DIGITAL DECISION

MAKING
GOAL AND CRITERIA

Dr. Ir. Khairul Ummah, ST, MT

LinxBrain
The most important single thing is to focus
obsessively on the customer.
WHAT
Our goal is to be earth’s most customer-
centric company. IS YOUR
Jeff Bezos
GOAL?
CHAPTER 1

OKR
 OKR : OBJECTIVES AND KEY RESULTS

• Objectives : a clearly
defined goal
• Key Results : specific
measures used to track
the achievement of that
goal
OKRs Are Not New, They Are Best Practice

Andy Grove creates John Doerr introduces Google becomes pretty OKRs become a
OKRs to execute them to Google and successful over the best-practice goal
Operation Crush at Intel they’re adopted next 20 + years setting framework

1970’s 1999 2000’s Today

HISTORY • The development of OKRs is generally attributed to Andrew Grove, the "Father of
OKRs", who introduced the approach to Intel during his tenure there and documented
this in his 1983 book High Output Management. Grove's simple but effective concept is
explained by John Doerr: "The key result has to be measurable. But at the end you can
look, and without any arguments: Did I do that or did I not do it? Yes? No? Simple. No
judgments in it".

• In 1999, Doerr, who by then was working for Kleiner Perkins—a venture capital firm,
introduced the idea of OKRs to a start-up Kleiner Perkins had invested in called Google.
The idea took hold and OKRs quickly became central to Google's culture as a
"management methodology that helps to ensure that the company focuses efforts on the
same important issues throughout the organization". Doerr also published a book about
the OKR framework titled Measure What Matters in 2017.

• Larry Page, the former CEO of Alphabet and co-founder of Google, credited OKRs within
the foreword to Doerr's book: "OKRs have helped lead us to 10× growth, many times
over. They’ve helped make our crazily bold mission of 'organizing the world’s information'
perhaps even achievable. They’ve kept me and the rest of the company on time and on
track when it mattered the most".

• Since becoming popular at Google, OKRs have found favor with several other similar tech
organizations including LinkedIn,Twitter, Gett, Uber, and Microsoft.
Where + How,
OKRs set ‘where’ you are going
Separated
Initiatives are ‘how’ you’re going to get there

OKR

OKRs Keep Sales fueled with leads that convert

Increase the number of sales to 1,000 this Quarter

Increase the Conversion Rate to 50%

Initiatives

Launch a White Paper that screams thought-leader

Profile our best customers to help us spot future customers
Improve the Quality Score threshold for turning Leads to Buyer

Initiatives
Don’t mix them up!
OBJECTIVES & KEY RESULTS

• Objective : Jakarta
• Key Results : Monas, Istana Negara, Ciliwung

• Objective : Healthy
• Key Results : Blood Pressure 120/80, Sugar < 100,
Cholesterol <180, Stamina 10 minutes running
OUTCOME VS OUTPUT

• Outcome is a representation of objective

achievement (something you cannot
control)
• Output is a representation of action
(something you can control)
 BUYING A CAR

Goal :

Key Results (outcome) :

Key Performance (output) :

Criteria :

Alternatives :
OKR  GOAL & CRITERIA
• Objective  Goal
• Key Results (outcome)  Key Performance (output)  Criteria

ACT controllable uncontrollable OBSERVE

decision domain evaluation/feedback domain

INITIATIVES OUTPUT OUTCOME GOAL

produce affect fulfill

CRITERIA

ALTERNATIVES PROBLEM ANALYSIS

DECIDE ORIENT
CHAPTER 2

AHP
WHAT IS MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION ANALYSIS
Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) is a formal, structured and transparent
decision making methodology. Its ism is to assist groups or individual decision
makers to explore their decisions in the case of complex situations with multiple
criteria.

MCDA does not provide the ‘right’ answer.

MCDA does not provide an objective analysis.
MCDA does not relieve decision makers of the responsibility of making difficult
judgments.

MCDA assists the decision maker in confidently reaching a decision by:

• enabling decision makers to gain a better understanding of the problem faced;

• organizing and synthesizing the entire range of information;
• integrating objective measurements with value judgements;
• making explicit and managing the decision maker’s subjectivity; and
• ensuring that all criteria and decision factors have been taken properly into
account.
 MCDA METHODOLOGY

MCDA is an umbrella term for a range of tools and methodologies. The level of
complexity, interaction with the decision maker and level of detail utilised in the decision
making process can vary substantially.

In general the decision maker follows the same process:

1. Identify multiple criteria on which to base their decision;

2. Identify multiple alternative solutions to their decision;
3. Provide (subjective) ranking or weighting of criteria; and
4. Provide values, rankings or weighting of alternatives for each criteria.

The Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)

AHP was developed in the late 1970s. Today it is the most widely used MCDA method.
 AHP

Problem Hierarchy
The problem hierarchy provides a structured, usually visual, means of modelling the
decision being processed. As the first step in the analytical hierarchy process the creation
of a hierarchy that models the decision problem enables decision makers to increase their
understanding of the problem, its context and, in the case of group decision making, see
alternative approaches to the problem across different stakeholders.

The AHP problem hierarchy consists of a goal (the decision), a number of alternatives for
reaching that goal, and a number of criteria on which the alternatives can be judged that
relate to the goal.

Here as an example a simple

AHP hierarchy.
AHP Pairwise Comparisons

Within AHP pairwise comparison is the process of comparing entities

in pairs so as to judge which is preferred and by how much.
Comparisons are undertaken to determine criteria weighting and also
assess the value or score of different alternatives within each criteria.

A 9-point scale to elicit the scale of preference from a decision maker:

the more preferable entity within the pair scores

1 when it is showing no preference

3 when it is showing moderate preference
5 when it is showing strong preference
7 when it is showing very strong preference
9 when it is showing extreme preference.

The less preferable entity within the pair scores the inverse, for
example the less preferable entity where the more preferable entity
shows very strong preference would score 1/7.
 AHP

Consistency across pairwise comparisons

The consistency of the decision maker across a number of pairwise
comparisons is a significant complexity. Consider the very simple
comparison of three criteria: A, B and C. If the decision maker judges A
to be more preferable than B, and A to be less preferable than C then
the decision maker must not judge B to be more preferable than C.

The AHP method attempts to address the issue of consistency by

implementing a consistency index that is a function of opposing
comparisons. Above a threshold a lack of consistency is highlighted and
no analysis results are presented. An unfortunate consequence is that
decision makers begin to fulfil pairwise comparisons not on their actual
judgements but rather in order to maintain acceptable consistency.

An effective approach to limit the issue of consistency is to utilise a

multi-tier hierarchy thereby reducing the number of pairwise
comparisons undertaken within each group.
CHAPTER 3

PRACTICE!
FRAME 1

10 MINS – BRAINSTORMING OF DECISION

EASY DECISIONS DIFFICULT DECISIONS

FRAME 1

10 MINS – EXPLAIN TO YOUR TEAM

• First, the easy ones

• then, the difficult ones
FRAME 1

3 MINS – VOTE! (3 RED DOTS)

Vote challenging and inspiring decision  make it better!
FRAME 2

3 MINS - PRIORITIZE
FRAME 3

3 MINS – REFRAMING  CHALLENGING OBJECTIVE

• HOW MIGHT WE....

FRAME 4

10 MINS – BRAINSTORMING OF ALTERNATIVES

• all possible solution/alternatives

FRAME 4

3 MINS – VOTE! (6 DOTS)

Find a possible good and comprehensive alternatives.
FRAME 5

3 MINS - PRIORITIZE
FRAME 6

10 MINS – EVALUATE THE ALTERNATIVES

achievable

available
FRAME 7

10 MINS – BRAINSTORMING OF CRITERIA

• all possible criteria

FRAME 7

3 MINS – VOTE! (6 DOTS)

Find a possible good and comprehensive criteria.
FRAME 8

3 MINS - PRIORITIZE
FRAME 9

10 MINS – EVALUATE THE CRITERIA

measurable

impact to outcome
GO TO AHP!

• 123ahp.com
• DecisionMentor.app

DecisionMentor.app
123ahp.com
FRAME 10

3 MINS – OBJECTIVE  DECISION

• HOW MIGHT WE.... • MY DECISION

YOUR PROBLEM CHALLENGE YOUR DECISION

ONCE MORE...

POTENTIAL PROBLEM ANALYSIS!

FRAME 11

10 MINS – POTENTIAL PROBLEM ANALYSIS -

BRAINSTORMING
• all possible problems prevent the acts
FRAME 11

3 MINS – VOTE! (6 DOTS)

Find most possible hurdles.
FRAME 12

3 MINS – HURDLES TO OVERCOME

FRAME 13

10 MINS – POTENTIAL PROBLEM MITIGATION

difficult

easy

internal external
FRAME 14

10 MINS – DECISION – POTENTIAL PROBLEM - MITIGATION

DECISION/ACTION POTENTIAL PROBLEM MITIGATION