Dan Lovallo--of the University of Sydney and the Institute for Business Innovation at the University of California, Berkeley, and an adviser to McKinsey--and Olivier Sibony--a director for McKinsey in their Brussels office--have an article in the March edition of the McKinsey Quarterly on behavioral strategy for executives.  They analyzed 1,048 "major decisions" by strategic managers over the last five years, and found that very few of them effectively examined their own "cognitive biases" while making a decision.  And they concluded that process matters more than analysis:

We asked managers to report on the extent to which they had applied 17 practices in making that decision. Eight of these practices had to do with the quantity and detail of the analysis: did you, for example, build a detailed financial model or run sensitivity analyses? The others described the decision-making process: for instance, did you explicitly explore and discuss major uncertainties or discuss viewpoints that contradicted the senior leader’s? We chose these process characteristics because in academic research and in our experience, they have proved effective at overcoming biases.

After controlling for factors like industry, geography, and company size, we used regression analysis to calculate how much of the variance in decision outcomes was explained by the quality of the process and how much by the quantity and detail of the analysis. The answer: process mattered more than analysis—by a factor of six (Exhibit 2). This finding does not mean that analysis is unimportant, as a closer look at the data reveals: almost no decisions in our sample made through a very strong process were backed by very poor analysis. Why? Because one of the things an unbiased decision-making process will do is ferret out poor analysis. The reverse is not true; superb analysis is useless unless the decision process gives it a fair hearing.

Here's the above mentioned Exhibit 2:

Read The case for behavioral strategy here.