Comparing three decision-making models

I have reviewed a few career decision-making models recently, including DECIDES (Krumboltz & Hamel, 1980, read more here), CASVE (Peterson et al., 1996, read more here), and PIC (Gati & Asher, 2001, read more here). The models aim to simplify decision-making by creating manageable steps for clients to work through. While each of the three models aims to get the client to an outcome that best fits their needs, they differ in their philosophical approach, how they have organised the steps to reach that outcome, and how they have thought about the decision-maker's values and implementing decisions... and by implication, how involved the career practitioner is in the process (however, I have not included the latter point in the table below. This is something I want to think about a bit more yet).

In an earlier post (here) I compared CASVE (Peterson et al., 1996) and DECIDES (Krumboltz & Hamel, 1980). So what I have done is to now add PIC (Gati & Asher, 2001) to the table, and add another couple of comparison items to the table; which are what the theoretical foundation is; and determining options. 

	CASVE cycle	DECIDES model	PIC framework
Steps	5 Communication; Analysis; Synthesis; Valuing; Execution	7 Define problem; Establish action-plan; Clarify values; Identify alternatives; Discover probable outcomes; Eliminate alternatives; Start action	3 [Assessing readiness]; Pre-screening, In-Depth Exploration, and Choice; [Action]
Foundation	Cognitive Information Processing (CIP) problem-solving tool	Rational decision model related to social learning theory	From decision theory
Process	Go through once, cycle back to step 1 if the "gap" is NOT closed	No cycle implied	No cycle implied
Problem diagnosis	Step 2, specific "Analysis" phase to understand career "block" causes and map out problem puzzle pieces	Implied analysis through steps 4 to 7	In [assessing readiness] and Pre-screening (P) steps
Evaluation criteria	Step 4 of 5: "Valuing" while alternatives are being evaluated (but is thought of more widely, including community)	Step 3 of 7: ‘clarify values’ before alternatives are identified	In the Pre-screening (P) sub-step “Preparation”
Evaluation	Step 3 of 5: called ‘Synthesis’ in two parts – creative brainstorming (elaboration) and narrowing to a manageable set (crystallisation)	Steps 4-6 of 7: Identifying alternatives; discovering outcomes; and logically eliminating alternatives.	Two sets. First cut in Pre-screening (P) and second cut in In-depth exploration (I) working on “promising” alternatives.
Determining options	Synthesis (S) creating likely alternatives	Identifying alternatives (I)	Choice (C), weighing advantages against disadvantages
Action-phase	Step 5 of 5: ‘Execution’ where we use "means-ends analysis" (Peterson et al., 1996, p. 437) to set short-, mid-, and long-term goals, similar to SMART goals, to put our plan in motion.	Step 7 of 7: ‘Start action’ implies a decision is not final until it has been implemented	Ends with "Implementing the Decision" (Gati & Asher, 2001, p. 150)

It was interesting for me to put these three in a table: and while this is not a scientific analysis, just my fast and dirty approach to working out what each one is trying to do, I think it has captured some of the differences between these models.

As a result, I find PIC (Gati & Asher, 2001) the most opaque to work with because of all the multiple steps under each step and the pre- and post- steps; and DECIDES (Krumboltz & Hamel, 1980) the easiest. However, my affinity for Krumboltz may arise from my business school foundations: our training exerts a strong influence over us, regardless of how long it has been since that undergraduate degree was done.

I hope you find this useful!

Sam

References:

Gati, I., & Asher, I. (2001). Prescreening, in-depth exploration, and choice: From decision theory to career counseling practice. The Career Development Quarterly, 50(2), 140–157. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-0045.2001.tb00979.x

Krumboltz, J. D., & Hamel, D. A. (1980, August). The Effect of Decision Training on Career Decision-Making Competence (No. ARITR487). US Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA124139.pdf

Peterson, G. W., Sampson, J. P., Jr., Reardon, R. C., & Lenz, J. G. (1996). A cognitive information processing approach to career problem solving and decision making. In D. Brown, L. Brooks, & Associates (Eds.), Career Choice and Development (3rd ed., pp. 423–476). Jossey-Bass.

* NotebookLM was used to create or partially create the images in the graphic accompanying this post