Although the MP projects we were given the previous two semesters were real issues, one aspect that was limited (due to the sheer number of students) was a constant engagement between us and the firm we were trying to help, to narrow the scope. Boiling down to the scope was part of the MP learning process, however Detlof von Winterfeld and Barbara Fasolo point out in “Structuring Decision Problems: A Case Studying and Reflections for Practitioners” how much of an iterative process structuring a problem and decision analysis can be. Shown below is the decision analysis ‘snake diagram’ that clearly shows the back and forth that is necessary, especially in the early stages of a project, between the decision board (decision makers) and the decision team (decision analysts – those that are responsible for formulating a solution). After being given the scope of the problem, the decision team has the decision board sign off on their understanding of the problem prior to moving on. This gives the decision analysts an opportunity to refine the scope of the project with the assistance of the decision makers.

Brainstorming is also included in the way of developing alternatives and assessing them. Not surprisingly the Plan for Action and Implementation only take up a third of this process with most of the foundation work being done prior, as was suggested in MP.