FOUNDATION OF STARTEGIC DECISION MAKING

The importance of taking effective strategic decision making is very easy to understand but in
the same time, it is difficult to be achieved because it requires reforms that modify both senior
leader decision-making styles and organizational structure. A decision could be defined as the act
of reaching conclusion or making up one’s mind. In comparison with tactic decisions, that affects
the day-to-day implementation of steps required to reach the goals, strategic decisions are chosen
alternatives that affects key factors which determine the success of an organization’s strategy.
The decision-making process is familiar to everybody, being applied in almost all aspects of our
public or private lives, at an individual or aggregate (organizational) level. It is commonly
assumed that all decisions lead to some results that at least diminish current issues. At a closer
look it seems that sometimes it is preferable not to act, instead of doing things in a wrong way,
with unexpected consequences. Effective decisions need a solid understanding of realities and
social environment. All of us are confronted with various decisions to make on a daily basis. It is
preferably that only after all those steps were completed, people make the decision and monitor
the results, to make sure they obtain the desired outcome. For simple and obvious choices we can
rely on intuition, but for those that are complex and difficult to make a closer look is needed.
Decision making, through its reflection of the past, consideration of the present, and projection
of hope into the future, provides a source of interest for philosophers and researchers alike.
Successful decision making for a business may be reflected through measures of growth and
profitability, whereas successful decision making for an individual may be reflected through both
professional and personal outcomes. A decision involves one of the most remarkable and
startling transformations in human experience. Perhaps researchers find decision making
interesting because it enables individuals, families, corporations, and nations to set the course of
events and to transform the future through those decisions. The decision making of both
individuals and groups has been studied within the fields of creativity, psychology, and
management. This reaction paper will focus on strategic, rather than routine, decision making as
it may occur in unique, unstructured situations.
 IMPLEMETING STRATEGIC DECISION AIDS

The decision aid is an online tool to select the most suitable treatment together with the patient.
In a few steps, the decision aid informs the patient about diagnose, different treatment options
and de pros and cons of each treatment option. The patient can then use sliders to indicate what
he or she believes is important. The decision aid is available digitally and on paper. Decision aids
are tools intended to help patients with decisions about their health-care. In developing the aids,
we carried out studies to provide them with an empirical basis, and to evaluate their potential for
impact. In this reaction paper, we report results that challenge common assumptions and typical
practice that currently occurs in the development of decision aids. The challenges relate to: how
the content of the aid is defined, how the information is presented, how to incorporate decision
aids into the dynamic, complex process of making such decisions, and how to evaluate the aids.
We conclude that critical appraisal of issues related to the design and implementation of decision
aids is required. To date, many more studies have evaluated patient decision aids rather than
other approaches to shared decision-making, and the outcomes measured have typically been
focused on short-term cognitive and affective outcomes, for example knowledge and decisional
conflict. From a clinician’s perspective, the shared decision-making process could be viewed as
either intrinsically rewarding and protective, or burdensome and impractical, yet studies have not
focused on the impact on professionals, either positive or negative. At interactional levels, group,
team, and microsystem, the potential long-term consequences could include the development of a
culture where deliberation and collaboration are regarded as guiding principles, where patients
are coached to assess the value of interventions, to trade-off benefits versus harms, and assess
their burdens—in short, to new social norms in the clinical workplace. At organizational levels,
consistent shared decision-making might boost patient experience evaluations and lead to fewer
complaints and legal challenges. In the long-term, shared decision-making might lead to changes
in resource utilization, perhaps to reductions in cost, and to modification of workforce
composition. Despite the gradual shift to value-based payment, some organizations, motivated by
continued income derived from achieving high volumes of procedures and contacts, will see this
as a negative consequence.