Introduction
1. Management decisions
Conclusion
Introduction
Decision making is the most important management function, the successful implementation of which ensures that the organization achieves its goals. Due to the inability to carry out this process efficiently and rationally, due to the lack of a mechanism for its implementation and technology in the organization, most firms and enterprises, government agencies and bodies suffer. The success of an organization, no matter what area it operates, largely depends on this, and even more so in Russia, where most organizations go through the first stages of their development and it is very important what problem-solving technology they develop.
A person can be called a manager only when he makes organizational decisions or implements them through other people. Decision making, like information exchange, is an integral part of any management function. The need to make decisions permeates everything a manager does, formulating goals and achieving them. Therefore, understanding the nature of decision making is extremely important for anyone who wants to succeed in the art of management.
Decision making permeates all management activities; decisions are made on a wide range of management tasks. Not a single management function, regardless of which body performs it, can be implemented otherwise than through the preparation and execution of management decisions. Essentially, the entire set of activities of any management employee is in one way or another connected with the adoption and implementation of decisions. This, first of all, determines the significance of decision-making activities and determining its role in management.
The purpose of writing this work:
consider the types of management decisions and methods for making them;
trash can management solution
use of James March's "garbage can" model in the process of developing and making management decisions.
1. Management decisions
The solution can be defined in a narrow and broad sense. In a narrow sense, a decision is a choice of an alternative. Alternatives are any acceptable and mutually exclusive options for action. We make many decisions every day: what to wear, how to get there, what to buy, etc. If we refuse to choose any alternative, then refusing to choose is also our choice, also a decision.
But alternatives to action are not always obvious and do not always lie on the surface. In the case of complex decisions, the search for alternatives is an independent and difficult problem. In addition, the decision must be implemented, and in the case of a management decision, communicated to the executors. Therefore, in a broad sense, the solution is:
) process - a series of actions,
) the act of choice (carried out by a person);
) the result of the choice.
All decisions made by people can be divided into personal and business. Personal decisions are aimed at achieving personal goals and affect the interests of only one person and, possibly, several people close to him. Making business decisions is a completely different matter. Business decisions include political, economic, legal, technical, military and other decisions that are made in organizations.
All business decisions made in organizations can be divided into two types: expert and managerial. Expert decisions are advisory in nature and are made by experts, analysts, consultants, i.e. persons who do not have linear authority.
In contrast, management decisions are made directly by managers and represent control actions aimed at achieving management goals. Management decisions are designed to change controllable factors affecting the organization.
The subject of a management decision is a person or group of people (managers) making decisions. Decisions are divided into individual and collective (group). There are special methods for making individual and group decisions.
The object of execution of a management decision is a person or group of persons in the organization who implement the decision.
Everything in life is much more complicated. In addition to managers and executors, many more are involved in the process of making and implementing management decisions: the owner of the problem (owner or subordinate), experts (internal or external), an active group (interested circle of people).
The purpose of a management decision is to ensure movement towards the goals set for the organization. The more effective a solution is, the greater its contribution to moving toward the organization's goals. The effectiveness of a solution can only be assessed after its implementation.
Management decisions are divided into:
Individual and group (collective);
Decisions (like parameters) are divided into definite (deterministic), probabilistic (decisions under risk conditions) and uncertain. The presence of at least one probabilistic parameter makes the decision probabilistic, and the presence of at least one uncertain parameter makes it uncertain (“a fly in the ointment”). The simplest solutions are certain, but they are almost never found in management practice;
Single-criteria and multi-criteria.
Taking into account the stereotypic nature of the situation, programmable and non-programmable solutions are distinguished. Programmable solutions include standard and repeatable solutions (up to 90%). They are well studied, easy to formalize, and the procedure for their adoption is known. Such decisions include decisions on the purchase of goods, assortment formation, personnel selection, and many decisions in the field of production management. When making programmable decisions, a known model is used with the necessary adjustments for specific features. This is done because there is practically no absolute repetition of all the nuances of a situation. Programmable decisions can be made using computer technology.
Non-programmed decisions include decisions made in new situations. They can be one-time, creative in nature (for example, the development of new technologies, products, the formation of a new organizational structure). Non-programmable decisions are made mainly at the upper levels of organization management by senior managers.
2. Basic elements of the decision-making problem
Solution parameters
Parameters (factors, variables) of a solution are indicators by which the problem situation and various solution options are determined.
Parameters are divided into managed and unmanaged. The managed are under the control of the subject of the decision and their values can be determined as a result of the decision (the resources of the organization are under his control). Most of the factors do not depend on the subject’s decisions, i.e. he is unable to change the values of these factors and must only take into account their possible influence. Uncontrollable factors include the actions of competitors, legislation, government decisions, the economic situation, etc.
Parameters are divided into external and internal (very close to managed and unmanaged, but you can still find a difference in terms of treating the organization as an open system). External factors reflect the influence of the external environment, contributing to the successful solution of the organization's problems (beneficial factors) or counteracting its goals (harmful factors). They are divided into factors of direct and indirect impact. In general, these include consumers, suppliers, competitors, shareholders, labor market, local authorities, economic conditions, politics, law, etc. Internal factors reflect the mutual influence of internal variables and driving forces within the organization on the process of its functioning and development. These include such factors of the internal environment as goals, structure, tasks, technology and people.
Parameters are divided into quantitative (expressed in numbers: expected income, costs or time to complete work) and qualitative (it is impossible to objectively express in numbers, their values are expressed by a person subjectively in natural language.
Quality:
Nominal variables are used for qualitative classification only. This means that these variables can only be measured in terms of membership in some, significantly different classes; however, you will not be able to quantify or order these classes;
Ordinal variables allow you to rank (order) objects, indicating which of them have the quality expressed by a given variable to a greater or lesser extent. However, they do not allow you to say “how much more” or “how much less”.
Quantitative:
Interval variables allow you not only to organize measurement objects, but also to numerically express and compare the differences between them.;
Relative variables are very similar to interval variables. In addition to all the properties of variables measured on an interval scale, their characteristic feature is the presence of a certain point of absolute zero, so for these variables sentences like: x is twice as large as y are valid.
There is a theory of fuzzy sets (Lofti A. Zadeh), which allows you to bring some qualitative variables to a quantitative representation. Show an example of price, growth, etc. On fuzzy sets, you can perform operations similar to operations with clear sets (intersection, union, negation). Arithmetic and logical operations with fuzzy variables are defined. Fuzzy sets are convenient for construction by experts.
According to the degree of awareness of the manager of the organization about the significance of factors, they are divided into certain (deterministic), probabilistic (stochastic) and uncertain. Defined parameters are parameters whose exact values are known. Probabilistic parameters are parameters whose exact values are unknown, but the probabilities of their possible values are known (discrete or continuous probability distribution). Uncertain parameters are parameters for which neither the possible values (often) nor their probabilities are known.
Options
Certain
Probabilistic
Undefined
Domestic
Volume of production
Rejection rate
Accidents, accidents
Tax rates
Volume of sales
Natural disasters
Restrictions
Constraints bind the parameters of the problem and reduce the number of feasible solution options. Constraints can be formulated quantitatively (mathematically in the form of equalities and inequalities) and qualitatively (using words, phrases and sentences). A special type of quantitative restrictions are restrictions on the integerity of variables. Sometimes restrictions arise from the structure of the problem itself (properties of alternative objects).
Restrictions (both those and others) are of the following types:
dot - the parameter (or expression) must be equal to a certain value (equality);
interval (one-sided, two-sided intervals, set of intervals) (inequality or set of inequalities).
There is a way to set restrictions using the so-called logical requirements functions - they can take values from 0 to 1 inclusive: strict (traditional) - only 0 or 1 (the transition occurs abruptly), non-strict (based on the theory of fuzzy sets) - can take any values from 0 to 1.
Criteria for (effectiveness of) solution
Criteria (efficiency) - indicators by which the quality of the solution is assessed. Selected based on goals - desired results, calculated based on parameters. Goals are ideal, criteria are real.
The criteria must satisfy the following requirements:
fitness for purpose;
measurability;
minimalism (simplicity);
Criteria, like parameters, can be quantitative: profit margin, cost level, and qualitative: social consequences, safety, attractive appearance of the product.
Criteria can be definite, probabilistic (probability of achieving a certain result, the most probable result (mathematical expectation), risk (variance, standard deviation), worst, best and average result, guaranteed result) and uncertain (worst, best and average result, guaranteed result ).
Based on the number of criteria, decisions are divided into single-criteria and multi-criteria. Multicriteria decisions are much more complex and almost always contain an element of subjectivity, determined by the so-called preference function of the person or group of decision makers.
Performance criteria are introduced based on a specific concept of human decision making. As is known, there are two such concepts - utility maximization and bounded rationality (see below). Each of them corresponds to a certain type of performance criteria, which are called optimality criteria and suitability criteria.
3. Essence, functions and tasks of decision theory
The theory of decision making should be understood as a system of knowledge that reflects the essence of the concepts of “pattern” and “decision”. Taking into account patterns, decisions are developed, adopted and implemented.
The main features of decision-making theory are objective truth, logical integrity, formal consistency, ability to develop, relative independence, and active influence on practice. Objective in theory is the verification by practice of the content of its laws and principles, and subjective is the form of expression of the corresponding theoretical provisions. A necessary condition for the formation of a theory of decision making as a component theory of management is a precise definition of its subject, boundaries and directions of study, forms and methods of research. Currently, a number of theoretical provisions of management theory are being critically revised. It is enriched by the achievements of theory and practice of advanced management schools; find optimal combinations of new and previously established views on the development, adoption and implementation of management decisions.
A characteristic feature of decision-making theory is its integration with other independent theories, the boundaries of which are increasingly defined. Decision-making theory is being intensively developed within the framework of management theory. The most developed parts of it are the theory of optimal decisions and the psychological theory of decisions.
The essence of decision-making as a process is understood as the internal, relatively stable basis of a management decision, which determines its meaning, role and place in the functioning and development of the organization. The essence of decision making usually manifests itself through a variety of external connections and actions that characterize one of the aspects of a management decision. Based on this, we can determine the subject of research in decision theory. The essence of decision-making development lies in the activity of the decision maker to perform the fundamental function of a leader in the management process. The main goal of a management decision is to provide a coordinating (regulatory) influence on the management system that implements the solution of management tasks by personnel to achieve the goals of the organization. Achieving these goals involves solving problems and tasks that constitute the content and sequence of actions of decision makers in the performance of their immediate responsibilities. The main objectives are:
creation of an information base for making timely decisions;
identification of constraints and decision criteria;
organization of activities of management personnel.
Decision theory, like any scientific theory, performs cognitive and predictive functions. The cognitive function is manifested in revealing the essence of decision-making processes, the patterns and principles to which it is subject, the emergence and development of the theory of decision-making at various historical stages, in explaining the main properties and interrelations of the subject of research, substantiating the technology and decision-making system. The predictive function consists of determining trends in the further development of processes and decision-making systems, organizational forms and methods of activity of management personnel in the process of their adoption.
The main tasks of decision theory:
study and generalization of decision-making experience under certain conditions, as well as under conditions of uncertainty and risk;
identification and study of objective patterns of decision-making processes; formation on their basis of principles for organizing the activities of decision makers, organizational forms and methods, technologies for the development, adoption and implementation of decisions;
development of methods for studying the problems of developing a decision-making system, principles and methods for assessing their effectiveness, as well as measures to improve the activities of decision makers.
The problems of decision-making theory can in principle be solved only if the methodological foundations of a new concept for managing the life of society are developed. Methods, structure and categories of decision theory. The management activities of decision makers and management personnel in the process of developing, making and implementing decisions are studied in various aspects, which requires the use of various methods: observation, comparison, analysis, synthesis, physical and mathematical modeling, etc. In research, it is important to set up and conduct the experiment correctly. Experiments based on practical experience help to understand the objective laws of decision-making and identify significant connections between the management goal and the fundamental function of decision-making. They make it possible to take into account factors affecting the decision-making process and objectively evaluate measures to improve the systems for their adoption, forms of organization, and methods of activity of management personnel. Based on an analysis of the specifics of the subject and tasks of decision-making theory, the variety of aspects of management decisions and methods for studying the problems of their adoption, the following structure of decision-making theory is proposed:
fundamentals of theory and methodology;
the system of activities of persons making management decisions (a person as a subject and object of a management decision);
process, decision-making technology;
methods for developing, adopting, justifying and implementing management decisions;
basis for the effectiveness of management decisions.
4. J. March's "garbage can" model
The organization is a collection of choices looking for trouble; ideas and feelings seeking situations where they can be expressed; solutions looking for questions to which they can be the answer; and people who make decisions looking for work.
James March (J. March) is a famous modern American political scientist, researcher in the field of organization theory, organizational behavior and management; Professor of Management at Stanford University in California. Working with Herbert Simon and Richard Saert at the Mellon-Carnegie Center of California, he made significant contributions to the understanding of decision-making processes in organizations and the development of the concept of bounded rationality. Revealing the essence of this concept, J. March identifies three types of restrictions inherent to managers and influencing the process of making management decisions - cognitive, political and organizational restrictions.
Cognitive limitations
J. March refers to cognitive limitations as limitations of attention, limitations of mental abilities and disorder of preferences.
Limitations of attention. First of all, according to J. March, the scarce mental resource of each individual is attention. For this reason, people cannot simultaneously direct their attention to different objects and solve different problems. As J. March notes, “a decision maker cannot pay attention to all problems at the same time and cannot be everywhere at the same time.” Therefore, managers and executives actually solve not everything, but only the most important problems of the organization. They focus their attention only on individual solutions depending on the situation and the requirements placed on them. In this regard, it is clear that more attention to one type of decision leads to insufficient attention required for making other decisions. Therefore, the correct distribution of attention and establishing the moment when and what tasks should be solved is of great importance in the activities of a manager.
Mental limitations. Further, J. March points out that not only attention is in deficit, but also mental abilities. The human brain is busy solving many problems, but it can actually process only a limited amount of information and store only a small number of alternatives in memory. As subsequent studies have shown, these factors are associated with the limited capacity of a person’s short-term memory, which is actively used in the decision-making process. Therefore, any leader is forced to come to terms with severe limitations of his capabilities, which do not allow him to be rational. Indeed, as experience shows, all management decisions are made in conditions “when the manager knows much less than could in principle be known.”
Disorderly preferences. In addition to limited attention and mental capacity, one type of cognitive limitation that affects decision making is disordered preferences. People's preferences are changeable and unpredictable. People often change their attitude towards alternatives and goals of activity and sometimes even do not know what they want. At the same time, they may experience self-doubt, ignore their own preferences, fall under the influence of other people and follow other people's advice or traditions. In addition, people may formulate their preferences vaguely and vaguely. Finally, their preferences may conflict with the preferences of others. This is most acute in organizations where many important decisions are made collectively. Moreover, in modern organizations, most individual decisions are made in a collegial form, where the manager is forced to prepare and coordinate them with other people or groups who have their own goals and preferences. All of these factors allow us to talk about the “disorder” of the decision maker’s preferences and, therefore, the impossibility of making an objectively best decision.
Political restrictions
The cognitive limitations of rationality are closely related to so-called political reasons. J. March showed that a company and any organization represent a “multi-purpose political coalition.” In this regard, he notes that “the composition of the company is not a given, it is determined through negotiations. The goals of the company are not given, they are determined through transactions” (by ). The “coalition,” as defined by J. March, includes managers, workers, engineers, shareholders, suppliers, consumers, lawyers, tax collectors and other government agents, as well as all the units (services, departments) that make up the organization. Each of the participants in such a “coalition” has his own ideas about what the company should be and what goals it should pursue. The wide variety and inconsistency of interests, goals, ideas and preferences of different participants lead to the fact that management decisions are made not in a rational way, but through negotiations, transactions and compromises.
Organizational restrictions
J. March identifies this type of restrictions in connection with a phenomenon in the life of organizations, which he called organizational anarchy. Organizational anarchy is a social system consisting of relatively autonomous groups between which there are weak and unstable ties. In fact, it represents an organization with an undefined and vague structure that is not used to manage this organization. Therefore, management in "organizational anarchies" is not a regular process, but rather a "problematic initiative." J. March notes that the properties of organizational anarchy are inherent in many organizations, but they are especially pronounced in cases where the organizations belong to a public form of ownership or are educational institutions, such as universities. Organizational anarchy has "three basic properties":
The organization has unclear goals and unclear preferences and does not formulate them in advance, but directly in the process of activity. Of course, the lack of clearly defined goals serves as a strong limitation for making optimal decisions.
The organization has an “unclear technology” of activity and works not through a clear understanding of what it is doing, but through trial and error. Therefore, many phenomena and processes occurring within an organization are often not understood by its employees.
The organization has a variable composition of participants; the people involved in its work are constantly changing.
Such properties of the organization significantly limit the ability to “program” decisions in recurring situations and, even more so, the use of rational decision-making procedures in the event of the emergence of new or unique problems.
Features of decision making in organizations
In addition to examining the constraints that influence decision making in organizations, J. March also found that this process has four important features. These include:
Quasi-conflict resolution.
Uncertainty avoidance.
Problematic search.
Organizational learning.
Quasi-conflict resolution is a common characteristic of decision-making processes in any organization. Conflicts arise in all organizations and, as J. March notes, they are usually not resolved as a result of decision-making. However, studies of organizational behavior suggest the existence of special means of quasi-conflict resolution that weaken, soften and make it possible to coexist with them. Such means include the mechanisms of “local rationality”, “acceptable level of decisions” and “consistent achievement of goals”.
The mechanism of "local rationality". An organization consists of many functional units, each of which solves its own problems and deals only with a narrow range of problems. For example, the marketing department faces the problem of “what to produce,” the production department with “how to produce,” the sales department with “how to sell,” the human resources department with “how to select,” etc. Of course, the activities of these divisions should be coordinated by the top “management of the organization”, but most management decisions are still made “on the ground”, within the divisions themselves. Therefore, each of them can claim “rationality” only when working with its own “local content”. "Local" decisions made in departments reflect their interests and goals and therefore may be mutually incompatible. For example, the marketing department may require additional funds for an advertising campaign, but the finance department will insist that it is impossible to go over budget. As a result, making one of these decisions will only benefit a specific department and will not lead to the optimal choice for the entire organization. In this way, the conflict situation is eliminated, but the conflict of interests is not resolved, but persists. Nevertheless, the organization continues to function, moving towards its goals in a tortuous way of searching for compromises and making “local” decisions.
Mechanism of "acceptable level of decisions". This mechanism helps to simplify the reconciliation of conflicting "local" decisions. The discrepancy between decisions made in departments inevitably leads to a deviation of the actual result of the organization's activities from the optimal one. However, achieving the best result is usually not required. Top management and department managers, as a rule, are quite satisfied with the result, acceptable or satisfactory from the point of view of the interests of these departments and the organization as a whole. Such an assumption makes it possible to significantly reduce the conflict of interests within the organization and make it easier to find a compromise solution.
The mechanism of “consistent achievement of goals.” This mechanism is also one of the means of quasi-conflict resolution in organizations. It is as follows. Since conflicts of interests and goals are usually difficult to resolve, first the organization’s management directs its attention and efforts to achieving one goal, then another, etc. For example, first the sustainable production of some products is established, and then the focus shifts to increasing diversity through the development and release of new types of products. Obviously, this approach creates only a pleasant illusion of resolving the conflict (in this example, between the functional subsystems of production and marketing), since achieving subsequent goals can devalue all previous efforts. Thus, an increase in the variety of products or services may require a change in technology and thereby disrupt previously established production.
Uncertainty avoidance is the next feature of decision making in organizations. All organizations are forced to live in conditions of uncertainty. Consumer demand is not determined, the behavior of partners and competitors is not determined, economic conditions, the political situation, etc. are not determined. The impact of uncertainty factors leads to unpredictable consequences and causes risk in decision making. At the same time, psychologists have found that people in many cases tend to avoid uncertainty by simplifying real situations. At the same time, they make decisions, as if “removing” uncertainty and taking into account only current information (“here and now”). In this regard, leaders and managers of organizations usually focus on solving problems that arise at the moment and try to avoid long-term forecasts. In addition, they try to reduce the impact of uncertain factors by concluding exclusive contracts with partners and consumers, through cooperation with authorities, through negotiations, collecting marketing information, etc.
The next feature of management decisions is called problem search. This concept refers to how the process of finding a solution occurs when a problem arises. Its essence lies in the fact that when a problem arises, managers begin to search for options for resolving it, and as soon as a suitable option is found, the search immediately stops. The point is that managers usually do not engage in regular, advance collection of information and search for possible solutions to future problems, but only solve current, most pressing problems and respond to specific crisis situations. Moreover, the search for solutions is carried out shallowly. When a problem arises, the search for options is "localized" around some known solution that has been used in the past. Innovative, radical solutions are usually ignored so as not to make too many changes and not upset the “established order of things.”
Organizational learning also invariably accompanies decision-making processes in organizations. The fact is that any decision-making process is a learning process. Decision makers start work without all the necessary knowledge. They learn directly while working, solving problems that arise during the process. Acting by trial and error, people learn, learning from their own experience which decisions are acceptable or effective and which are not, what is allowed and what is prohibited in a given situation, etc. The acquired knowledge is subsequently adapted to new situations and activity goals.
"Trash can" model
The garbage can model represents one of the newest and most interesting examples of the development of management decisions in organizations. It is not directly comparable to the other models described earlier because the garbage can model deals with a system or flow of multiple decisions within an organization, while the Carnegie and incremental models focus on making a single decision. The garbage can model helps you think about the organization as a whole and the decisions most frequently made by organizational managers.
Organized anarchy. The garbage can model was developed to explain the pattern of management decision making in organizations whose operations are highly uncertain. Michael Gohen, James March, and Johan Olsen, who pioneered this model, called conditions of extreme uncertainty organized anarchy, which is an extremely organic organization. Organized anarchy does not rely on the normal vertical hierarchy of power and bureaucratic decision-making rules. It is characterized by three features.
The problematic nature of preferences. Goals, objectives, alternatives and solutions are poorly defined. Uncertainty is inherent in every step of the decision-making process.
Fuzzy, poorly understood technology. Cause-and-effect relationships within an organization are difficult to identify. Comprehensive information needed to reach a decision is not available.
Staff turnover. The organization experiences staff turnover. In addition, employees are too busy and have limited time to focus on a single problem and its solution. Participation in any decision-making turns out to be unstable and limited.
Organized anarchy is characteristic of organizations characterized by frequent change and a collegial, non-bureaucratic environment. No organization conforms to such extreme organic conditions all the time, although modern learning organizations and Internet-based companies can remain in a state of organized anarchy for quite a long time. Many organizations may from time to time be faced with situations where decisions must be made in complex and uncertain environments. The garbage can model is useful for understanding how such decisions are made.
Event streams. A unique feature of the garbage can model is that the management decision-making process does not appear as a sequence of steps that begin with a problem and end with a solution. In fact, problem identification and solution may not be related to each other. An idea can be proposed as a solution even in cases where there are no problems. Conversely, a problem may exist but not generate any solutions - Solutions are the result of independent streams of events occurring within the organization. There are four types of streams of events relevant to the decision-making process in organizations.
Problems. Problems are moments of dissatisfaction with current activities and job performance. They represent the gap between the desired performance of a job and current performance. Problems are perceived and require attention. However, they are separated from solutions and alternatives. A problem may or may not lead to a decision. And vice versa a decision may be made and the problem remains unresolved.
Potential solutions. A solution is someone's idea proposed for adoption. These kinds of ideas constitute the flow of alternative solutions passing through the organization. Ideas can be brought into the organization by both new employees and long-time employees. Participants in the process may simply get carried away by certain ideas and push them as logical solutions everywhere, regardless of the existing problems. Attachment to an idea may cause an employee to begin looking for a problem to which the idea can be applied and thus validated. The main point to take into account here is that solutions exist regardless of problems.
Participants in decision making. Decision participants are employees who come into the organization and pass through it. People get hired, change positions, and quit. Participants differ significantly in their ideas, perceptions of the problem, experience, assessments and education. The problems and solutions perceived by one manager will be different from the problems and solutions perceived by another.
Favorable opportunities for choice. Opportunities for choice are typically occasions when an organization makes a decision. They appear when contracts are signed, people are fired, or approval is given for the release of new products. They also occur when the “right mix” of actors, solutions, and problems is observed. Thus, a manager who suddenly has a good idea may suddenly recognize a problem to which it can be applied, and thus may provide the organization with an opportunity to make a choice. When problems and proposed solutions coincide, this often leads to a resolution of the problem.
Taking into account the concept of four streams, the general pattern of management decision-making in an organization becomes random. Problems, proposed solutions, participants, and chosen solutions all flow through the organization. In a sense, the organization is a large wastebasket in which all these flows are mixed, as shown in Figure 3. If the problem, the solution, and the participant coincidentally connect at one point, then the problem can be resolved; but if the solution does not fit the problem, the problem may remain unsolved. Thus, by observing the organization as a whole and viewing it in extreme uncertainty, one can see that there are problems that are not solved and there are solutions that do not work. Decisions cannot be ordered and are not the result of a step-by-step logical sequence. The situation may be so complex that the solutions, problems and results are completely independent of each other. When they collide, some problems are solved, but most remain unresolved.
Fig. 1 Representation of independent streams of events in the garbage bin model when making a management decision
Consequences of using the garbage bin model can be the following: Solutions can be proposed even when a problem does not exist. One of the organization's employees may try to sell his idea to the rest of the organization's employees. An example is the introduction of computers into many organizations in the 70s. The computer was an exciting solution, and the idea was being pushed by both computer manufacturers and systems analysts within organizations. But computers of that time did not solve all problems; in fact, they often only complicated everything. Choices can be made without solving problems. An alternative solution such as creating a new unit within the organization may be made with the intention of solving a problem; But in conditions of extreme uncertainty, such a choice may be wrong. Moreover, many alternatives only seem feasible. People decide to quit, an organization's budget is cut, or new insurance policies are written. These alternative solutions may be problem oriented, but they will not necessarily solve them.
Problems may remain unresolved. Decision participants may become accustomed to certain problems and give up trying to solve them, or participants may not know how to solve problems because the technology is unclear to them. For example, one of the Canadian universities was chosen as a place for an internship for a professor who lost his position due to the fact that he did not go through the proper procedure at the time. Conducting an internship was a burdensome task for this university, and the administration sought to get rid of the intern. But even fifteen years later, when the professor who lost his position died, internships at the university continued: the university would like to get rid of this problem, but does not know how.
Some problems are being solved. The management decision-making process works in tandem. Computer simulations of the trash bin approach have often solved critical problems. Solutions are linked to relevant problems and participants so that good choices are made. Of course, not all problems are solved when a choice is made, but the organization moves in the direction of reducing the number of problems.
Conclusion
In life, every person is faced with making one decision or another. In the activities of any organization, as a system, similar processes also constantly occur. But in this case, the question is what measures aimed at improving this process will be most effective. For consideration, the experts were offered 3 groups of activities, on the basis of which they identified the most and least important. It was impossible not to take into account the development of a system of rational distribution of responsibilities for the implementation of these decisions. Of course, time and material costs are not small, but in the end they can lead to radical changes, including in the structure of management decision-making.
First of all, it is necessary to determine the methods of decision-making, then the subordination in making these decisions.
Developing the concept of bounded rationality, James March identifies three types of constraints inherent in managers - cognitive, political and organizational. Specifically, cognitive ones include attentional limitations, mental capacity limitations, and preference disorder. The last type of restrictions manifests itself in organizations that have the properties of organizational anarchy. J. March identifies four features of decision-making in organizations: quasi-conflict resolution, uncertainty avoidance, problematic search, organizational learning. The study of these features led J. March to develop the “garbage can” model, which describes the decision-making process in organizations as a chaotic and disorderly interaction of various “elements” (problems, decisions, participants, alternatives), which can appear and disappear randomly and independently from each other.
List of sources used
1. Balashov A.P. Fundamentals of management. Tutorial. - M.: University textbook, 2008.288 p.
Baldin, Konstantin Vasilievich. Management decisions: textbook / K.V. Baldin, S.N. Vorobiev, V.B. Utkin. - 3rd ed. - M.: Dashkov and Co., 2007.
Research of operations in economics: textbook for universities / N.Sh. Kremer et al.; ed.N.Sh. Kremer. - M.: UNITY, 2008
Zaitsev, L. G.; Sokolova, M.I. Strategic management. M.: Economist, 2007.416 p.
Tooth A.T. Strategic management: Theory and practice: Textbook for universities. M.: Aspect Press, 2008.385 p.
Litvak B.G. Development of a management decision: textbook - 7th ed. - M.: Publishing house "Delo" ANKh, 2008. 440 p.
Podelinskaya I.A. Strategic planning. Tutorial. Ulan-Ude: Publishing House of the All-Russian State Technical University, 2007.550 p.
Strategic planning / Ed. Utkina E.A. M.: "TANDEM". EKMOS Publishing House, 2008.415 p.
Strategic planning. Textbook: / Ed. Utkina E.L. M.: EKMOS, 2007.238 p.
Fatkhutdinov R.A. Strategic marketing: Textbook for universities. 5th edition. Publishing house "Peter". 2008.368 p.
. #"justify">. #"justify">. http://www.mevriz.ru/articles/2003/2/1123.html.
Tutoring
Need help studying a topic?
Our specialists will advise or provide tutoring services on topics that interest you.
Submit your application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.
In addition to making decisions, managers have other things to do. But decisions are their responsibility alone. Therefore, the first skill of a leader is making effective decisions,” wrote Peter Drucker. How decisions are made and how to achieve their effectiveness is a special topic for both businessmen and researchers.
An entire academic discipline—decision theory—is devoted to understanding this management process. Much of it builds on the foundations laid by early business theorists, who believed that under certain circumstances human behavior is logical and therefore predictable. The fundamental ideas of computer pioneer Charles Babbage, scientific management founder Frederick Taylor, and others were that decision-making (and much more) could be streamlined and systematized. Thus, models emerged to explain the workings of commercial activity, which, it was assumed, could be extended to decision making.
Management literature describes two different types of decisions:
- Operational solutions related to the day-to-day running of a business. Typical operational decisions may concern production volumes, hiring additional labor, or closing a facility.
- Strategic decisions related to the organization's policies and direction in the long term. Strategic decisions include entering a new market, acquiring a competitor, or staying in the industry.
It is interesting to note that Madan G. Singh, Dean of Information Engineering at the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology and a recognized expert on decision-making processes, prefers a different classification of decision-making levels that takes into account some of the changes that occur within companies. He divides decision makers in an organization into three groups. These are the people responsible for:
- everyday decisions;
- tactical decisions;
- strategic decisions.
Day-to-day decisions, in his opinion, are the domain of employees on the front lines. Together, they make thousands of decisions every day, usually under tight deadlines and based on specific information, such as responding to a consumer request for a product. These types of decisions are usually small in scale and affect a small range of activities. Tactical and strategic decisions, on the contrary, are focused on a longer term. They require much more data that extends beyond the organization and is often inaccurate, outdated or erroneous. Tactical decisions span several weeks or months and address issues such as pricing of goods and services, advertising and marketing costs.
Strategic decisions have the most distant time horizon - from a year to five years or more. They usually involve expanding or contracting a business or entering new geographic or product markets.
To help managers cope with all these decisions, various models, frameworks, tools, techniques and computer programs are created. One of the most famous and useful models is the Kepner-Trego (K-T) model. We will talk about it further. A common feature of such methods is the idea that business decisions are rational. Decision-making theory is based on the idea of a logical leader and overlooks the role of intuition - or "smell." This is a very “Western” point of view. The cultures of the East are distinguished by a variety of approaches. Thus, the Japanese traditionally rely on a process of reaching consensus - ringi, rather than on a decision-making formula.
Despite growing evidence that many business decisions are not truly rational, commitment to decision theory remains. Indeed, much of management thought and literature is inextricably linked to logical decision making. This is, for example, the model of strategic management. Unfortunately, it required a huge amount of information. As a result, enthusiastic managers became dependent on data. The process was delayed due to the continuous receipt of new information necessary for one hundred percent correct decisions. “Paralysis by analysis” became commonplace.
Models of decision making assume that a carefully processed body of information will allow people to learn from the experiences of others and make more accurate decisions. Many of them promise the whole world: the input is your situation, the output is a ready-made answer. The danger is that you consider a computer-generated solution to be real and viable.
A computer program or textbook implies that effective decision making is achieved through a series of logical steps. This is the so-called “rational” or “synoptic” model. It includes a number of steps: identification and clarification of the problem; prioritization of goals; developing and evaluating options (using appropriate analysis); comparison of the predicted results of each option with the goals; choosing the option that best suits the goal.
Such models rely on a number of assumptions about people's behavior in specific situations, which allows mathematicians to derive formulas based on probability theory. Such decision-making tools include cost-benefit analysis, which should help managers evaluate different options.
Despite all their attractiveness, these theories are not always able to explain the confusing and complex reality. The mathematical approach is based on a number of incorrect premises, in particular the belief that decision making is a rational, sequential process that is based on accurate information, free from emotion and prejudice. Another obvious drawback of any such model is that collecting the data needed to make decisions is often more important than the decision itself. In other words, the right decision is not always the right one.
In real life, managers make decisions based on intuition, experience and analysis. The problem cannot be solved rationally from the standpoint of experience and intuition, so it is tempting to focus on analysis - on science, rather than on mysterious art. (Management consulting is mainly based on an analytical approach to decisions.) Of course, a real leader does not care whether he practices art or science. He needs to make a reliable, informed decision.
This does not mean that decision theory is not needed or that decision models such as K-T should be abandoned. Indeed, a number of factors indicate that this process is becoming increasingly complex, as companies are no longer faced with simple tasks. Major decisions are no longer the prerogative of senior management, but are the responsibility of many other members of the organization. In addition, managers must deal with an influx of information—a 1996 international survey of 1,200 managers by Reuters found that 43 percent felt that important decisions were delayed by too much information.
These factors suggest that any methods, models or analytical procedures that enable managers to make decisions based on carefully studied information and in a short time frame will be in increasing demand. In the past, models were the province of economists and strategists. Now decision support systems have spread much more widely. Some of them provide examples of solutions for specific situations, usually regarding the optimal use of available resources. For example, an oil refinery runs such a program to determine the optimal output volume; airlines - to determine optimal pricing levels. Other systems provide the ability to make decisions based on past results. These learning-based models allow companies to capture the data and insights they gain and link them to specific decisions.
There is no doubt that the theory and models of decision making are of a safety net nature. They give weight to decisions based on prejudice or guesswork. The usefulness of these kinds of models is a matter of faith. None of them are perfect or universal. No one has yet managed to cope with the unpredictable turns in human behavior.
How ideas workOne of the most famous and useful models of decision making was proposed by Charles H. Kepner and Benjamin Trego. In 1958, in Princeton, they founded Kepner-Tregoe Inc., an international consulting firm that taught companies how to overcome problems and make decisions. In their book The Rational Manager, Kepner and Trego identified three main components of effective decision making:
The main elements of their decision analysis methodology include: description of the problem; identification of goals (mandatory or desirable criteria); searching for alternatives and assessing the consequences of the chosen option. So, the Kepner-Trego (K-T) method can be briefly described as follows:
Today, Kepner-Trego's work has been translated into 17 languages, and its methodology is used around the world by millions of employees and leaders striving to achieve sustainable results. The firm also claims to have pioneered the concept of “train-the-trainer,” initially as a way to convey Kepner-Trego's ideas to clients. |
Trash can modelThis name was given to the model of decision making in an organization, first described by the American professor James March. The method is as follows: when faced with the need to make a decision, members of the organization develop a continuous stream of problems and solutions. Most of them are “thrown” into the “trash can”, and only a very small part of the decisions are made as final. This model is based on March's observations of the behavior of people in organizations. He found that employees tend to prefer certain types of actions, the so-called “favorite solutions”, applied in almost any situation. This, in turn, affects both the decision-making process and the final result. The trash can model also allows us to view the organization as a set of competing decisions waiting in the wings. Solutions, then, are what happen if a particular combination of problems, solutions, and alternatives arises at any node. Thus, the final solution is nothing more than a by-product of the alchemical processes taking place in the “garbage bin”. This fits with another idea March put forward with another American scholar, Richard Cyert: that organizational behavior is a form of “organized anarchy.” |
Rings, or request for a decisionJapanese companies take a different approach to decision making. Process ringisei implies that proposals circulate throughout the organization and are “endorsed” by the agreeing parties. This system demonstrates the Japanese approach to bottom-up decision making and is perhaps the best known example of collective decision making in business. In Japan, corporate decisions have traditionally been made from the bottom up, rather than the other way around. The Japanese approach is to build consensus. Therefore, any changes in procedures and procedures, tactics or even strategy come from those who are directly affected by these changes. The final decision is made at the highest level after a thorough step-by-step study of the proposal in all sectors of the management hierarchy. Acceptance of a decision or rejection of it is the result of an agreement reached at each link. Ringi(request for decision) is a written recommendation that encourages specific action. Ringi passes from the bottom up through all departments related to the problem until it reaches the table of senior management. This, in turn, passes down the decision as to whether the proposal is ultimately accepted or not. This system allows all employees to participate in the corporate decision-making process. When a lower or middle manager encounters a problem and wants to propose a solution, the boss (kacho) of this area convenes a meeting. If his subordinates come to the conclusion that the idea should be developed, they may need the general support of the company. The head of the section reports this to the head or manager of the department (bucho) and consults with him. If he supports the proposal of the site, a lengthy procedure begins to reach a general consensus. The process of reaching agreement on a final decision is called nemawashi- this is communication and consultations preceding the preparation of a written request, or ringi. First of all, people who will be directly or indirectly involved in implementing the solution in the department come to an agreement. A general, informal consensus is then reached throughout the company. The head of the department can organize a meeting with representatives of other interested departments. Typically, each department is represented by its head, as well as a site manager and one or two supervisors (kakaricho), because they are the ones who will implement the solution. If the opinion of specialists or experts from the workshop is needed, they will be present. Essentially, the purpose of the meeting is to exchange information for the future implementation of the plan. Additional information may be required during discussions. In this case, managers move from site to site, from department to department, to collect the necessary information and prepare a document for the next meeting. Once the department is satisfied that informal consent has been obtained from all concerned departments, the formal procedure begins. First, the initiator and his colleagues, under the guidance of the head of the site, draw up an official document-petition, ringisho, describing the problem and details of the plan to solve it. Additional information and materials are also included. Ringisho passes through all levels of the organization, from the lowest to the highest, in order to obtain the approval of each manager. If any of the managers finds shortcomings or inconsistencies in the document with the previously reached consensus, the document will be returned to the initiator for verification and amendments. Finally ringisho falls into the hands of senior management, who officially authorize the implementation of the plan. If the proposal is accepted at the stage nemawashi, it rarely encounters objections or refusal at the stage ringi. System ringi allows you to ensure that all elements of disagreement have been eliminated at the stage nemawashi. It ensures that responsibility is shared by all participants in the process who approve the plan. Compose ringi Only persons holding key positions are eligible because ringi is considered to be a recommendation from employees to management regarding measures that should be taken not only in a specific area, but throughout the company as a whole. This system requires the full consent of everyone affected by the decision. As soon as ringi receives approval, it acquires the status of an indisputable decision, which the company must immediately implement. Thus, despite the length of the decision-making process, it is quickly implemented because those who implement it know what their role is in the plan and are fully committed to working quickly and flawlessly to implement it. In Japanese companies, in the process of developing a decision, as a rule, the level of decision-making is determined and even specific performers are appointed. Most importantly, it eliminates the need to “present” a decision after it has been made. Effective implementation is essentially built into the decision-making process itself. American and European companies, on the contrary, usually make quick decisions and completely separate them from implementation. Many Western executives pride themselves on how quickly they make decisions compared to their Japanese counterparts. Until researchers like Peter Drucker started talking about it, Western business did not realize that there was some difference between the way decisions were made in the two cultures. Since then, many have written about the differences between Japanese and Western business cultures, but few have been able to add anything to Drucker's remarks. It's not so much the slowness of the Japanese, as it sometimes seems to their impatient Western colleagues and business partners, but rather their thoroughness. Simply put, in the West the emphasis is on finding the right answer and implementing it as quickly as possible. The Japanese, on the contrary, tend to pay special attention to the correct formulation of the question. They are particularly good at managing the process of reaching consensus on a decision on a particular issue. Once agreement on the need for a solution as a whole is reached, it allows for rapid progress. There is a tendency in Western culture to do the opposite. Western managers believe that they can make quick decisions. But in fact, they do not accept, but select them, that is, they find the right answer and then try to “sell” it to the organization. (By the time the Japanese decide on a way to deal with a problem, their organization has already agreed on the need for a solution. This is a classic illustration of the saying, “The slower you go, the slower you go.”) In practice, this means that Japanese companies do not waste much time on “wrong ideas.” solutions". This can be said about both those who make ineffective and efficient decisions, and about organizations. Peter Drucker observed: “Japanese managers may get the answer wrong, but they rarely get the problem wrong by offering the right answer to the wrong question. In this way, they avoid the biggest danger known to all decision makers: irreversible bad decisions.” Drucker writes: "When the Japanese approach the point we call decision, they say that the 'action stage' has begun." Management delegates the decision to what the Japanese call "suitable people." By the time an agreement on a “decision” or action is reached, it is no longer a surprise to the organization and encounters little or no resistance. As a result, implementation goes much faster. Observing how Japanese companies operate compared to American ones, Drucker comes to the conclusion that the difficulty of communicating decisions to other members of the organization is the main reason for their failure. |
- Baron Jonathan. Thinking and Deciding. 2nd Ed. Cambridge University Press, 1994.
- Kepner C, Tregoe B. The Rational Manager. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965.
- Drucker P. Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices. New York: Harper & Row, 1974.
- French Simon. Decision Theory: An Introduction to the Mathematics of Rationality. New York: Ellis Horwood and John Wiley, 1988.
- Keeney Ralph L. Value-Focused Thinking: A Path to Creative Decision Making. Harvard University Press, 1992.
- Kepner C, Tregoe B. The New Rational Manager. New Jersey: Princeton Research Press, 1981.
- Richards Max D., Greenlaw Paul S. Management Decision Making. Homewood, II, Richard D. Irwin Inc., 1966.
- Yates J. Frank. Judgment and Decision Making. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1990.
Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below
Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.
Similar documents
Decision making process, structure. Management decisions, their types. Model of managerial decision making by a manager. Methods of making management decisions. Study of the main characteristics influencing the process of making managerial decisions.
thesis, added 10/03/2008
The concept of a management decision. Classification of management decisions. Technology of making management decisions and its implementation. Decision-making structure. Distribution of decision-making powers. Risk in decision making.
thesis, added 11/06/2006
Basic methods of making management decisions. Collective methods of discussion and decision making. Heuristic and quantitative methods of decision making. Analysis as an integral part of the decision-making process. Methods for analyzing management decisions.
course work, added 06/23/2010
Management decisions. The process of making management decisions, principles and stages. The role of the leader in this process. Factors influencing the process of making management decisions. Monitoring the execution of management decisions.
abstract, added 12/29/2002
The essence of management decisions and their classification. The process of developing, preparing, implementing and making management decisions. Methods for making management decisions in a physical culture and sports organization. Sports manager's choice of alternative.
course work, added 03/24/2012
course work, added 09/02/2012
Concept and classification of management decisions. Methods and conditions for decision making. Modeling situations and developing solutions. Management process, goal setting and situation assessment. The process of making management decisions and its effectiveness.
abstract, added 02/03/2009
Theoretical foundations of management decisions, its significance in the process of enterprise management, tasks and basic tools. Methodology for making management decisions. Marginal and analytical issues in the pricing decision-making process.
thesis, added 10/31/2010
J. March's "trash can" model
“The organization is a collection of choices looking for trouble; ideas and feelings seeking situations where they can be expressed; solutions looking for questions to which they can be the answer; and people who make decisions, job seekers"
This model describes the decision-making process as a chaotic and disorderly interaction or combination of various “elements” that can appear and disappear randomly, independently of each other. J. March includes problems, solutions, organizational participants and alternatives as such elements that fill the “basket”. The decision itself can be “detached” from the process of its adoption and is determined not by rational reasons, but by a random combination of circumstances. “An organization is a set of choices looking for problems.”
Features of decision making in organizations. Following the theory of J. March, the decision-making process in organizations has four important features. These include:
Quasi-conflict resolution.
Uncertainty avoidance.
Problematic search.
Organizational learning.
The theory of local increments by Charles Lindblom (Ch. Lindblom)
“The administrator often feels more comfortable when he is “flying by the seat of his pants” than when he follows the advice of theorists.”
Local increment strategy (or sequential limited comparison method). This method is characterized by the fact that decision making is not aimed at dramatic changes in the organization (as when using a rational approach), but rather small changes that are made in small increments. Increment here means “a small change in an important quantity.” According to C. Lindblom, the decision-making process in organizations is carried out through an uncertain and disordered series of small movements away from the “pain points” of the day, and not towards predetermined goals that usually remain unattainable.
C. Lindblom describes such characteristics of this strategy as limitedness, focus on means, reconstructionism, seriality, practicality and fragmentation.
Victor Vroom's managerial decision-making model (V. Vroom)
“It makes much more sense to talk about participatory situations and autocratic situations than to talk about managers who act autocratically and allow participation.”
As a result of studies (V. Vroom, R. Yetton, A. Yago) of the process of making managerial decisions and various options for the participation of subordinates in them, five styles (or processes) of decision-making by a manager were formulated:
You solve a problem or make a decision on your own, using all the information that you have at a given time.
You get the necessary information from your subordinates and then solve the problem yourself.
You present the problem individually to those subordinates, listen to their ideas and suggestions, but do not gather subordinates together in one group. Then you make your own decision.
You present a problem to a group of subordinates and collectively collect their ideas and suggestions. Then you make your own decisions, which may or may not reflect the opinions of your subordinates.
You present a problem to a group of subordinates. In the process of collaborative discussion, you search for and evaluate alternatives and try to reach agreement on solving a problem.
Conflict-game model of Michel Croisier (M. Crozier)
"An organization can be seen as a set of games between groups of partners who must play with each other."
The strategic model of the organization by M. Croisier helps to better understand the features of management decision-making processes and allows us to draw the following conclusions:
Management decisions in organizations are always made under conditions of uncertainty. Moreover, the source of uncertainty can be not only the external environment, but also the behavior of the organization participants themselves, who pursue their own goals and try to improve their situation.
Managers try to “program” as many management decisions as possible in order to increase management efficiency and reduce their dependence on specialists who control the main uncertainties affecting the organization.
To maintain the balance of power in the organization, subordinates deliberately limit the information intended for managers, which leads to the need to make decisions under conditions of uncertainty and, therefore, strengthens the power of specialists who have complete information.
1.3. The current stage of development of decision-making theory.
Decision theory is a rapidly developing science. The tasks she deals with are generated by the practice of management decisions at various levels - from an individual unit or small enterprise to states and international organizations. Let us consider only a few problems that are actively discussed at the present stage of development of decision-making theory. This is a systematic approach to decision making, modern methods of decision making and the problem of the planning horizon.
Systematic approach to decision making. When discussing decision-making problems, people often talk about a systems approach, systems, systems analysis. The point is that we need to consider the problem as a whole, and not “pull out” for discussion any one feature, albeit an important one. (11)
There are dozens of different definitions of the concept “system”. What they have in common is that the system is spoken of as a set, between the elements of which there are connections. The integrity of the system and its “separation” from the surrounding world are ensured by the fact that the relationships within the system are significantly stronger than the connection of any of its elements with any element underlying the entire system. According to the definition of full member of the Russian Academy of Sciences N.N. Moiseev: “System analysis is a discipline that deals with decision-making problems in conditions where the choice of an alternative requires the analysis of complex information of various physical natures” (11)
Systematic analysis of economic phenomena and processes involves the study of the patterns of development of production systems and the relationships between their individual elements. It involves the use of a combination of various methods for analyzing production systems. (5)
Group 1 of methods – analytical. They provide for the possibility of quantitatively assessing the influence of individual elements of production systems on the behavior of the system as a whole using mathematical modeling methods.
Group 2 methods – heuristic. This is a set of analysis methods with. Therefore, for assessment, the method of structuring (developing a “tree of goals”) and expert assessments are used, which allow making management decisions without quantitative characteristics.
Group 3 of methods – a combination of methods of groups 1 and 2.
System analysis involves considering the socio-economic system as a single whole, dividing it into individual elements, studying the relationships and patterns of development of individual elements of the system (from general to specific), and then synthesizing individual elements (from specific to general) into a single whole based on the use of logically, algorithmically and informationally interconnected systems of models and methods for solving problems. (10)
The systematic approach includes 4 main stages:
Formulation of the problem;
Model formation;
Solving a problem on a computer;
Study of the model and analysis of the resulting solution.
Formulation of the problem. The formulation of any economic and mathematical problem includes the formulation of the goal, the conditions for its implementation, methods for collecting initial information and the choice of methods for processing it. The statement of the problem must indicate the object and period of research.
For example, develop measures and methods for their implementation to improve the efficiency of the enterprise.
The statement of the problem indicates what needs to be determined (measures and methods for their implementation) and under what conditions. Usually a specific enterprise is indicated that has a known natural and economic potential and a known level of development intensity and production efficiency.
A group of experts is formed to determine the importance of activities at each level.
An expert is a specialist who has a sufficient level of knowledge, experience and intuition in solving similar problems.
Experts may include:
Employees of this enterprise;
Managers and specialists dealing with this problem;
Independent experts, i.e. specialists from other enterprises, departments, scientific institutions.(7)
It is better to take an odd number of experts; The larger it is, the more objective the assessment will be, i.e. with a large number of subjective expert assessments, based on generalization, one can obtain an objective assessment of the state and prospects for development.
After the preliminary selection of experts, an assessment of the experts’ competence is carried out, which is an integral part of the survey.
The overall assessment of the experts' competence is based on their objective and subjective assessments.
Subjective assessment is carried out on a special scale (for example, from 1 to 10 points), a person evaluates himself.
9-10 points - specializes and leads the development of measures on this problem;
6-8 points - participates in practice in the development and implementation of activities (chief specialists);
4-5 points - indirectly related to this problem”; it is a related area of professional activity:
0-3 points - questions on this problem are not within the scope of activity, familiar from literary sources.
The expert’s objective assessments include work experience, job responsibilities, education, etc.
According to experience in practical activities related to solving this problem:
Over 10 years – 10 points;
6-10 years – 8 points;
3-5 years - 5 points;
1-2 years - 3 points;
Less than a year - 1 point.
Of Education:
Academic degree - 10 points;
Higher education - 8 points;
Special technical and incomplete higher education – 5 points;
Average - 3 points;
Incomplete secondary - 1 point;
The garbage can model represents one of the newest and most interesting examples of the development of management decisions in organizations. It is not directly comparable to the other models described earlier because the garbage bin model deals with a system or flow of multiple decisions within an organization. The garbage can model helps you think about the organization as a whole and the decisions most frequently made by organizational managers. Organized anarchy. The garbage can model was developed to explain the pattern of management decision making in organizations whose operations are highly uncertain. Michael Gohen, James March, and Johan Olsen, who pioneered this model, called conditions of extreme uncertainty organized anarchy, which is an extremely organic organization.
Organized anarchy is characterized by three characteristics: Problematic preferences. Goals, objectives, alternatives and solutions are poorly defined. Uncertainty is inherent in every step of the decision-making process. Fuzzy, poorly understood technology. Cause-and-effect relationships within an organization are difficult to identify. Comprehensive information needed to reach a decision is not available. Staff turnover. The organization experiences staff turnover. In addition, employees are too busy and have limited time to focus on a single problem and its solution. Participation in any decision-making turns out to be unstable and limited.
A unique feature of the garbage can model is that the management decision-making process does not appear as a sequence of steps that begin with a problem and end with a solution. In fact, problem identification and solution may not be related to each other. An idea can be proposed as a solution even in cases where there are no problems. Conversely, a problem may exist but not generate any solutions - Solutions are the result of independent streams of events occurring within the organization.
Four types of event streams relevant to decision making in organizations. Problems are moments of dissatisfaction with current activities and job performance. They represent the gap between the desired performance of a job and current performance. Problems are perceived and require attention. However, they are separated from solutions and alternatives. A problem may or may not lead to a decision. Conversely, a decision can be made, but the problem remains unresolved. Potential solutions. A solution is someone's idea proposed for adoption. These kinds of ideas constitute the flow of alternative solutions passing through the organization. Ideas can be brought into the organization by both new employees and long-time employees. The main point to take into account here is that solutions exist regardless of problems.
Participants in decision making. Decision participants are employees who come into the organization and pass through it. People get hired, change positions, and quit. Participants differ significantly in their ideas, perceptions of the problem, experience, assessments and education. The problems and solutions perceived by one manager will be different from the problems and solutions perceived by another. Favorable opportunities for choice. Opportunities for choice are typically occasions when an organization makes a decision. They appear when contracts are signed, people are fired, or approval is given for the release of new products. They also occur when the “right mix” of actors, solutions, and problems is observed.
Taking into account the concept of four streams, the general pattern of management decision-making in an organization becomes random. Problems, proposed solutions, participants, and chosen solutions all flow through the organization. In a sense, the organization is a big wastebasket in which all these flows are mixed, as shown in the figure
The "garbage can" model describes the decision-making process in organizations as a chaotic and disorderly interaction of various "elements" (problems, decisions, participants, alternatives), which can appear and disappear randomly and independently of each other. Thank you for your attention.
List of references: 1. Rubchinsky, A. A. Methods and models for making management decisions: textbook and workshop for academic undergraduates / A. A. Rubchinsky. M.: Yurayt Publishing House, p. 2. Chernyak V.Z. Methods for making management decisions: textbook. for students institutions of higher education prof. education / V.Z. Chernyak, I.V. Dovdienko. M.: Publishing center "Academy", p.
