Towards a model of decision-making of flower growing
systems
JL Catley', EM Hurley’, EA Cameron’, AJ Hall!
' HortResearch, Private Bag 11030, Palmerston North, New Zealand ph +64 6 568080
fax +64 6 354 6731
? Institute of Natural Resources, Massey University, Private Bag 11222, Palmerston
North, New Zealand
JCatley @hort.cri.nz, E.Hurley@massey.ac.nz, E.A.Cameron @massey.ac.nz,
AHall @hort.cri.nz
In defining current science- and grower-based knowledge of cutflower crops,
questions were raised of how the resulting information could be used to enhance
production systems. A descriptive model of decision-making in the flower-growing
industry was proposed as a means of answering some of these questions. Agricultural
management and decision-making literature was reviewed. No models specific to
entire cutflower production systems were found but some of the models cited were
used as a basis for the model. Some data of a general and anecdotal nature were
available, and to augment this, qualitative data were also gathered from growers.
It is concluded that current management and decision-making models failed to make
sufficient allowance for the complexity of growers’ goals in a dynamic operating
environment. It may be that the developers of science-based models also do not
adequately understand the dynamic nature of agricultural-based production system
decisions and therefore can not adequately meet growers’ needs.
Introduction
Cutflower growers in New Zealand must contend not only with the complexities of
the natural elements, but also with a highly volatile fashion industry and competitive
marketing of their product, where they are price takers. This paper identifies and
describes the diversity of individual grower’s decisions, the processes they perform to
make these decisions and their reasoning for these. The resulting information will
assist the participants in the cutflower value chain to gain a better understanding of
decision-making behaviour of cutflower growers, so they are better equipped to
service growers’ needs. It will also allow cutflower growers an insight into the types
of decisions they make and the reasoning behind them.
Models and descriptions of agricultural decision making have often been based on
normative approaches [Ohlmér, et al. (1998)]. Such traditional approaches may
indicate that the developers of science-based models and their descriptions do not
adequately understand the dynamic nature of agricultural-based production system
decisions and therefore can not adequately explain growers’ behaviour. Ohlmér
[1998] lists examples of management services and tools are not being used by farmers
to the extent expected.
Background
Decision making is such a common activity that rarely is any thought devoted to
discovering it’s reality. Jabes [1982] considered the person who makes a decision, and
defined decision making as “a complex process, unique for each individual in
accordance with his perceptual, motivational and value makeup”. The decision maker
is one of the components of any decision situation, the environment within which the
decision is made is the other component [Hardaker, et al. (1970)].
Keen & Morton [1978] have classified the literature on decision-making processes
into five paradigms, ranging from entirely normative to entirely descriptive. Each
approach highlights key issues and often directly contradicts some other approach.
There have also been many attempts to analyse the decision-making process. One of
the earliest was made by Wallis [1926] in his book, The Art of Thinking cited in
Mayer [1977], where he suggested four phases. During the 1970’s many more
decision-making models based on empirical studies were developed by a number of
agricultural management researchers who found that decision makers do not follow a
linear process. These models were an advance on those described in farm management
texts. These texts either stated explicitly, or seemed to imply, that for every decision,
the steps should be followed in order. A number of such examples are cited in Ohlmér
et al. [1998].
Real-life decision making is far more complex than shown in the steps described in
many decision-making models, as human emotions and attitudes are part of a dynamic
and uncertain environment. Virtually none of these authors has attempted to describe
the “real face” of the decision maker, even though during the same time period
numerous studies have been carried out on decision-making behaviour, and the
environment in which decisions are made.
From a practical point of view scientists in research institutions generate detailed
information which producers may use to assist them in making technical decisions.
For this information to be of use to growers it must be relevant and in an appropriate
format. To deliver information in the most appropriate form, researchers have to
understand how and why growers require the information, as they are highly
discerning. Surveys cited in Parker [1999] suggest that farmers are willing to adopt a
technology if it offered to them in a useable, useful and cost effective form for
improving their decision making. This will only come about through understanding
the grower and their decision-making behaviour. Understanding the decision-making
behaviour of the grower to allow for effective delivery of information was the impetus
behind this work.
The New Zealand cutflower industry
The New Zealand cutflower industry is made up of ~3000 highly diverse, competitive
individuals and transient businesses. Many belong to a regional or product
organisation, which come under the umbrella of the national cutflower growers’
organisation, FloraFed. These growers are spread throughout New Zealand, but the
highest concentrations are in the Auckland region. Growers can be usefully
categorised in the following ways as: full-time or part-time growers, new growers or
established growers, and by the number of generations the family has been growing.
All growers fall into several categories.
Virtually all growing operations are run as family units, and many have other sources
of income. A large proportion of these growers produce a highly diverse range of
cutflower crops in relatively unsophisticated growing structures. The New Zealand
cutflower industry is made up of a high proportion (~80%) of small growers, but the
larger growers produce the majority of the export flower crop. Just twenty full-time
members of the New Zealand Exporters Association produce more than 95% of the
total export turnover of cutflowers [de Graaf (1998)]. This has not changed a great
deal in 17 years, as in 1981, fewer than 10 full-time growers collectively exported
~80% of the cutflower crop [Ivess (1981)]. Although there is a stable core of growers,
survival of individual growers’ businesses is considered to be tenuous, as there is a
high attrition rate. It is commonly considered that two out of five growers will not be
operating three years after they have started growing.
Grower Survey
Standard telephone interview techniques [Dillman (1978)] were used to conduct a
survey, on a random sample of 50 known members of a flower growers’ group. It was
decided to limit the survey to 26 interviews as no more information was being added.
All the growers interviewed had succeeded in remaining in business for the first
crucial three years.
Survey Findings and Discussion
The New Zealand cutflower industry is made up of a highly diverse group of people.
Those who took part in the telephone survey were no less dissimilar. Some were
second generation growers; others were new growers who had changed from other
professions or because they had retired. Most of the growers grew a range of crops, on
a range of different sized operations, and had been growing for an average of just over
16 years (range: 3-50+ years).
From among the paradigms described in Catley, et al. [unpublished], analysis
indicates that New Zealand cutflower growers fall most easily into “the individual
differences approach” paradigm described by Keen & Morton [1978]. These growers
behave very much as individuals (or partners). Simon’s approach, “the satisfacing,
process-oriented view” describes the goals of a decision-maker as making a good
decision, but not necessarily the best possible decision. This description most closely
resembles the approach taken by growers, given their constraints of time, money and
uncertainty.
The Decision-Maker’s Environment
Every cutflower grower is different but information gathered from the survey indicates
that New Zealand cutflower growers have very similar decision-making drivers to
those described by Ohimeér, et al. [1998] - their goals, values and beliefs. These goals
are based on their preferences between monetary and non-monetary factors; their
feelings about risk and uncertainty [Hardaker et al. (1970)]; their abilities to filter and
assimilate large volumes of information given the limitations of human processing
[Hogarth (1980)]; and their experience in cutflower growing, and what they have
learnt about past decision-making experiences. Individually these drivers are as
numerous as the number of growers surveyed, except for one goal — in making a
profit. Even so, some growers are more profit driven than others are.
The growers interviewed listed many goals. For example, “I want to leave something
for my wife and the kids”, “I wanted an independent life, to be self-employed and to
make the best of it”, and “I want to be debt-free in x years”. The personal
circumstances of the growers and their age influenced formulation of these goals.
Many of those who were growing flowers on a part-time basis were less profit driven
than the younger full-time growers. Several part-time growers said that they would
make quite different decisions, particularly on the crops they were growing, if they
were full-time growers, but other part-time growers were activity striving to grow
economically viable crops of the highest quality.
The few values that growers cited were not financial orientated. For example: “I want
to leave my land in a better state than I bought it in”. A number of growers had views
that were strongly influenced by how long they had been growing flowers. Some of
those that had been growing for some time did not like new growers or people who
were buying 10-acre blocks and planting flowers just to get around local body
planning permission. For example, “There is a lot of competition, because lots of
people have small blocks”, and “There are too many hobbyists and part-timers, and a
lot of retired people. They swamp the markets and tend to produce inferior quality”,
and “There is more production around especially of fodder crops that erode the price
of others away. They are competing against your flowers”. In contrast, newer growers
said, “Established growers didn’t like to talk as they thought you were threatening
their patch”, and “Growers are very secretive”.
Several growers suggested that planning was the hardest part of growing. Of the 26
growers interviewed, 19 had a long-term plan. Only some of these growers had formal
written down long-term plans and goals. Most of these growers were those who had
taken over family businesses or had changed career paths to go into cutflower
growing. These plans were developed by a formal process over a period of time. “You
have got to be flexible. Know your overall goal, but sometimes you have to shift the
pieces around to get there. Things change and you have to go with it, you have to be
flexible in changing varieties”, and “The plan changes all the time but the direction is
the same”. Other growers found it difficult to formulate a formal long-term plan, had
not seriously thought about long-term plans, or had plans in their minds. “I try to have
goals and aims...but they are often hard to attain because things happen that you don’t
expect to happen, especially in my sort of business”. “I don’t have any goals and
objectives because things change all the time”, “No, I just hope that I am growing
something”, “I have a very good picture in my mind of where I am and where I am
going”. Many of these growers could not see that changing their short-term goals
would leave their long-term goals intact.
The environment in which growers make decisions also has a profound effect on a
grower’s decision-making behaviour. It confounds the decision-making process by the
existence of competing alternatives, uncertainty, and other decision makers. Making
decisions as a cutflower grower is fraught with uncertainty. Complete and/or reliable
information is rarely available, particularly in a rapidly changing market. “Nobody
could tell me what I was going to make off this...I couldn’t really even do any budgets
or anything because I had no idea what I'd be earning...”. Nearly all of the growers
interviewed also had a partner in the business. For these partnerships to be successful
many businesses had specific roles for each partner. “I deal with the money side of
things and the picking and my wife does the grading, packing and delivery of the
flowers. We both sort out how we will market things”. Compromises were made to
suit individuals’ needs. “She doesn’t operate that way so there have to be
compromises”, “We have had to adjust to short-term goals as my wife and I have
different long-term goals”, “One of us needs more social contact than the other so we
have to accommodate that”.
Problem detection and Prospecting
According to Kay & Edwards [1994], there are three types of problems that are found
in agriculture and horticulture. These are: what to produce, how to produce, and how
much to produce. Cutflower growers also have to make decisions about when to
produce. When a person decides to enter the cutflower growing business, answers to
each of these questions will influence their decisions on the location and type of land
they will eventually grow on. Their answers will formulate short and long-term goals.
Holyoak [1990] states a problem arises when someone has a goal - a state they want to
achieve. To resolve a problem, it must be perceived. Even then, a person may not act
on solving it immediately or at all. Dropping profits of cutflower growers is a good
example of this. Growers said they either suddenly became aware of dropping profits
even though it had been occurring for some time, or they were aware that profits were
dropping off but they decided not to do anything about it until they dropped below a
certain level.
Identification of a problem may not be the only impetus in wanting to make a
decision. Many of the cutflower growers interviewed were always on the lookout for
opportunities by continually assessing and trialing the crops they considered could be
the best to grow in the future even though they had no perceived problem with their
current suite of crops. Their past experience had told them that the prices of their
current suite of crops would eventually drop, and that they had to start looking for new
opportunities rather than waiting until it became a problem.
Problem framework and definition
A problem, according to Sitkin & Pablo [1992], can be viewed by a decision maker in
either a positive or negative light, as an opportunity or a problem; or viewed by one
person as an opportunity but by another as a problem [Wilson & Morren (1990)].
The greatest variation in the types of decisions made to solve a problem by growers
interviewed was in making strategic decisions. This is not surprising, as their
backgrounds were often quite different from one another. To start growing, eleven
interviewees had to buy land — four bought established properties, and six bought bare
land with the express desire to grow flowers. For these people this was a conscious
decision, “I want to grow cut flowers, and I have to find a means of doing this”. One
of these growers had no specific use in mind for the land that they bought. Nine
growers already had the land when they decided to enter the flower growing industry.
All of these people were running some other form of land-based business, such as
farming. Some of the reasons given by them for entering this industry were: “I liked
flowers and gardening and wanted to make some money out of it”, “I wanted to work
from home”, and “I needed to offset the agricultural downturn”.
A total of five growers did not have to make land-type decisions because they moved
into an established, family-run enterprises. Four of these growers did not join their
family businesses immediately. They either went overseas or started out on other
career pathways, but eventually decided to go home and work in the family business.
After establishing where the crops were to be grown, choosing what crops to grow
was the next biggest decision. Crop choice was the decision that all growers spent the
most time talking about. Demand for flowers is dictated by fashions that change
rapidly. Many of the growers surveyed realised this and wanted to grow flowers that
are in demand, but they had great difficulty in predicting what the trends would be and
the returns for growing a new crop.
There was a great deal of variation in how many of the interviewed growers aimed to
achieve their long- and short-term goals. Some growers were very fixed in the crops
they had planted or planned to plant up to several years in advance, even though a new
opportunity may have arisen. “You couldn’t afford to chop and change the whole
time”. Other growers took the opposite view. “You have to be adaptable to the
conditions that prevailed”, as demand for flowers is fashion-based. Many growers also
had the flexibility of utilising unused land if they desired. Deciding to grow a new
crop was made easier for these growers, as they did not necessarily have to drop one
of their current crops for a new one.
Acquisition of information
In making decisions all growers knew that they required information to help them, but
how people tried to gather that information and how much they gathered varied
considerably. To make decisions, information is vital, but many of the growers
interviewed found it was very difficult to identify who could help them, or where they
could get the required information.
This was particularly apparent when a person had just entered the industry. They
found once they made one or two contacts, information was a bit easier to find but
part of the problem was being able to make those initial contacts. Most new growers
wanting to buy land or wanting to buy an existing business tried to acquire as much
information as possible. They found it very difficult to get information from other
growers about how to get into floriculture and/or what to grow because they were
regarded as potential competition, and several growers now believe they were given
inaccurate or corrupt advice. These growers realised later, that the information
provider could see they lacked experience, so they believed they were taken advantage
of. This situation was made worse because they did not seek information from a
sufficiently wide range of sources. These growers did not gather more information for
a number of reasons: they did not know where to get it; were turned away by other
growers they asked; or didn’t think it was necessary to ask anyone else.
As growers became more experienced, they found that they were seeking different
types of information — information that was more specialised and either more difficult
to locate or not available at all. This more specialised information was commonly
cited as cultural information about a new crop that a grower was contemplating
growing or one that they had decided to grow. New Zealand is known for growing
new and novel niche products. Information on these crops is often non-existent or only
available overseas and commonly in a foreign language. This scenario was repeatedly
played out by a number of interviewed growers. Talking to other growers was often
cited as a good means of overcoming a lack of useful information. In these situations
though, growers often resorted to a “trial and error” approach because they didn’t want
other growers to know what new crops they were considering to grow.
The interviewed growers used a very wide range of sources of information: local and
international magazines, books, the Internet, government researchers, private
consultants, exporters and other marketers, other growers, conferences, grower
meetings, and property visits. Consultants were considered by many of the growers
interviewed to be the ones who should be able to best bridge the gap between theory
and practice, though growers had mixed views of them. Those who had had a major
disaster or problem often said that they should have gone to a consultant, but those
who had gone to a consultant often said that they were ineffectual or gave them
incorrect advice. Talking to other growers has regarded by many as the best way to
solve an operational problem, “rather than talking to the so-called experts”. Many of
the growers interviewed mentioned what other growers had done about a certain
problem, reinforcing this as an important means by which growers made their
decisions. Others refined this by saying that watching and observing was more
important, and other growers said that “learning is more than observing- it’s done by
doing.” Whatever sources of information were used, many of the more experienced
growers confirmed their information from a number of sources. New growers often
said that they quickly learnt this was the approach that they also had to take.
Consideration of alternatives
After a problem has been acknowledged and identified, a range of alternatives needs
to be formulated for considering in making a decision. Shepard [1964] suggests that
the need to choose between alternatives often creates conflict for the decision makers,
and they are not sure how to trade off one attribute for another, nor which attributes
mattered most, particularly when there are no guaranteed outcomes, as in cutflower
growing.
Many decisions made by cutflower growers are unstructured, because they are subject
to many random or changeable events or involve many unknown factors. Tactical and
strategic unstructured and semi-structured decisions [Keen & Morton (1978)] are
considered to be the most difficult to make and these types of decisions are
perpetually being made by the cutflower growers interviewed. They have to make
decisions on what crops to grow in an environment of uncertain prices and demand.
All of the growers surveyed grew a suite of species or cultivars. They considered that
this reduced their risk if they had crop failures and slumps in prices, and it evened out
their production and labour demands. Decisions of this type are even more difficult
when the crop may not be ready for harvest until several years after it is planted.
Growers also considered that there also needed to be a differentiation between crop
species and cultivars. Both the crop species and cultivar type have to be right, as
flower colour and shape are probably more important than the actual crop species. For
example, all rose cultivars will sell most of the year, but for Valentines Day only red
ones will do.
Many growers interviewed were constantly on the lookout for something that they
considered would be a winner. Whatever new species or cultivar was being
considered, many growers had set criteria for each new crop. A number of criteria
were considered: expected returns/m?, colour, scent, production/m’, stem length,
liking the crop, having the right climatic and soil environment to grow the crop in,
how it would fit into the current suite of crops, it’s natural flowering time, post
harvest qualities, sustainability, and ease of crop establishment and time to flowering.
Growers also had to consider whether they wanted a crop for the export or local
market, whether they wanted to grow annual or perennial crops, and what time of year
they wanted to flower a crop.
Most of the growers surveyed considered that there is no point heating a glasshouse
over winter because the extra returns do not compensate for the extra costs involved.
These same growers said that florists do not seem to appreciate the extra cost that had
gone into producing such a product, and would not pay more. As a result of this
growers endeavoured to grow a suite of crops in their natural growing seasons that
dovetailed into each other so that they had a continuous stream of different flowers.
This has the major advantage of providing a constant year-round income, as well as
providing staff with year round work, and enabling the grower to employ better skilled
staff. A number of growers indicated that they had difficulty maintaining a good
cashflow in the winter, because they had not adequately identified these winter
flowering crops. For them it was a matter of trial and error.
Cutflower growers must also consider alternative marketing outlets and practices, as
do other groups of primary producers. Many of the growers interviewed realise that
they are price takers if they do not sell their flowers directly. One grower put it aptly,
“T want to sell flowers rather than putting them on the market”. Many growers are not
in a position to sell directly but there are a number who are and have set up their own
marketing channels with great success.
When growers were asked what problems they had had in the last year, they all cited
operational problems, for example, pest and disease problems. Prioritising operational
decisions was not regarded as a decision problem, nor were tactical or strategic
decisions other than setting long-term goals. Even in growing a single crop, there are
many decisions on timing and activities that have to be made. These choices are
compounded when more crops are grown as each has its own cultural requirements
that must be assimilated and prioritised. An indication of the number of decision
choices that may have to be made is graphically illustrated by Wossink, et al. [1992].
They identified 1400 cropping variables based on economic, environmental and
technological choices in growing two cultivars of potatoes.
The complexities of decisions, which are often simultaneous, that have to be made
involving crop types, scheduling and cultural requirements create a formidable task
particularly given the limitations of human processing, and the limited amount of new
information that people can absorb. These situations are potential opportunities for
packaging refined information with data manipulations, using techniques such as
linear programming, as decision support packages, to complement and support the
decision-maker.
Choice
Whatever choice decisions were made by the growers interviewed, there was great
variation in the processes to make and implement them, as well as whether the grower
was happy with the outcome at a later time.
Even with a list of criteria to consider, choosing crops to grow was a major dilemma
for all the growers interviewed. The growers took a number of approaches in solving
this problem. Most were highly aware that their margins were a lot narrower, so these
decisions had to be right even though there was not enough good information. Some
growers took a very quantitative approach to selecting new crops, while others solely
grew crops they liked. Several growers made instant, uniformed decisions on growing
a new crop, “I bought the bulbs on the spot”. Quick but informed decisions on
growing a new crop were made when an opportunity arose, by both growers who took
a quantitative approach, as well as those who did not. Ultimately, all the growers
based their decisions on the perceived risk of failure, but in some cases the risk
associated with a crop had not been established, so the risk was considered to be low.
Many of the growers initially used criteria to reduce their alternatives, but based their
final choice on “gut feelings”, “trusting their feelings” and “good feelings”, and
tempered by their judgement and past experience, and weighing up all the pros and
cons.
Many growers considered that if they were going to grow a new crop they had to start
doing so “before word gets out about it”. Some growers, those who were more
experienced, considered that if plant material was difficult to source, and/or it had a
long crop cycle, and/or was expensive to buy (many perennial crops), or was difficult
to grow, it would be a good crop to seriously consider. In contrast other growers (eg
new entrants) interviewed, considered that the crop had to be easy to grow.
Implementation and Checking
The growers interviewed implemented their decisions in a number of ways. When
they had decided on what crop to grow, some chose to trial small areas of a crop,
while others went straight into growing a crop on a large scale, so they could got a
good feel for it’s market potential. Some also did simulated transportation trials and/or
post harvest trials, but all considered it was important to learn how to grow the crop,
and or to see how it fitted in with their current crops.
Those growers who sold directly to their customers grew some of the most diverse
ranges of crops, and trialed the most new crops. They are experienced growers who
know which crops are the most profitable for them, because they have good record-
keeping systems. They also have close contacts with the customers, who give them
quick and accurate feedback on what they wanted.
Other growers had record keeping systems to monitor the profitability of their crops
and their businesses. Some had custom-made or off-the-shelf computer packages and
others had manual recording systems. Some did not have any recording systems even
though they knew they should do but just hadn’t got around to doing so.
Many of the growers also constantly monitored trends on cutflower prices by other
means. They used publications, the Internet, observed the markets and talked to other
growers. These methods provided them with the best available information on how
their individual crops and businesses were performing. Knowledge gained from
evaluating outcomes of their past decisions is used by of many of the growers to give
them confidence or not to use the same process again. This type of feedback is
important as many growers knew that they “could have been better at managing their
whole business”, by “managing their crops better” and “spreading their risks”.
A Model of Decision-Making Behaviour
Figure | indicates the possible phases in a range of decision-making situations that
have been described throughout the text in this paper. These are highly iterative.
Firstly, it describes decisions made under all degrees of uncertainty and risk. Decision
problems of less uncertainty and perceived risk will be less iterative in nature.
Secondly, this diagram describes the decisions made over a range of decision types
using specific examples of decisions that cutflower growers have to make. Virtually
all of the models reviewed for this paper did not do this. The outcomes of a phase are
quite variable because of the different approaches the growers took to making
decisions. All the phases are highly dependent on a number of factors, including the
goals and aspirations of the decision maker, preferences, and external factors which
influence their views and actions in the world, and the degree of risk and timeframes
they are making their decisions under. Not all these phases will necessarily be used.
Although these steps are sequential or consequential, growers have been observed to
start at any part of the cycle. Some growers spend a lot more time on a particular step
than others do and this quite often changes the outcome of a decision.
Conclusion
Decision making and decision-making models have been described in many
disciplines over the last 75 years. Much has been learnt about decision making over
this period of time, but it has only been in recent times that decision makers have been
recognised as being highly individualistic, and who can be swayed in the decision-
making process by many interacting complex personal and environmental factors.
This has come about as the result of increased empirical studies rather than making
theoretical assumptions about decision making and decision makers.
Unfortunately there are still gaps between those who develop and use systems models
in science or decision-making, and those who endeavour to understand why decision
makers behave the way they do. This paper is an attempt to bridge these gaps, through
consideration of the “whats”, “hows” and “whys” of decision making using the New
Zealand cutflower industry as an example. It also raises many theoretical and
empirical questions for researchers in this area to consider and develop.
How can the information developed here be used to enhance production systems? For
scientific information to be of use to growers it must be relevant, timely and in an
appropriate format. To increase the chances of the decision support package being a
success, scientists must allow for the variety and complexities of grower’s goals in a
dynamic operating environment. If researchers are to deliver information in the most
appropriate form, they must understand how and why the grower requires the
information. This will only come about through understanding the grower and their
decision-making behaviour. Studies such as this enhance the understanding of growers
and their decision-making behaviour.
Figure 1. A Model of Decision-Making behaviour
pecisionmaker's goals, objectives, and Perceptiong
* Aiming towards goals & objectives
* Profit/crop and business
* Use of recording systems
* Gauged against expected outcomes
* I need to change my job/lifestyle or get a job
* We need more farm income
* Profits are dropping
* The laws are changing
* My crops arent growing that well
* What opportunities are out there ?
* I know I have a problem, do I solve it, how do I ?
Problem detection
& prospecting
* Acquiring necessary
resources
* Trial or straight in
Problem
framework and
definition
* What type of job do I want ?
*Do I need to change things ?
* What are my constraints ?
* What are the chances of a
good outcome ?
Acquisition of
information
Consider
alternatives
* Made on information gathered
* Weighing up the pros & cons,
gut feelings, goals
* Timeframe
* Reading, talking,
observing, listening
* Range of sources
* Make up a list & then cut
it down using information
* Trials
* List of criteria
* Experience
References
Catley, J. L., Hurley, E. M., Cameron, E. A., & Hall, A. J. (unpublished). Review of
decision making and decision-making models.
de Graaf, H. (1998). New Zealand floriculture is small, but special. FloraCulture
International 8(10), 40-43.
Dillman, D. A. (1978). Mail and Telephone Surveys. John Wiley and Sons, New
York.
Hardaker, J. B., Lewis, J. N., & McFarlane, G. C. (1970). Farm Management and
Agricultural Economics. Angus and Robertson, Sydney.
Hogarth, R. M. (1980). Judgement and Choice. The Psychology of Decision. John
Wiley and Sons, Ltd, Chichester.
Holyoak, K. J. (1990). Problem Solving. In D. N. Osherson & E. E. Smith (eds),
Thinking. An Invitiation to Cognitive Science, The MIT Press, Cambridge,
Mass, Vol. 3, pp. 117-146.
Ivess, R. J. (1981). Situation analysis of the New Zealand export cut flower and cut
foliage industry: Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries.
Jabes, J. (1982). Individual decision making. In A. G. McGrew & M. J. Wilson (eds)
Decision Making, Manchester University Press, Manchester, pp. 53-59.
Kay, R. D., & Edwards, W. M. (1994). Farm Management. (3rd ed), McGraw-Hill,
NY.
Keen, P. G. W., & Morton, M. S. S. (1978). Decision Support Systems: an
organisational perspective. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc.,
Massachusetts
Mayer, R. E. (1977). Thinking and Problem Solving: An Introduction to Human
Cognition and Learning. Scott, Foresman and Company, Glenview, Illinois
Ohlmér, B., Olson, K., & Brehmer, B. (1998). Understanding farmer's decision
making processes and improving managerial assistance. Agricultural
Economics 18, 272-290.
Ohlmér, B. O. (1998). Models of Farmers’ Decision Making. Swedish Journal of
Agricultural Research 28, 17-27.
Parker, C. (1999). Decision Support Systems: Lessons From Past Failures. Farm
Management 10(5), 273-289.
Shepard, R. N. (1964). On subjectively optimum selection among multiattribute
alternatives. In M. W. Shelly Il & G. L. Bryan (eds), Human Judgements and
Optimality, John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp. 257-281.
Sitkin, S. B., & Pablo, A. L. (1992). Reconceptualizing the determinants of risk
behaviour. Academy of Management Review 17(1), 9-38.
Wilson, K., & Morren, G. E. B. J. (1990). Systems Approaches for Improvement in
Agriculture and Resource Management. Macmillan Publishing Company, New
York.
Wossink, G. A. A., de Koeijer, T. J., & Renkema, J. A. (1992). Environmental-
Economic Policy Assessment: A farm Economic Approach. Agricultural
Systems 39, 421-438.
