Decision-making in public administration

Public management scholars «discovered» decision-making dec­ades ago and have been sufficiently enamored of the topic as to sug­gest decision- making as a central focus for public administration the­ory and research. The attractions of decision making are clear enough. In organizations, decisions are the markers for action and the pre­cursors to accomplishment or to failure. Failure, in turn, signals the need for new decisions.

The decision–making literature has given considerable attention to the particularities of political and technical decisions, though of­ten without direct comparison between the two. Political decisions en­tail more external actors and involve higher levels of conflict and a tendency to focus on ends rather than means. Technical decisions which involve higher degrees of economic rationality, technique and modeling are likely to be more important, and participants’ roles are mitigated by their specialization and technical standing. Decisions are classified according to content as either technical or political.

Sometimes technical decisions can become highly politicized. Even more troublesome, a great many public sector decisions are «political decisions,» it is only the degree and type of politics that varies.

One should focus on cutback decisions and on information tech­nology and services decisions because they, more than most, seem to capture the political-technical distinction. In one sense, resource and budget cutback decisions are invariably political, if we mean by «po­litical» being determined by contending external political authorities. Since almost no public agency decides voluntarily to cut its budget, such decisions are, by some definitions, necessarily political.

Cutback decisions are never «technical,» at least in any com­monly used sense of that term. Such decisions may employ techni­cal approaches to decision-making but the content itself is not technical. Moreover, there is no such thing as a pure type technical or a pure type political decision, but cutback and IT decision con­tent provide an acceptable construction of «political» and «techni­cal» decision.

There are four familiar decision criteria-cost-effectiveness, fair­ness, technical feasibility, and usefulness. Political decisions (cut­backs) tend to be based on the criteria of cost-effectiveness and fair­ness; technical decisions (IT) tend to be based on the criteria of cost-effectiveness, technical feasibility and usefulness.

Under the category decision time there are four factors related to time. In the first place decision time required pertains to the amount of time elapsed from the point at which an issue appeared on the agenda to the time the decision was made. The extent to which the de­cision is viewed is considered as permanent and the extent to which decision is perceived as stable over time versus variable. Finally, the number of interruptions in the decision-making process is considered.

Regarding the time required to make decisions cutback decisions take less time than most major decisions, simply because the motiva­tion generally comes from a higher authority, either a legislative man­date or an executive superior. In most cases requirements for cutbacks are also accompanied by a deadline for making it.

IT decisions take more time than most important decisions. In the first place, IT decisions often involve procurement and often procure­ment challenges. When multiple vendors are involved decisions often take longer. Just as important, IT often plays in integrating role or, even when that is not the case, creates multiple dependences. For this reason as well IT decisions take longer.

So, political decisions (cutbacks) tend to require less time, are more likely to be viewed as temporary and less likely to be stable. Cut­back decisions experience fewer interruptions. Technical decisions (IT) tend to require more time, are more likely to be stable and are no more or less likely than other decision types to be perceived as permanent. Information technology decisions experience more inter­ruptions.

In considering decision participation, one should examine the number of participants inside the agency, the number outside, the total number, and the percentage of external participants. Cutback de­cisions have a higher number of internal participants, a higher number of external participants and, therefore, a higher number of total participants. This expectancy of higher levels of participation re­lates to the idea that cutback decisions generally affect most aspects of agency operations and often directly affect clients. Since cutback deci­sions generally come from political superiors, one expects that this factor, too, add to the number of participants. Likewise, cutback de­cisions have ahigher percentage of external participants.

The situation is quite different with IT decisions. The greater technical expertise is required for IT decisions to suppress the number of participants, both internal and external. However, com­pared to most decision types, IT decisions have a higher percentage of external participants because of the important role of vendors and end users, as well as procurement officers.

Long recognized as a major concern in decision-making, informa­tion quality is generally viewed as more central a concern in technical issues than in decisions because political decisions often entail agen­das that do not relate directly to the decision task at hand. Informa­tion quality is lower with cutback decisions not only because of the likelihood of multiple agendas but also because decisions are heavily constrained, sometimes with many decision elements mandated.

By contrast, information quality is higher in IT decision because the degree of satisfaction with decision outcomes is generally highly dependent on the quality of information.

When we speak of red tape in this context, we are concerned with the amount of red tape experienced in the decision process rather than the red tape entailed in the implementation of the decision. Cut­back decisions experience relatively little red tape in decision-making because relatively few standard procedures or controls are entailed in such decisions and, thus, there are fewer opportunities for red tape (if we define red tape as «rules, regulations, and procedures that have compliance costs but do not achieve organizational goals»). IT deci­sions entail relatively high levels of red tape because they are more standard decisions, made within a thicket of procurement rules and procedures.

 

EXERCISES