Decision Making Models

RUNNING HEAD: DECISION MAKING MODELS?

My experience with decision making models

John Frazier

Coreen Hampton

University Of Georgia

May 2, 2006

Abstract

I have experienced two decision-making models throughout my employment in the medical profession. I have experienced the coalitional model due to the Vice President of Finance decision to create a new department as an extension of a previously existing department. The coalitional model is displayed because you have two different groups of people within an organization competing for the same resources. As a result of this coalitional model, I have also experienced the incremental model. In this model, the existing department made small incremental decisions to ultimately accomplish the larger overall goal over time.

What is your experience with decision making models?

Imagine working for the Financial Services department in a hospital. Winter is peak flu season and business is booming. The hospital has generated more revenue than anticipated and accounts receivable is overflowing. Financial Services knows it is virtually impossible to review the thousands of accounts they have on a daily basis. Some of those revenues will eventually be a financial loss, either because stringent guidelines cannot be met or because the staff could not review each account in a timely manner and deadlines are missed.

On top of all, the Vice President of Finance realized the hospital could possibly take a financial hit and decides to take a proactive approach. The solution was to create a new department called Revenue Management. This new department would review all aged accounts Financial Services was not able to review in a timely manner.

In my brief exposure to the business world, I have experienced two decision-making models. The first decision-making model was the coalitional model. "The coalitional model of decision making arises when people disagree on goals or compete with one another for resources. The decision process becomes political as groups try to influence the decision" (Bateman, 2004, p. 42). Although I am sure it was not the intention of the Vice President to create competitiveness or resentment between Financial Services and the newly formed Revenue Management, conflict could not help but arise due to the overlap in the accounts being worked. Since the Vice President would determine the division of accounts, this process became political between Financial Services and Revenue Management.

The goal of Financial Services was to prove their value and capabilities and demonstrate all accounts, except those involving clinical issues, could be reviewed in a timely manner. The goal of the Revenue Management department was to bring in as much revenue as possible in a short amount of time, regardless of the nature of the account, thus justifying the need for their very existence. Financial Services tried to demonstrate to the Vice President things could run smoothly without the involvement of Revenue Management. Revenue Management wanted to demonstrate to the Vice President Financial Services was overwhelmed with the workload of accounts and needed assistance in both clinical and administrative issues in order to function efficiently.

...