Model of a trash can by J March. J. March's "trash can" model. Self-test questions

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 a management decision: 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 tasks 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 decision makers 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 pressed for time to focus on a single problem and 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 K°, 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.

"Trash can" model

The garbage can model represents one of the newest and most interesting examples of the development of management decisions in organizations. The garbage can model deals with the system or flow of multiple decisions within an organization, while other 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.

The garbage can model was developed to explain the pattern of management decision making in organizations whose operations are highly uncertain. Herbert Simon, Richard Cyert and James March, 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.

Rice. 1.

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. Decisions are the result of independent streams of events occurring within an organization.

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. Conversely, a decision can be made, but the problem remains unresolved.

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 vary widely in their ideas, assessments, and education. The problems and solutions perceived by one manager will be different from the problems and solutions perceived by another.

The organization is a large wastebasket in which various streams are mixed. 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.

The consequences of using the garbage bin model can be as follows:

Solutions can be proposed even when there is no problem. 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.

Cognitive limitations

J. March refers to cognitive limitations as limitations of attention, limitations of mental abilities and disorder of preferences.

1. 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.

2. 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.”

3. Disordered 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

Organizational restrictions

1. The organization has unclear goals and unclear preferences and formulates them not 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.

2. 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.

3. The organization has a variable composition of participants; the people involved in its work are constantly changing.

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:

1. Quasi-conflict resolution.

2. Uncertainty avoidance.

3. Problematic search.

4. Organizational learning.

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

"Trash can" model

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.

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 can be made, but the problem remains unresolved.

Fig.1

Modern American political scientist, researcher in the field of organization and management theory, organizational behavior, professor of management at Stanford University in California (USA)

James March is an author and management theorist whom the business world turns to for fresh ideas. As a professor emeritus at Stanford University who devoted fifty years to science, J. March became famous for his revolutionary ideas in the theory of organization and management. March is the author of a concept that combines the sociological, psychological and economic aspects of organizational life. He proved that despite the desire of managers to make logical decisions in business, human and organizational factors still prevail in companies, and therefore it is not always possible to rationally explain the behavior of a manager. J. March possessed a rare combination of wisdom and scientific rigor, thanks to which he is highly respected by his students and colleagues. He had a figurative view of the world, which manifested itself in metaphorical terms, which he introduced into scientific circulation: "The Recycle Bin Theory", "The Technology of Stupidity", "Disease Vectors" and the "Hot Stove Effect". In his book "Organizations", written in 1958 with G. Simon, he calls "soldiers of organizational action" company leaders, and scientists, according to him – “priests of the purity of scientific research”. He believed that reading poetry helps managers control the situation within organizations and understand the complexity of what is happening, since it is impossible to foresee everything, according to March.

Sphere of scientific interests

The scope of J. March's main scientific interests was determined by his doctoral dissertation on the topic “Autonomy as a factor in group organization: research in politics.” This work can be defined as the scientific study of the behavior of an organization as a special institution that functions on the basis of decision making. The American scientist made an invaluable contribution to the study of a wide range of issues related to the influence of uncertainty on the functioning of an organization. He also studied issues related to political processes and decision-making in the organization. He studied the concept of political institution and was an adherent of neo-institutionalism. March was interested in learning processes within organizations and the results obtained.

He also dealt with issues related to changes in organizations, the effectiveness and efficiency of organizations. In addition, he made a significant contribution to the development of the concept of bounded rationality. A closer look at March's research and the timing of his publications shows that he was consistently one step ahead of mainstream organizational research. In some cases, his writings served as the starting point for numerous works by his followers. This role was played by the article “The Recycle Bin as a Model of Organizational Choice,” which he co-authored with M. Cohen and J. Olsen. This work gave rise to a wide debate, as a result of which the “Wastebasket” model entered the arsenal of modern decision making theory.

J. March and his colleague J. Olsen, publishing an article in 1984 entitled “The New Institutionalism: Organizational Factors in Political Life,” advocated a revival of the institutional approach. The core of the new institutionalism, researchers have identified, is that it insists on the existence of a more autonomous role for political institutions. In such conditions, the state is not only influenced by society, but also influences it itself.
March's attention was focused on the category of political institution, which was interpreted as an institution consisting not only of norms, but also incorporating elements of practice. Even individuals in such a view can form an institution, argued March ( for example, W. Churchill).
In J. March this sociological interpretation of the institution was embodied. He identified the defining elements that constitute institutions as “established practices (routines), procedures, customs, roles, strategies, organizational forms, technologies, beliefs, paradigms, moral norms, culture and knowledge.” With this interpretation, the concept of institution is blurred.
March is also a supporter interpretation of a political institution as a stable type of behavior. He notes that institutions are “the ways in which political behavior is deeply embedded in the institutional structure of rules, norms, expectations, and traditions.” This interpretation brings the concept of institution closer to rules of behavior that inform people about how to behave, what actions they must refrain from, etc. In this sense, the rules represent a model for copying lawful behavior.
Institutions, according to J. March, have a major and determining impact on individual human behavior; they establish the framework of individual choice through the formation and expression of preferences
J. March and J. Olsen are the “founding fathers” of neo-institutionalism, which defines institutions through values and a “logic of correspondence.” Institutions, March notes, have their own logic, distinct from the logic of economic and social life. This manifests itself in the conditions of the existence of ready-made institutions, when they offer people patterns of behavior, and a person does not calculate which action is most consistent with his interests. Instead, a person thinks about who he is and what social status he occupies in society, and then thinks about those actions that correspond to his position in the current situation. Thus, according to the approach under consideration, institutions not only influence the preferences of actors, but also in some way create them.

Theory of organizational behavior

J. March's interests were not limited to research in the field of decision making in organizations. He is a classic of modern motivational management theory. He was interested in attempts to use mathematical models in the study of organizations from the perspective of behavioral sciences and management theory. He believed that an excellent tool for making management decisions in an organization is when problems can be analyzed and variables can be identified and measured. Mathematical models can contain thousands of variables, each of which affects the final result in a certain way. The result of March's work in this direction was a holistic concept based on mathematical modeling of organizational behavior.
According to J. March's research, the more a person's needs are satisfied in the organization where he works, the more the goals of the organization itself are achieved with his help. As is known from the works of J. March in the field of motivation and job satisfaction, among the employee’s needs that determine his satisfaction and motivate his behavior, the frequency of changes in his status and income occupies an important place. March believes that the presence of clear prospects for changing the employee’s career position activates the motivation mechanism. The employee on this path encounters certain obstacles, which include his own incompetence, which he needs to overcome. If his level of motivation is sufficient, in this case he needs means to overcome the existing obstacle. Such a tool is a means of professional training.

End of free trial

James March's study of the constraints affecting decision making in organizations. The main features of decision making in organizations. Using James March's "garbage can" model in the process of developing and making management decisions.

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.

Model of a trash can by J March. J. March's "trash can" model. Self-test questions

Tutoring

"Trash can" model

Sphere of scientific interests

Theory of organizational behavior

James March's study of the constraints affecting decision making in organizations. The main features of decision making in organizations. Using James March's "garbage can" model in the process of developing and making management decisions.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Similar documents