decision:

At each stage, specific issues arise. In terms of identifying the problem or opportunity, the key question is whether a genuine problem or opportunity exists and requires a decision. It is crucial to distinguish real issues that demand action from peripheral issues that do not. In the current scenario of transitioning from a publicly funded to a self-funded organization, Onetech has demonstrated a good ability to identify the opportunity and is actively working to seize it.

At the second stage — the collection of information — emphasis falls on three categories of information: information relevant to the decision; information needed before the decision can be made; and information that helps organizational decision-makers choose correctly.

Assessment of Onetech's Decision-Making Process

Data collection at Onetech is, however, inadequate given the magnitude of the proposed change. The organization relies primarily on external environmental data and correlates it with internal budget constraints. The data gathered from within the organization is limited, as most clearly illustrated by the lack of attention paid to the views of employees. While executives assert that employee involvement is important, they fail to implement it in practice:

"[The director] believes in the involvement of all parties in meetings; therefore all project team members are asked to attend. [The director] tends to take the lead and team members often feel they are not given the opportunity to speak. Employees therefore often fail to engage in the meetings" (case).

This situation means the organization is unable to capitalize on the expertise and insight of its employees. It reflects both human resource management challenges that must be addressed during the change process, and structural weaknesses in the decision-making process itself.

In terms of problem analysis, the focus falls on identifying the range of possible courses of action and considering different interpretations of the available information. The fourth stage — the development of options — requires the decision-maker to generate possible solutions creatively and constructively.

Within Onetech, this stage is implemented inadequately. While the company does generate alternatives to address organizational change, these alternatives are constrained by the limited data gathered at the collection stage. Because internal perspectives are overlooked, the alternatives generated are insufficiently developed and fail to reflect the full picture. As Onetech's business development officer stated: "Have I said this to them? No one listens to me anymore. I do not get invited to any meetings" (case).

The fifth stage — evaluation of alternatives — involves assessing options against criteria such as feasibility, acceptability, and desirability. Through these and other lenses, the preferred alternative is reviewed for its ability to meet pre-established objectives. Onetech, however, conducts limited formal analysis to test the applicability of its alternative solutions.

The sixth consideration, before a final decision is made, involves examining the potential future impacts of the preferred choice, including risks and problems that could arise from implementation. Onetech also places insufficient emphasis on this aspect of the decision-making process.

The final stage of the rational decision-making process is the actual implementation of the selected alternative. At this point, attention must be given to the allocation of necessary resources, the degree of acceptance and support for the decision among organizational members, and the commitment of all parties to making it work (The Happy Manager, 2011). From this perspective, Onetech's decision-making process is weak: employees are rarely integrated into the process and are simply informed of decisions and instructed to implement them.

Overall, the decision-making process at Onetech is unstructured and evolves reactively as problems emerge. The advantage of this approach is flexibility, but it also generates significant challenges. The organization would benefit from a more systematic application of the rational decision-making model, greater integration of employee input, and more rigorous evaluation of alternatives before major decisions are made. Addressing these weaknesses will be critical to the success of Onetech's transition to a self-funded model and its long-term strategic development.

Cologon, D.R., Cohen, D.R., 2008, FileMaker Pro 9 Bible, John Wiley and Sons.

Hage, M., 2007, A Stakeholder Concern: Towards an Economic Theory on Stakeholder Governance, Uitgeverij Van Gorcum.

Jacobs, P.K., 2000, Minding the Muse: The Impact of Downsizing on Corporate Creativity, Harvard Business School, last accessed November 30, 2011.

Markides, C.C., 2007, Diversification, Refocusing and Economic Performance, MIT Press.

Tybout, A.M., Calder, B.J., 2010, Kellogg on Marketing, 2nd edition, John Wiley and Sons.

Wreden, N., 2007, Profit Brand: How to Increase the Profitability, Accountability and Sustainability of Brands, Kogan Page Publishers.

The Happy Manager, 2011, Rational Decision Making Model, last accessed November 30, 2011.

Conclusion

Tools for Decision Analysis: Analysis of Risky Decisions, University of Baltimore, last accessed November 30, 2011.