Discussion 1:

McMaster's Five Point Strategy and PRoACT model are both equal in some ways. Looking at and also that Mcmaster's is more of a complex route to solving an unknown objective while PRoACT is the simply less confusing broad approach of doing the same thing. Choose between models is hard, but the choice would be PRoACT because of its simplicity versus McMaster's. A good example is someone who wants to start a new business but never did before. PRoAct would help them first identify the barriers to creating the business the "Problem" because they can not do business as an entity without going through its local or state government. The Objectives can be put in place to figure out what needs to be done. Then alternatives would be all the routes required to solve the problem. Once the alternatives are mapped the owner can easily follow the next step which is Consequences. Consequences are things such as start-up costs and overhead for starting a new business. Tradeoff follows suite in the model to find which objectives will be more important than other. Once the new owner finds out all its P.R.o.A.C.T. core elements he/she can delve into uncertainty, risk tolerance and linked decisions which will solidify his/her approach. PRoACT simplicity makes it easier to follow than the huge grocery list under each McMaster's Five-Point Strategy Define, Explore, Plan, Act, and Reflect grocery list of things needed to do. So in conclusion, simplicity is better because it opens to a broad spectrum of topics that might not be answered or overlooked in McMaster.

Discussion 2:

When it comes to business I've learned there isn't always one right answer to a solution or problem, so with these two types of process models I think the best way to truly use them properly is to know what kinds of outcome you or your company is looking for however, I believe that the PrOACT model is more realistic in the business world.

There are always going to be problem's in any business big or small, this model identifies the problem right away, then comes up with the objective or what we plan to get out of solving the problem. This is then followed by alternatives, which basically means what are the companies other options. The fourth part of the model deals with consequences of possible solutions or even if nothing is done at all. Lastly the tradeoffs, which much like the consequences has to do with the pro's and con's of the problems and possible solutions. I believe this method is better suited for company's over the McMaster Five Point Strategies. 

I liked the McMaster Strategies but I believe that this method is to complexes and tries to find one solutions to the possible problems. In some area's that's a good thing, and some it's to much.