Satisficing in dentistry. Who decides? Who benefits? Part 2

‘Satisficing’ is a word created by combining ‘satisfy’ and ‘suffice’. It may be unfamiliar to some readers, but it is not new, having been first described in 1956 by Herbert Simon, who later won a Nobel Prize. It means approaching something in a way that is sufficient for it to be a satisfactory solution for the required purpose at the time in question. ‘Satisficing’ can be viewed as the polar opposite of ‘maximizing’, which involves seeking the single, supposedly ‘ideal’, outcome or solution to a problem. Maximizing tends to be a culture of idealism and excess, seeking out the most extreme, extensive, intricate or complicated approach, while satisficing aims to do what is necessary and achieve a perfectly reasonable, adequate outcome without the downside risks of that additional complexity and perhaps cost that maximizing tends to involve. Advocates of maximizing often claim that they are pursuing perfection, excellence or the ‘best’ solution, while satisficers may question the basis for, or validity of, such claims. This three-part series of articles examines examples of satisficing and maximizing across a wide spectrum of both clinical dentistry and other aspects of our professional lives in UK dentistry. It is deliberately challenging and potentially controversial in the hope of prompting self-reflection and discussion about who decides which approach is preferable, and who benefits most from the choices we and others make. Readers may find it helpful to read the three sections in their original order; Part 1 included several key references.