topic nine: information analysis for problem-solving and

411t o p i c n i n e : i n f o r m a t i o n a n a ly s i s f o r p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g a n d d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g

topic nine: information Analysis for problem-Solving and Decision-Making

overviewPublic sector leaders are expected to grasp complex problems quickly, harness a range of information sources to develop solutions, address problems from a range of perspectives, show imagination, initiative, flexibility and political savvy. This topic examines specific skills for information analysis and complements preceding topics on emotional and interpersonal skills by addressing cognitive capabilities. These include a problem-solving logic that underpins information analysis, complemented by exercises on problem-solving and continuous improvement, such as cost-benefit analysis, weighted factors, Pareto charts and Ishikawa diagrams. It is also necessary to consider decision-making and mental sets that interfere with decision processes. Quality and relevance of information analysis is determined by the nature of the situation and whether quick or convoluted processes are more appropriate. Mental sets such as confirmation bias and functional fixedness can interfere with the quality of decision-making.

Despite the focus on logical and rational decision-making and problem-solving, managers do not always conform to these methods. Less rational, more multi-faceted and ‘soft’ techniques are also introduced. The value of this topic is that it confirms or enhances your information analysis skills for operating effectively in the chaotic and ephemeral policy environment of today’s government.

Learning objectiveson successful completion of this topic, you will be able to:

1. explain the logic of the problem-solving cycle and other problem-solving models.

2. apply specific techniques such as cost-benefit analysis, pareto principle and ishikawa diagram.

3. Use decision making tools such as cost-benefit analysis and weighted criteria.

4. Utilise alternatives to the linear rational models of conventional information analysis.

5. consider information and analysis needs of different management levels.

6. describe mental sets that interfere with effective analysis.

7. Use more flexible techniques that work in chaos and complexity including mind maps and rich picture diagrams.

412 p S M U n i t 3 : m a n a g i n g i n : e t h i c s a n d c a r e e r m a n a g e m e n t i n t h e p U b l i c s e c t o r

9.1 introducing information Literacy and Knowledge Workers

Years ago, Winston Churchill foresaw that ‘the empires of the future are the empires of the mind’. Tom Peters puts it more succinctly: ‘Heavy lifting is out; brains are in’. Problems faced by managers today have many intangibles (Nogeste 2006) or in the terminology of the PSM Program, are ‘wicked’ problems. This term was first coined in 1973 by Rittell and Webber in relation to public policy problems and is related to their social rather than technical complexity (CogNexus Institute 2008).

Creating public value hinges on information skills (among other variables). The significance of information is reinforced in public sector leadership frameworks, which indicate that a leader:

• harnesses information and opportunities

• uses a range of new information and different viewpoints

• shows imagination and demonstrates a preparedness to look at original solutions ‘outside the box’

• builds on past experience appropriately while avoiding over-reliance on precedent

• assesses a range of potential solutions rather than choosing the easiest option

• evaluates information quickly, critically and accurately

• grasps the core of complex problems

• analyses and summarises key issues

• distils underlying problems and reasons for problems by asking targeted questions to expose key issues

• addresses problems from the perspective of what government actually requires

• makes tough decisions which are in the best interests of the government (even when they aren’t popular)

• takes the initiative, makes decisions and moves forward

• takes ownership for decisions rather than saying they are directives from above.

Activity 9.1 - actions and expectations of leaders

your task is to review the above list and decide whether these actions and expectations apply to your current role. check with others in different roles to see how applicable these demands are of their role.

As this list suggests, information analysis, including managerial decision-making in the public sector, is a complex, demanding task.


9.2 Logical problem-solving Models

What is the traditional theory of problem-solving? Some advance a linear theory, whereas others see it as cyclical. Management texts present a simple linear process such as Figure 9.1.

Figure 9.1 Linear problem-solving

Source Bartol, Martin, Tein & Matthews 1999:288.

A more detailed linear model showing feedback loops in the context of community development is shown in Figure 9.2.

Figure 9.2 A more detailed linear problem solving model

Source: CCED 2005:1

Community Development Problem-Solving Process

Identify Problem

Identify Stakeholders in Problem

Identify Alternative Strategies to Solve Problem

Identify Resources to ImplementChosen Strategy

Implement

Evaluate “What was Accomplished?”

Modify or Disseminate Model

(We didn’t Solve Problem)MODIFY INTERVENTION

(We did Solve Problem)DISSEMINATE &/OR

REPLICATE

PLANNING

ACTION

REFLECTION

CHOICE


The following quotation briefly describes a problem solving cycle which may be more relevant than linear processes:

In public policy and public sector management, many think in terms of a problem-solving cycle, starting with the perception of a problem, a search for options, and then a decision, implementation, and assessment of the results, at which stage new problems are perceived and the cycle starts again (Clark & Corbett 1999:2).

The logic of the problem-solving cycle, which underlies the policy-making process covered in an earlier unit, is relevant to public sector managers who face difficult problems that need a careful process to resolve. The ten-step cycle shown in Figure 9.3 is such as process.

Figure 9.3 the logic of the problem-solving cycle

Source: adapted from Clark & Corbett 1999:5.

The material in this topic generally follows the problem solving cycle. It starts of with perceiving and investigating problems, gathering information and generating solutions, with such techniques as the Ishikawa diagram. Weighing pros and cons and selecting preferred options is covered in the decision-making section. The cycle doesn’t include reporting or communicating decisions but this is part of the process – for example to gain approval, to keep stakeholders informed. Later on we look at more flexible or ‘chaotic’ methods and ideas, which don’t fit in a neat, linear approach.

Activity 9.2 – linear v. cyclical models

1. compare and contrast the three different models of the problem-solving process in figures 9.1-.3. that is, identify what the linear and cyclical models illustrated above have in common and where they differ.

2. think of a specific, current problem you are facing at work. evaluate how you went about solving this problem against the three models.


3. how systematic or effective were your processes compared to those prescribed here?

4. Which model most closely matches your practice?

5. is there room for improvement in the models or your problem-solving practices?

6. are there different but equally effective ways of solving problems that aren’t reflected in any model?

9.3 problem-solving techniques

Kaizen tools analyse and interpret information. This Japanese word means continuous improvement but interestingly the tools all originated in the West. They are aligned with Total Quality Management (TQM), however you do not need to be involved in TQM to benefit. Some tools are:

• Paretoprinciple

• Ishikawa,fishboneorcauseandeffectdiagrams

• charts–pie,barandscattercharts

• controlcharts

• thenormalcurve,standarddeviationsandchartsofthesestatistics,alongwith six sigma which seems most relevant to precision manufacturing (Wilson 1993: Tatweer 2007).

This section will introduce two from this list: the Pareto principle and Ishikawa diagrams.

9.3.1 The Pareto Principle

Many people talk about the 80/20 rule. The Pareto principle is a powerful information analysis to scrutinise and condense data and get to the core of multifarious details in order to identify the most significant ones.

An Italian economist called Vilfredo Pareto showed that twenty per cent of Italians owned about eighty per cent of the nation’s wealth, hence the Pareto principle. The break up between eighty per cent and twenty per cent is common in many situations, with the twenty per cent accounting for the crucial elements. Where there are competing priorities and finite resources, the Pareto principle can help identify the highest priorities or the vital few elements. Management expert Joseph Juran extended this idea to TQM to show that 80% of problems came from 20% of causes (Pyle 2007). If you have a large array of clients, organisations, providers, contractors, projects, districts etc, with metrics available on them then the Pareto principle might work

The principle is applied by calculating the cumulative total percentage for each item and plotting a Pareto diagram which has five main steps:


1. Rank elements in order of value (largest to smallest).

2. Work out the proportion of the total for each element, as a percentage.

3. Work out the running or cumulative total percentage for each element.

4. Plot the running or cumulative total for the elements in a chart or graph.

5. Draw a line across at 80% and down to the horizontal axis to identify the 20% of elements that account for 80%.

A simple alternative is to only do steps 1 and 2, and plot a bar chart, however this is not as powerful. Previous PSM Program participants have used this tool for a range of tasks and others have combined it with other tools as the following example shows:

I used the Pareto Principal to prioritise my time across the 15 separate building projects currently demanding my attention. This resulted in a ranking by financial value only with no consideration to other project characteristics. I then re-ranked the projects by weighted total score, after I separately scored the projects on a 10-point scale against four equally weighted criteria, value, time frame, alignment to strategic plan and importance to operational needs, resulting in a change in the final ranking and some projects moving into and others out of the 80% range. My experience using the other techniques is that combining techniques provides a much better outcome.

Here we will work through an example using data from the Department of Defence 1999–2000 Annual Report indicating the project costs for thirteen military programs of work. The thirteen are divided into groups by state, shown in Table 9.1. This may be interesting and useful if you want to know what is going on in your state, but if you were scrutinising costs and ‘mission critical’ programs, it is not very helpful, as presented. A Pareto diagram will work out which few programs of work account for most of the expenditure. That is, identify the twenty per cent most critical programs and the eighty per cent less critical ones. This analysis will be done on the Approved


project cost (column 2 in Table 9.1).

table 9.1 Major facilities projects

QUeenSLAnD

Herbert

townsville – redevelopment of lavarack 139 308 25 735 27 700 25 200 23 342barracks stage 2

townsville – redevelopment of raaf base stage 1 70 100 903 2000 1500 891

townsville – facilities for black hawks 22 132 21 533 2000 2000 163

Blair

amberley – redevelopment of raaf base 77 400 15 471 30 000 30 000 13 795

Leichhardt

cairns – facilities for 51 far north 22 517 21 509 17 700 18 800 18 137Queensland regiment

neW SoUtH WALeS

eden/Monaro

two fold bay – navy ammunitioning facility (1) 40 000 1400 3600 900 1400

gilmore

hmas albatross – redevelopment of naval base 110 000 46 817 44 600 38 000 38 099

paterson

Williamtown – eastern region operations 18 000 15 362 16 500 15 500 13 970centre development

VictoRiA

corio

point Wilson – navy interim ammunitioning facility (1) 6100 6208 1100 2700 1745

maribyrnong

albion – decontamination Works 28 635 21 597 8000 10 900 10 108

WeSteRn AUStRALiA

Brand

hmas stirling – development stage 2 phase b/c 122 837 122 837 3000 3000 22

hmas stirling – development stage 2d 39 471 31 025 1000 1000 262

hmas stirling – development stage 3 19 000 17 090 8373 8373 7581

Approved project

cost $’000

cumulative expenditure to 30 June

2000$’000

1999–2000 Budget

estimate$’000

1999–2000Revised estimate

1999–2000Actual$’000

program of Works


Source: Department of Defence 2001.

Table 9.2 shows the same Defence data reorganised in preparation for the Pareto analysis. The focus is on the Approved project cost (column 2). The table has been sorted to show Approved project cost from largest to smallest, ranked in order of $ value. Other details have been deleted. Extra columns have been added for the calculations to work out the proportion of the total for each program as a percentage and then the cumulative percentage in the last column.

table 9.2 Approved facilities projects cumulative percentage

1 This value is obtained by adding 19.47 and 17.17.2 This value is obtained by adding 36.64 and 15.37 and so on down the columns.

When the calculations have been made in the table, the cumulative percentage is plotted against the items as shown in Figure 9.4. This chart was created in Microsoft Word, plotting series in columns and using a line chart type. The arrows to delineate the fewer items that account for 80% of costs were drawn in using the drawing

townsville – redevelopment of lavarack barracks stage 2 139 308 19.47 19.47

hmas stirling – development stage 2 phase b/c 122 837 17.17 36.64 1

hmas albatross – redevelopment of naval base 110 000 15.37 52.01 2

amberley – redevelopment of raaf base 77 400 10.82 62.83

townsville – redevelopment of raaf base stage 1 70 100 9.80 72.63

two fold bay – navy ammunitioning facility (1) 40 000 5.60 78.23

hmas stirling – development stage 2d 39 471 5.52 83.75

albion – decontamination Works 28 635 4.00 87.75

cairns – facilities for 51 far north Queensland regiment 22 517 3.15 90.9

townsville – facilities for black hawks 22 132 3.09 93.99

hmas stirling – development stage 3 19 000 2.66 96.65

Williamtown – eastern region operations centre development 18 000 2.51 99.16

point Wilson – navy interim ammunitioning facility (1) 6100 0.85 100

715 500

Approved project cost

$’000

percentageof total

cumulative percentage

program of Works(State, Federal electorate and Locality)


toolbar in Microsoft Word.

Figure 9.4 Approved facilities projects pareto chart

Source: Constructed by Marchant 2000, from Department of Defence 2001 data.

What does the Pareto diagram in Figure 9.3 show? Six programs account for eighty per cent of the spending on new Defence facilities. The other seven programs only account for twenty per cent. The first six should receive the most resources in terms of management attention and control. Looking at the original table presented by Defence in its annual report, would you be able to identify these programs at a glance?

Is it necessary to actually create a Pareto diagram? It can be difficult to work out the purpose of constructing the chart. Even if people are not arithmetic, what do they prove? What advantage does this presentation of the information actually give that cannot be ascertained by the simple listing in size order? Good question! The listing in size order itself is often enough. When these figures are transformed into a graph with a very obvious point of disjuncture in the 80% line, it becomes meaningful.

9.3.2 Ishikawa Diagrams for Problem-solving

The Ishikawa diagram is a problem analysis method for group situations. It is also called fishbone, root-cause, cause–effect or dead Ned (in Australia) (Ayres 2001). It is an informal but powerful tool for focusing attention on a situation, problem, project, task or decision, and systematically identifying and discussing issues associated the situation. Experience from previous PSM Program participants shows that it does not work well for individual problem solving. It can be useful when

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

T‘ville

– La

varac

k Barr

acks

HMAS

Stir

ling S

tage 2

b/c

HMAS

Stir

ling S

tage 2

Pha

se d

Albio

n – D

econ

tamina

tion W

orks

Cairn

s – 51

FNQ

Regim

ent F

acilit

ies

T‘ville

– B

lack H

awks

Facil

ities

HMAS

Stir

ling –

Stag

e 3

W‘to

wn –

Ope

ration

s Ce

ntre

Pt W

ilson

– A

mmunitio

ning F

acilit

y

HMAS

Alba

tross

– N

aval

Base

Ambe

rley –

RAA

F Bas

eT‘v

ille –

RAA

F Bas

e

Two F

old B

ay –

Ammun

itionin

g Fac

itlity


team thinking tends to fall into a rut (ASQ 2008).

It revolves around the four ‘M’s. That is, people (men), machines, materials and methods, plus a fifth grouping of other. Some users, such as the Department of Defence add two other bones: measurement and environment. The general diagram is illustrated in Figure 9.5. The idea is to add your own labels, and adapt if for your purposes.

Figure 9.5 Blank ishikawa diagram

Source: Skymark 2008:1.

The four main ‘bones’ are standard groupings and can be changed to suit the situation. The team involved then add ideas or issues (extra bones). Details are added under each of the main bones. An example is in Figure 9.6.

Figure 9.6 partly complete ishikawa example for investigating falling rates of child vaccination in rural areas

Other

Problem/Situation

Falling ratesof child

vaccinationin rural areas

People

Rural poverty

Predominanceof anti-

medicineattitudes

New vaccines

Diminishing access to GPs

Ignorance orirrational thinking

Environment

MethodsMaterials


Activity 9.3 – Use an ishikawa diagram

1. identify a problem, decision or other situation that would benefit from examination by means of an ishikawa diagram.

2. apply and evaluate this process. Use as much butcher’s paper, coloured pens and group involvement as possible to make it a lively affair. alternatively, use free templates available on the internet.

3. reflect on the value of this technique.

Following are some previous PSM Program participants’ comments:

I used an Ishikawa diagram to look at challenges facing my agency. Challenges include website administration, new drafting system, ageing staff and redundancy of existing skills. I was able to see links between seemingly separate issues and the effect on each other. By looking at the likely effects of technology on legal and clerical staff I identified reductions in workloads but new skills required for clerical staff and an increased workload for legal officers.

I have found the use of Ishikawa diagrams incredibly useful in group decision making. This process turns a problem solving exercise into a fun and interactive method of resolving issues in a team environment. I have used this strategy with my team each week for the past three weeks and we now look forward to problem solving as a group. This method allows many individuals to have input and make suggestions, allowing multiple points of view to be taken into account. I now feel that this method allows an unbiased view of problem-solving and resolves issues with superior action plans.

9.4 Decision-making theories and tools

Decision-making is one of the most important functions performed by managers in the public sector. Public sector decision-making is subject to scrutiny and review in ways that have no specific private sector equivalents (Rainey 2003). Decision-making in both sectors ‘has a long history, focused on a number of distinct models, of which the rational, cybernetic, incremental, and garbage-can are a few of the more well-known’ (Connor & Becker 2003:155).

Required Reading 9.1connor, pe & becker, bW 2003, ‘personal value systems and decision-making styles of public

managers, Public Personnel Management, vol. 32, iss. 1, spring pp. 155–180.

We will see in psm program Unit 4 that public sector managers’ motives may be different from their private sector counterparts since in some instances they have different values. this reading looks at how public sector managers’ values influence their decision-making.


9.4.1 Cost–Benefit AnalysisA formal cost–benefit analysis involves estimating or measuring the costs and benefits of possible solutions. The costs and benefits can be estimated or they can be researched to be as close to actual as possible, depending on the situation. A rigorous approach uses actual figures. For each alternative analyse:

• the cost of a proposal, including detailed costing of each element – financial resources, staff time, specialists advice, physical or capital resources and so on

• the benefits – cost savings compared to existing measures, customer service advantages, more efficient processes and so on

Typically these estimates are listed in two columns, with an indication of the total, and the net effect overall.

9.4.2 Weighted Criteria

Decisions can also be made against pre-determined criteria. With this process a decision sheet is created and agreed values are given to each alternative against a set of significant factors, or criteria. The criteria can be weighted by being assigned a priority. They can also be weighted by determining what percentage to allocate to each one.

Options are rated on a scale of say 1–3 or 1–10. For example, one could represent a minimal impact, a very low level of difficulty, a small probability of meeting the program targets, low attractiveness of the candidate or option. A score of ten could indicate significant impact or an extremely high level of difficulty. A template is shown in Table 9.3

table 9.3 Weighted criteria

Choosing criteria is critical to success in this technique: different criteria will be used relevant to the situation. These criteria should represent organisational priorities and guidelines and may involve:

• customer service benefits

• quality improvements

• complementing existing systems

• cost reduction

• difficulty in implementation

Factor or criteria 1




Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3


• degree of risk

• importance to the agency mission

• extent of legislative compliance

• time needed for implementation

• impact on staff workloads or other industrial relations issues

• political implications.

The criteria need to be selected to suit the environment and the task and serve as a useful means of surfacing various stakeholder’s mindsets and agendas (TAFE Qld n.d.; Cassidy & Guggenberger 2000).

You may be familiar with this technique. It is used extensively in recruitment and selection and other areas such as tender evaluation. It can be adapted to any situation that requires systematic and structured analysis of multiple options, with transparency and accountability requirements.

The following tips expand on this technique:

• The cells in Table 9.3 can be completed with a descriptive or qualitative evaluation or a quantitative evaluation such as a weighting or a rank – in some cases it may be appropriate to use both. For a more sophisticated analysis, the factors or criteria should be given a ranking, order of importance or priority.

• Don’t have too many factors — yes, there may be numerous issues or criteria that need to be addressed, but the analysis should focus on the most important ones, otherwise it becomes too cumbersome. Use a Pareto analysis to reduce the number of factors if necessary.

• Don’t deliberate on the weightings at great length – the important point is to include the most significant criteria or factors.

• The technique itself is not the point – don’t lose sight of the fact that the purpose is to conduct a transparent, rigorous analysis of alternatives (Meredith & Mantell 1995).

Working on a significant or high level decisions or problem is the best idea, as the time invested is not justified for simple or quick action processes.

The following are two examples from the Tasmanian government Guidelines on Tender Evaluation using Weighted Criteria for Building Works and Services, showing first the template and guidelines and then a completed example.


table 9.4 Weighted criteria example from tasmanian government regarding Building Works

Range criteria Minimum -Maximum

non-price 10 40% relevant experience 5 20%

past performance 5 20%

technical skills 0 20%

resources 0 20%

management skills 0 20%

methodology 0 20%

price 60 90%

table 9.5 Weighted criteria example from tasmanian government regarding Building Works with detailed example

tender 2 tender 3 tender 1

Lamplights pty Ltd

Fireglow pty Ltd

J H Sparkes

criteria 1, weight 20%

score 9.00 8.00 9.00

Weighted score 1.80 1.60 1.80


score 7.00 8.00 7.50



score 7.00 6.00 9.00

total weighted sum = 40%


total non-price criteria 3.20 3.00 3.45

normalised non-price 3.20 x 10/3.45 3.00 x 10/3.45 10.00

9.28 8.70 10.00

Weighted non-price

40% 3.71 3.48 4.00

Source: Tasmanian Department of Finance and Treasury 2006:7


Activity 9.4 – making a decision using weighted criteria

in this activity you are required to make a decision by searching for and accessing a broad range of information, developing options and then evaluating them extensively, using the weighted criteria method.

choose either:

• Optionsforimprovingthewayasignificantresponsibilityisexecutedinyourworkplace.

or

• Anyotherdecision,problemorprocessthatrequiresaccessinginformationanddevelopingand evaluating substantial alternatives.

then evaluate the weighted criteria method itself.

1. does it add to the quality of decision-making?

2. does it have constraints or limitations?

3. how often would you or your colleagues use it in practice?

4. Why or why not?

Young (2007) studied how public sector managers made decisions about outsourcing various elements in health services. She found that managers did not consider all the necessary factors, particularly the costs and difficulty of managing the contract once an outsourcing decision had been made. The transaction costs of monitoring the contract were not included in the cost-benefit analysis. Power of internal managers also had an effect and where it was high they were able to prevent outsourcing, even if it was an advisable, well justified, rational decision and conversely were able to force outsourcing when it wasn’t justified. Young concluded that public sector managers find themselves in a difficult position when required to implement government policy:

Political perspectives in public sector management arise from managers attempting to work within the expectations of government, boards of management, communities, unions and other pressure groups, managers, and staff. A public sector organization’s reliance on government funding produces tension between policymakers and those who implement the policy. The ability to juggle government and community expectations, whilst making decisions based on economic criteria within a decreasing funding environment, is clearly problematic (Young 2007:322).


9.5 Alternatives to Linear, Rational processes

Structured techniques for decision-making, problem-solving and continuous improvement are highly recommended. They overcome limitations of the human brain which can render it difficult to think about several alternatives simultaneously, as well as the weaknesses of different personality types’ cognitive strategies and mental sets that interfere with sound thinking.

Decision-making and problem-solving are influenced by all of:

• environmentalantecedents

• organisationalantecedents

• decision-specificantecedents

• individualmanager’spersonalcharacteristics(Rainey2003).

It isn’t just a question of whether you as a manager use sound tools and techniques. There are also situational constraints and influences. Public sector organisations are subject to greater information intensity due to the intricacy of the political environment (Rainey 2003). For example, problem solving has been used within policing for almost 30 years but progress in developing it has been slow and the outcomes mixed. Barrie Irving provides an overview of the debate on problem solving and argues that there has been too much emphasis on techniques and processes and not enough on managing their implementation. He argues that the police culture and training create a hostile context for developing problem solving. His recommendations include making the tools fit the police culture, rather than making the culture fit the tools (Irving 2007:4).

An example from health also illustrates some of the influences in the public sector:

Most of the innovative efforts in the huge health care industry are directed toward medical technologies, not delivery of treatment, patient safety, and expectations. Inefficient processes abound. What factors determine the willingness of health care managers to innovate? In-depth interviews with 10 health care managers in different roles explored how perceptions of complexity and risk arising from problems and situations and attached to potential solutions affect the choice of ‘safe’ or familiar versus unknown or innovative actions. Findings suggest that health care managers are typically loath to leave their ‘comfort zones’ to try innovative solutions (Ekmekci & Turley 2008:4).

9.5.1 Mental Sets or Mind Sets

Psychological research evaluates mental sets in cognitive processing. Mental sets make it difficult to reach insight, find an appropriate solution or make the right decision. They constitute an individual manager’s characteristics that influence their decision-making and problem-solving. Mental sets are a tendency to perceive and approach situations in a certain way, and include:


• functionalfixedness

• confirmationbias

• availabilityhypothesis

• representativenesshypothesis.

Functional fixedness is the tendency to see an object only according to its most common use. (Using a coin as a screwdriver is an example of overcoming functional fixedness.) To overcome functional fixedness, you have to ‘think outside the square’.

Confirmation bias is a tendency for individuals to search for, or only pay attention to, information that confirms what they already believe or have already decided. This is a particularly dangerous mental set in situations where significant decisions are being made. The notion of Departmental Secretaries giving frank and fearless advice to ministers is partly predicated on understanding the dangers of confirmation bias.

The availability hypothesis means that people judge the probability of events occurring based on the ease with which examples of that event come to mind. They perceive that an event that easily comes to mind is a frequent event (Hayward 2002). For example, the murder of British tourist Peter Falconio in the Northern Territory was quite spectacular news and easy to remember. This may lead people to feel that murder is a frequent event with a high risk of re-occurring. They may base a decision not to travel in the outback Northern Territory on this one event, even though rationally it has a very low probability of re-occurring. Have you noticed the availability hypothesis operating in your work environment? It may be that in discussions about clients or contractors, those who are more problematic spring to mind and are advanced as typical or representative of all clients or contractors. This is a good argument for evidenced-based policy and practice.

In the representativeness hypothesis, people tend to judge a new situation based on its similarity to a stereotypical or random model. That is, they think, ‘this situation is the same as that other one, so I can make the same decision this time’. However, individuals over-rely on the similarity element at the expense of statistical facts about the probability of the same event re-occurring (Hayward, 2002). These mental sets operate as barriers to achieving quality decision-making, problem solving and information analysis essential in the contemporary public sector.

9.6 information needs and organisational Level

Managers may make a relatively straightforward set of administrative decisions about recruitment, new technology, day-to-day business, but are increasingly required to make decisions in response to a wide variety of pressures, as well as establish coalitions of inside and outside groups (Connor & Becker 2003). Managers at different levels in organisations have different perspectives on information and its role in their work.


Activity 9.5 – perspectives on the role of informationthe purpose of this activity is to gain three different perspectives on the role of information for different levels of public sector management. answer the following questions and also interview two other managers, one at a higher level than your position, and one at a lower level, to obtain their responses to the same questions.

1. read through the table below.

2. identify the column in the table closest to your organisational level (senior, middle or lower level manager).

3. decide whether each of the typical decisions, information sources, frequency of decisions etc match the reality of your situation and your interviewees’ situations. add or change details in the table.

4. evaluate the scope, depth and level of information being used at each organisational level. if it is not adequate to the level, how can this situation be improved?

table 9.6 information needs at different organisation levels

Source: Adapted from Wilson, 1993:19 in PSM Program 1999.

Job title

typical decision

information sources

frequency of decision

time scale

time horizon

scope

Unstructured

typical interaction with knowledge workers

Senior managers(strategy/planning)

Director

to plan new programs and services

government policy, legislation, economic and social trends

infrequent and irregular

new programs may take a year or more to come on stream

forward looking to steer the organisation

Unconstrained – searching for the right questions as well as the right answers. What else could or should be planned

often no clear precedents to follow in decision-making

advice, recommendations and position papers from experts (senior professionals)

Middle managers(management control)Section manager

to find the best way to implement new programs. to budget for existing programs

it requirements, outsourcing opportunities

every quarter, or every month perhaps for budgets

budgets are quarterly. new services take 1–3 months to implement

future planning and historical monitoring

constrained – to meet the plans of top managers

semi-structured – many decisions and plans precedents and methodology, e.g. network analysis, budgeting etc.

direct supervision and direction of professionals providing and advice

Lower managers(operations/task control)

team Leaders

to work to program targets. to achieve service outcomes

client service, delegation and task allocation

by the hour, or daily

program activity supervised daily, monitored weekly

mostly immediate, comparing achieved outcomes against targets

highly constrained – to meet budgets, targets, and forecasts

highly structured – well-developed routines and procedures for operations

guidance and direction from professionals and direct supervision of non-professional workers


If you look at the information in the table above, it seems that middle managers such as those participating in the PSM Program are more likely to be operating in the more senior manner with more strategic information and more complex decisions. That is, the changing public sector context demands that managers be more strategic and less routine as demands are driven down from above. What do you think? This observation seems to be backed up by Demmke, Henokl & Moilanen (2008:6) in a European Institute of Public Administration report which argues on the other hand that this increase in involvements is driven from the bottom up:

Civil servants have become more demanding and critical. Traditional public service features such as hierarchical decision-masking, centralism, subordination, lack of transparency, formal treatment, rigidity and lack of involvement in decisions are less tolerated. More and more public employees are asking for more responsibility, job control, job autonomy, transparency, pluralism, flexibility, diversity, decentralisation of responsibilities and involvement in decisions

9.7 complexity, chaos and Systems

So far, we have looked at different information needs of various management levels in the organisation. We have also noted that the individual manager’s skills alone do not determine quality outcomes in cognitive tasks like decision-making and problem-solving.

Governments, in the form of individual ministers, can face great difficulty when dealing with high-profile policy decisions that rely on complex technical information outside the expertise of the individual. For example:

In a year my Department will provide more than 5000 written briefs to the Prime Minister, his Minister Assisting or Parliamentary Secretary. Some are relatively straightforward: the cover briefs, for example, which are attached to the draft responses to the most important of the 160 000 letters received by the PM each year. Other briefs are remarkably complex (Shergold 2004:6).

To further complicate the situation, there are more individuals involved than just the one minister.

An article by Hartmann and Patrickson (1998:619) also questions whether decision-making based on rational processes is appropriate, considering recent developments in decision theory. The complexity and diversity of managerial decision-making is well recognised. This article suggests other decision-making strategies should be included in training. The conclusion is that training for individuals which is limited to the normative models advocated within TQM or other rational-quantitative approaches ignores evidence that other decision strategies can be just as effective.


9.7.1 Quick versus Convoluted Decision-making

Problem-solving and decision-making require individuals to examine the relationship between available information, risks, and costs and benefits – a complex cognitive activity. Developing and evaluating courses of action in decision-making and problem-solving can be either a quick action process or a convoluted action process. Convoluted action involves consultation with a wide variety and number of stakeholders.

Many disasters in history and industry can be attributed to quick action processes being chosen, when convoluted ones were called for, such as the Bay of Pigs fiasco and the Challenger Space Shuttle disaster (Hellriegel 1992). Unless dissent and questioning of decision-making are encouraged or allowed, similar negative consequences can ensue.

Convoluted action processes apply in the following circumstances:

• anunstructuredproblem–thesituationhasneverbeenfacedbefore

• alongperiodoftimeisavailableoritisnecessarytofindahighqualityalternative

• manyvestedinterestsandpowerrelationshipsareinvolved

• largenumbersofpeoplehaveastakeintheoutcome(Hellriegel1992).

Given the nature of the public sector operating environment, it would seem that convoluted processes are more common. What do you think?

Overall, six organisational issues could be considered when analysing information for problem-solving and decision-making:

1. High technical content may be difficult for others to take in. Consider the level of understanding of the people who need to assimilate the information for purposes of effective public policy or other decision-making. Ministers may be less comfortable with advice on technical and scientific matters than social and economic matters. Since discussion in Cabinet ranges over a broad set of issues, in-depth knowledge of a particular topic is less likely to be prevalent.

2. Complex horizontal linkages between structures of government may mean that certain topics are not well handled from a multi-disciplinary viewpoint. We will see below how complex these linkages between government agencies and a range of other stakeholders are.

3. Technical and scientific people may have poor communication skills, particularly if communicating to lay people.

4. Timeframes of decision-makers may be at odds with the time actually needed to prepare robust information.

5. Fear of change, amongst the public and other decision-making audiences may make complex or challenging information even more difficult to communicate.

6. Decisions do not arrive with the options and their pros and cons catalogued. Rather ‘issues’ arrive (Public Policy Forum 1998, French 2008:1).

Climate change is a classic situation illustrating the above points:

The problem of climate change comprises a form of post-normal science: it needs to be viewed holistically, with consideration of the feedbacks between the climate system, the


human system and ecosystems; there is large uncertainty and a plurality of legitimate perspectives; and the issue is complex and difficult or impossible to fit into a traditional linear problem-solving model. It is therefore not a rational decision for most individuals to take actions to reduce risk from climate change in the absence of collective action, yet collective action is extraordinarily difficult to achieve (Etkin & Ho 2007:623).

The health care system is another example:

Physician leaders operate in a realm of uncertainty and guide complex adaptive health care systems. Traditionally, physician leaders have depended on reasoning and logical/sequential thinking to solve organizational problems. This traditional way of thinking is referred to as ‘vertical thinking’. On the other hand, ‘lateral or horizontal thinking’ often used by successful leaders demands a breadth of knowledge and skills that requires an understanding of complex systems. While vertical thinking seeks to develop an existing pattern, lateral thinking seeks to restructure the existing pattern. Lateral thinking is a step-by-step method of creative thinking with prescribed techniques that can be used consciously. If physician leaders fail to adequately and systematically develop and implement lateral thinking skills in problem solving, they may fail to solve complex systems issues adequately and effectively. Systematic training in the application of lateral thinking and complexity theory may assist physician leaders early on to develop effective innovative solutions to complex challenges in the evolving health care system (Hernandez & Varkey 2008:26).

Managers face very complex situations in ‘real world’ decision making that is hard to capture in training courses (Weinstein, Castellano, Petrick & Vokurka 2008). However certain techniques can be taught and concept mapping or mind mapping is one which is more amenable to more involved and less straightforward issues.

Required Reading 9.2Wilgis, m & mcconnell, J 2008, ‘concept mapping: an educational strategy to improve graduate

nurses’ critical thinking skills during a hospital orientation program’, The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, vol. 39, no. 3, p. 119.

this short reading gives a practical example of how critical thinking, informational analysis and decision making skills can be taught in a health setting. the reading explains mind mapping and give evidence about how it improved nurses’ decision making, particularly given they had to think ‘outside of the box’ of their own input as nurses and take into account boundary spanning disciplines, in a total patient care solution.

Rich Picture Diagrams

Rich picture diagrams (RPDs) are similar to mind mapping and are ‘a pictorial summary of the actual situation’. RPDs are more useful for ‘recording relationships and connections than is linear prose’ (Sutrisna & Barrett 2007:164).

An example follows of an RPD used to develop ideas about teaching children to use a pedestrian crossing. The details of the RPD are not important per se, the idea is more to give an idea of what an RPD might look like.


Figure 9.6 example of an RpD

Source: Ryan 2008:1

A different version of an RPD is shown in Figure 9.7. The point of this exercise was to analyse different stakeholder views in terms of introducing e-learning in a teaching setting.

Figure 9.7 Another example of an RpD in the context of stakeholder analysis

Source: Salmon 2008:1.

The value of rich pictures became immediately obvious to the writer when she was explaining the figure to a colleague. This immediately sparked debate about what the picture meant and what aspects or stakeholder viewpoints were missing.


Practitioners and scholars are aware that decision-making processes and management in the public sector are complex, however, theories on complexity have rarely been used in this area (Teisman & Klijn 2008:294). Elements of chaos and complexity theory may add to their understanding, with some ideas presented in Table 9.7.

table 9.7 elements of chaos and complexity useful for understanding the dynamic context of managers’ decision making

concept Definition

complex systems compounded wholes of interrelated subsystems

governance processes timelines of interrelated actions developed by a variety of action systems (managers and organizations) leading to complex and dynamic changes in landscape, content and action

fitness landscape the multiple contexts in which public managers have to behave and which guide the effects of that behaviour

dynamics and sources of dynamics

the emerging speed and direction of governance processes as a result of interaction between a variety of actions and interpretations

Source: Teisman & Klijn 2008:294

Complexity theory concepts explain how decisions work in practice, particularly decisions in erratic and complex policy processes, such as for example the Murray River or a carbon trading scheme, which are examples of the ‘melee’ of a whole-of-government environment. Decisions are ‘temporarily stable equilibrium states’ and a ‘decision is a stepping stone within an ongoing trajectory’. Decision making is an on-going process that doesn’t end when a decision is made (van Buuren & Gerrits 2008:382, 391).

More conventional models of policy decision making see it is a sequential or linear process, as we saw at the start of this topic, with defined phases such as setting the agenda, defining the problem, looking for solutions, making a decision, implementing the solution and then evaluating it, with some adjustments (if the model includes feedback loops). This rational approach does not represent reality very well. The ‘garbage-can’ model argues that decision making is erratic and unpredictable. Another view is that policy processes consist of parallel streams that occasionally come together to produce coincidental outcomes. Decision making is evolutionary and sometimes the end result bears little resemblance to the original problem or agenda (van Buuren & Gerrits 2008:384).

The relevance of these ideas to our unit on Managing In is to identify your role as an ‘actor’ in these decision making processes. You are an active participant, processing information and building internal mental models orientated to how you participate in what is essentially a ‘whimsical’ process. These internal models have three elements: values; ambitions/interests; and knowledge or reality judgments. Thus every policy decision is eventually an outcome of all the various actors’ ambitions, frames and facts. Decision making is driven by the mental models held by the actors, therefore surfacing and understanding these mental models is an important part of the process that isn’t recognised in normative, rational models of


decision making (van Buuren & Gerrits 2008:387). This point about mental models or mindsets is reinforced as follows:

Consider the mind-set of the managers or collaborative capacity-builders who are working to achieve solutions to wicked problems. This mind-set guides network managers as they apply their skills, strategies, and tools in order to foster the transfer, receipt, and integration of knowledge across the network and, ultimately, to build long-term collaborative problem-solving capacity (Weber & Khademian 2008:334).

This is the end of the topic on decision making, problem solving and information analysis. Hopefully you now have some tools and techniques to assist in these processes, as well as a grasp of the complexity of wicked problems, and the flexibility public sector managers need to operate in this context.

Reviewhaving completed this topic, you should now be able to:

1. explain the logic of the problem-solving cycle and other problem-solving models.

2. apply specific techniques such as cost-benefit analysis, the pareto principle and ishikawa diagrams.

3. Use decision making tools.

4. Utilise alternatives to the linear rational models of conventional information analysis.

5. consider information and analysis needs of different management levels.

6. describe mental sets that interfere with effective analysis.

7. Use more flexible techniques that work in chaos and complexity including mind maps and rich picture diagrams.

Required ReadingRequired Reading 9.1 Connor, PE & Becker, BW 2003, ‘Personal value systems and

decision-making styles of public managers, Public Personnel Management, vol. 32, iss. 1, Spring pp. 155–180.

Required Reading 9.2 Wilgis, M & McConnell, J 2008, ‘Concept Mapping: An Educational Strategy to Improve Graduate Nurses’ Critical Thinking Skills During a Hospital Orientation Program’, The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, vol. 39, no. 3, p. 119.


Further ReadingPhilippaerts, J & Phahlane, J 1997, Implementing Community Policing in the Belgian

Federal Police and in the South African Police Service, The Creative Problem Solving Group, viewed 03 August 2008 <http://www.cpsb.com/research/communique/creative-problem-solving-business/implementing-community-policing.html>.

A detailed case study explaining the density of introducing new information analysis methods in two international police services. It shows how a range of problem solving and decision making tools were disseminated and integrated.

http://classtools.net/main_area/template_loader.php/?fishbone

Fishbone diagram template on the web

van Buuren, A & Gerrits, L 2008, ‘Decisions as Dynamic Equilibriums in Erratic Policy Processes’, Public Management Review, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 381 - 99.

This article explains in a lot more detail the complexity of policy decision making. It also gives a case study of whole-of-government decision making about a river in Europe. It doesn’t pay a lot of attention to the self-management or Managing In aspect of decision making which is the focus of PSM Program Unit Three. However it is useful to set the wider context and gives a case study that has some parallels with the Murray River situation in Australia.

French, S 2008, Soft Modelling and Problem Formulation, Manchester Business School, viewed 03 August 2008 <http://www.sal.hut.fi/TED/slides/Problem_Formulation.ppt#310,27,Slide 27>.

PowerPoint presentation with many examples of visual information analysis techniques including RDPs.


topic 9: Required Reading

Connor, PE & Becker, BW 2003, ‘Personal value systems and decision-making styles of public managers, Public Personnel Management, vol. 32, iss. 1, Spring pp. 155–180.


topic 9: Required Reading

Wilgis, M & McConnell, J 2008, ‘Concept Mapping: An Educational Strategy to Improve Graduate Nurses’ Critical Thinking Skills During a Hospital Orientation Program’, The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, vol. 39, no. 3, p. 119.

topic nine: information analysis for problem-solving and

Documents