Comparing two decision-making models

There are a number of career decision-making models, and I have been thinking about how Peterson's CASVE cycle model (1996; read more here) differs from Krumboltz's DECIDES model (1980; read more here). Both deliver a systematic framework that we can use to found our next steps on, but they have have some different steps, and do different things at different stages.

They were created at roughly the same time, but from different philosophical schools of thought. CASVE comes from counselling, while DECIDES comes from business. I think that makes the differences a little more understandable. 

So lets have a look at these areas of difference in a table. 

	CASVE cycle	DECIDES model
Steps	5 Communication; Analysis; Synthesis; Valuing; Execution	7 Define problem; Establish action-plan; Clarify values; Identify alternatives; Discover probable outcomes; Eliminate alternatives; Start action
Process	Go through once, cycle back to step 1 if the "gap" is NOT closed	No cycle implied
Planning		Step 2 is unique: “Establishing an action plan", planning the decision-making process itself, including budgeting time and resources
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
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
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.
Action-phase	Step 5 of 5: ‘Execution’ where we use "means-ends analysis" 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

It is quite interesting to compare these two. Perhaps if we weren't good planners, or weren't very good with detail, we might go with DECIDES (Krumboltz & Hamel, 1980). If we were more concerned about community, we might go with CASVE (Peterson et al., 1996). 

If we weren't sure we could get to a decision, CASVE (Peterson et al., 1996) might be best due the implied cycle.  If we aren't very good at logically thinking through a range of options, we might go with DECIDES (Krumboltz & Hamel, 1980). 

As always, it is horses for courses!

Sam

References:

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. 423–475). Jossey-Bass.

 * NotebookLM was used to create the two merged graphics accompanying this post