HRPD710 Decision-Making Report: Vehicle Selection and Evaluation

This report details the decision-making process employed by a team tasked with selecting a new vehicle for their organization. The assignment, which is part of the HRPD710 course, involved evaluating various vehicle options based on specific criteria such as carrying capacity, maintenance costs, insurance, and transmission type. The team utilized an analytical decision-making model, assessing options like Toyota Noah, Toyota Isis, and Nissan Lafesta. The report includes a detailed evaluation matrix, analysis of biases (framing, selective perception, availability, and representation), and limitations encountered during the process. The final decision, supported by individual evaluator ratings and decision-making styles, was to purchase the Toyota Noah. The report also includes appendices detailing evaluator ratings and decision-making styles.

Running Header: DECISION MAKING 1
Student Name
Student Id
Professor’s Id
Institutional Affiliation

Running Header: DECISION MAKING 2
Decision making
The understanding of customer behavior is always vital in trying to fulfill their
requirements (Leshem,2016). The same is required whenever coming up with a decision. When
the company comes up with needs that require the purchase of specific products, the first step is
the assessment of the needs versus the available options. In this case, the company expects a
motor vehicle to serve as both a business tool for transporting the company's products and also as
a vehicle used to either carry clients or when visiting clients. To perform this assessment, the
team has been assembled to assess different options, come up with evaluation criteria, and in the
end, give a final decision on what vehicle the company should purchase.
1. The carrying space- for this specific requirement, the vehicle is supposed to be used
to transport both staff members, potential customers, and equipment. For these
reasons, the vehicle ought to have a high carrying capacity while also having
comfortable seats that can be used when carrying visitors to and from the company's
premises.
2. Maintenance costs- the fact that the vehicle would be used frequently, the need to
have a model that has readily available spare parts is critical. The company has to
ensure then that the vehicle has low maintenance costs as it will be in constant
operation.
3. Insurance cost- Because the vehicle will always be working, and it might be used by
different people in the company to perform company functionalities, the vehicle will
have to have an insurance cover.
4. Transmission- for transmission, Automatic cars would be considered because of the
ease in driving and their less fuel consumption levels.

Running Header: DECISION MAKING 3
The second step is to come up with different options that fit the descriptions of the device
needed by the company. After a precise assessment, the team will come up with suggestions on
the various available models.
The third step after the creation of a list of possible vehicles would be to assess them by
evaluating them against the needs. This matching process would be done one at a time. Then the
results would be assessed as a group after each team member fills a data sheet with the required
options, and the results would be tabulated for all to see. A sample table is seen below.
Evaluation
criteria
Toyota Noah Toyota Isis Nissan Lafesta
Carrying
capacity
8-seater,
Back seats can be folded
to allow for extra
carrying space.
5-seater
Back seats can be
folded for more space.
5-seater.
The back seat can be
folded for additional
storage capacity.

Running Header: DECISION MAKING 4
Seat
comfortability
Very comfortable seats Fairly comfortable
seats
Fairly comfortable
Availability of
spare parts.
Readily available spare
parts
Spares are readily
available
Readily available spare
parts
Transmission Automatic Automatic Automatic
Other features Sliding back door No sliding door Sliding door
Average Rating
by group /10
9/10 7/10 7/10
After careful evaluation by the team, the average results were assessed, and the ratings
are given.
The model of descicion making that was used to arrive at the results can be considered as
analytical. This was mainly deu to the many little details that the decision making committee was
involved in. this included the assessment of three quite similar types of vehecile. With the
committee so egar to solve the issue, the options that were assessed made the valuation quite a
challenging task. This was evidenced by the close ratings that the vehicle received.
The evaluating committee, however, we're faced with different biases such as;
1.) Framing bias- this is whereby there was always a risk of overlooking certain aspects
while assessing the main elements.
2.) Selective perception bias- this was evidenced by the recommendations that mainly
involved a particular brand of vehicle.
3.) Availability bias- this is whereby the decision-makers based their recommendations
only on the more readily available vehicle.

Running Header: DECISION MAKING 5
4.) Representation bias- this is whereby the decisions that are being made are drawn from
people who have undergone similar situations when selecting their vehicle.
The limitations that were encountered in the analysis and evaluation of the vehicle some
of the limitations that wree faced included, the analysis of the availability of the spare parts. For
some of the vehicle assessed, spare parts would have to be imported incase of a breakdown. This
might hamper efficient work flow. This limitation directly affected the decision as it completely
disqualified some of the proporsed vehicle models.
The evaluation team has come up with Toyota Noah as the appropriate cost vehicle that
can be bought by the company. This is due to the vehicle's ability to function as both a transport
vehicle and a business tool as it is presentable in a business setting. The fact that everyone in the
decision-making team had their decision-making style; this makes it even more acceptable for
the choice to be accepted as it makes it legit (Savi,2015).

Running Header: DECISION MAKING 6
References
Savi, R. (2015). The Impact of Fiscal Crises on Public Administration: Cutback Management
and Changes in Decision-making. TUT Press.
Leshem, R. (2016). Brain development, impulsivity, risky decision making, and cognitive
control: Integrating cognitive and socioemotional processes during adolescence—An
introduction to the special issue.
Appendix (i)
Name of
Evaluator
Toyota Noah Toyota Isis Nissan Lafesta
Evaluator 1
ratings
10/10 8/10 6/10
Evaluator 2
ratings
9/10 6/10 7/10
Evaluator 3
ratings
10/10 7/10 7/10
Evaluator 4
ratings
9/10 7/10 7/10
Evaluator 5 9/10 8/10 7/10

Running Header: DECISION MAKING 7
ratings
Ratings by the Decision-making Team
Based on the decision matrix the following represents how the evaluators decision style is
Leaders Evaluator 1 (Analytical)
Enjoys problem solving
Wants best answers
Is innovative
Uses Careful analysis
Is always up for challenges
Evaluator 4 (conceptual)
Creative
Future oriented
Is more artistic
Always has new ideas
Managers Evaluator 3 (Directive)
Is aggressive
Acts rapidly
Isverbal
Uses intuition.
Evaluator 2 (Behavioural)
Is supportive
Is empathetic
Easy in communication
Uses pursuation.
Evaluator 5 (Analytical)
Wants best answers
Is innovative
Uses Careful analysis
Always has new ideas

Running Header: DECISION MAKING 8