Kialo requires cookies to work correctly.
Should business organizations conduct decision-making discussions in writing, now that a tool like Kialo is available?
Business organizations should conduct decision-making discussions in writing.
It improves the quality of the discussion.
It improves traceability and auditability of decision making, contributing directly to the quality of decision making.
It has the potential to improve accountability for decisions.
Decision-making processes in writing afford greater participation.
Writing down the arguments for and against a decision will make the decision process more transparent and possibly the decision more acceptable.
Collaborative argument mapping can improve the quality of the decision.
Higher usage of writing in decision making does not necessarily eliminate all other forms of communication, such as oral presentations and face-to-face discussions.
Political and business negotiations are most effective when done orally.
Organizational inertia against deliberating in writing makes it unrealistic except in pockets.
It will slow down decision making.
The improvement in quality of decisions may not offset increased costs in time, such as employee hours of participation or slower decisions.
Written decision processes will likely cost more, so should not be employed indiscriminately, as many businesses will not benefit enough to offset the costs.
Low-level decisions are unlikely to be capable of being expressed in writing.
Because writing lacks non-verbal cues, it is more subject to misinterpretation than speech, thus reducing effectiveness of discussions.
Should Individuals Be Allowed Paid Period Leave?
Should Colleges Use SAT Scores In Their Decision Of Who To Admit?
Should everyone's wealth and income information be publicly available?