Prioritisation: should managers follow a tool’s ranking?
When software ranks requests, managers must decide not only what to address but also when to challenge its recommendation. The management question is specific: how can teams retain useful support for prioritisation without blindly following the tool or abandoning it after its first error?
What the literature establishes
Berkeley J. Dietvorst, Joseph P. Simmons and Cade Massey (2015, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General) show in forecasting experiments that seeing an algorithm make mistakes can discourage participants from using it, even when it outperforms the human forecaster. Confidence falls more after observing the algorithm’s errors than after observing human errors. For prioritisation, these findings suggest distinguishing a visibly imperfect recommendation from a system that is less useful overall than human judgement.
The role of user control
Berkeley J. Dietvorst, Joseph P. Simmons and Cade Massey (2018, Management Science) show that allowing participants to modify an algorithmic forecast, even slightly, encourages its use. The relevant mechanism is therefore not just the tool’s accuracy but also the opportunity to retain some control over its recommendation. Applied to task ranking, this suggests testing a proposed, adjustable order rather than an imposed one.
The premature conclusion
It would be tempting to conclude that an adjustable ranking necessarily produces better priorities. These experiments do not establish that: greater acceptance of a tool does not guarantee that human corrections improve decisions. An override may incorporate a regulatory constraint missing from the model, but it may also favour a request simply because its originator is more insistent. (our executive and employee training programmes)
What these findings cannot settle
The cited research concerns experimental forecasts, not the daily scheduling of teams in Lausanne. Predicting an outcome and deciding which case deserves time are different operations: the latter also involves responsibilities and judgements about value. Without an explicit definition of a justified priority, comparing human and tool-generated rankings mainly amounts to comparing preferences.
A practical check in Lausanne
One possible exercise in SHR’s “Time Management & Prioritisation” programme is to test an adjustable ranking within a limited scope: documentation requests in medtech, project support at a higher education institution, event preparation in international sport or customer requests at a Lake Geneva region scale-up. For two weeks, retain the initial ranking, every change and its justification, then record missed critical deadlines using criteria established before the test. The main measure would be the proportion of changes supported by a verifiable constraint that the tool had not taken into account. This record would not prove a performance gain, but it would help distinguish documented corrections from unexplained preferences. To go further: explore the Time Management & Prioritisation training in Lausanne in the canton of Vaud, or browse our executive and employee training programmes in Switzerland.
In pictures: Time Management & Prioritisation in Lausanne
- time management & prioritisation
- Lausanne
- research
- training lausanne