Michael D. Cohen; James G. March; and Johan P. Olsen, ‘A Garbage Can Model of Organizational Choice’, March 1972
p.2
THE BASIC IDEAS
Decision opportunities are fundamentally ambiguous stimuli. This theme runs through several recent studies of organizational choice.2
2 We have based the model heavily on seven recent studies of universities: Christensen (1971), Cohen and March (1972), Enderud (1971), Moode (1971), Olsen (1970, 1971), and Rommetveit (1971). The ideas, however, have a broader parentage. In particular, they obviously owe a debt to Allison (1969), Coleman (1957), Cyert and March (1963), Lindblom (1965), Long (1958), March and Simon (1958), Schilling (1968), Thompson (1967), and Vickers (1965).
Cohen, March, Olsen
• “Although it maybe convenient to imagine that choice opportunities
lead first to the generation of decision alternatives, then to a
examination of their consequences, then to an evaluation of those
consequences in terms of objectives, and finally to a decision, this
type of model is often a poor description of what actually happens.”,
p.2, Michael D. Cohen; James G. March; and Johan P. Olsen, ‘A Garbage
Can Model of Organizational Choice’, Administrative Science Quarterly,
Vol. 17, No. 1. (Mar., 1972), pp.1-25, March 1972
p.2
Although it maybe convenient to imagine that choice opportunities lead first to (λ) the generation of decision alternatives,
then to
(μ) an examination of their consequences,
then to
(ν) an evaluation of those consequences
in terms of objectives, and finally to
(ξ) a decision,
this type of model is often a poor description of what actually happens.
• “Despite the dictum that you cannot find the answer until you have
formulated the question well, you often do not know what the
question is in organizational problem solving [OPS] until you know
the answer.”, p.3, Michael D. Cohen; James G. March; and Johan P.
Olsen, ‘A Garbage Can Model of Organizational Choice’, Administrative
Science Quarterly, Vol. 17, No. 1. (Mar., 1972), pp.1-25, March 1972
• “..., one can view a choice opportunity as a garbage can into which
various kinds of problems and solutions are dumped by participants
as they are generated.
The mix of garbage in a single can depends on the
(ο) mix of cans available, on
(π) the labels attached to the alternative cans, on
(ρ) what garbage is currently being produced, and on
(σ) the speed with which garbage is collected and
(τ) removed from the scene.”,
p.2, Michael D. Cohen; James G. March; and Johan P. Olsen,
‘A Garbage Can Model of Organizational Choice’, Administrative
Science Quarterly, Vol. 17, No. 1. (Mar., 1972), pp.1-25, March 1972d
• “Problems are worked upon in the context of some choice, but choices
are made only when the shifting combinations of problems, solutions,
and decision makers happen to make action possible.”, p.16, Michael D.
Cohen; James G. March; and Johan P. Olsen, ‘A Garbage Can Model of
Organizational Choice’, Administrative Science Quarterly,
Vol. 17, No. 1. (Mar., 1972), pp.1-25, March 1972
Choice opportunities. These are occasions when an organization is expected to produce behavior that can be called a decision. Opportunities arise regularly and any organization has ways of declaring an occasion for choice. Contracts must be signed; people hired, promoted, or fired; money spent; and responsibilities allocated., p.3
pp.2-3
In the garbage can model, on the other hand, a decision is an outcome or interpretation of several relatively independent streams within an organization.
Attention is limited here to interrelations among four such streams
Problems. Problems are the concern of the people inside and outside the organization. They might arise over issues of lifestyles; family; frustrations of work; careers; group relations within the organization; distribution of status, jobs, and money; ideology; or current crises of mankind as interpreted by the mass media or the nextdoor neighbor. All of these require attention.
Solutions. A solution is somebody's product. A computer is not just a solution to a problem in payroll management, discovered when needed. It is an answer actively looking for a question. The creation of need is not a curiousity of the market in consumer products; it is a general phenomenon of processes of choice. Despite the dictum that you cannot find the answer until you have formulated the question well, you often do not know what the question is in organizational problem solving until you know the answer.
Participants. Participants come and go. Since every entrance is an exit somewhere else, the distribution of “entrances” depends on the attributes of the choice being left as much as it does on the attributes of the new choice. Substantial variation in participation stems from other demands on the participants' time (rather than from features of the decision under study).
Choice opportunities. These are occasions when an organization is expected to produce behavior that can be called a decision. Opportunities arise regularly and any organization has ways of declaring an occasion for choice. Contracts must be signed; people hired, promoted, or fired; money spent; and responsibilities allocated.
p.3
Attention will be concentrated here on examining the consequences of different rates and patterns of flows in each of the streams and different procedures for relating them.
p.8
Some choices involve both flight and resolution──some problems leave, the remainder are solved.
p.10
The system, in effect, produces a queue of problems in terms of their importance, to the disadvantage of late-arriving, relatively unimportant problems, and particularly so when load is heavy.
pp.10-11
Seventh (7th), important choices are less likely to resolve problems than unimportant choices. Important choices are made by oversight and flight. Unimportant choices are made by resolution.
p.8
By resolution. Some choices resolve problems after some period of working on them. The length of time may vary, depending on the number of problems. This is the familiar case that is implicit in most discussions of choice within organizations.
p.8
By oversight. If a choice is activated when problems are attached to other choices and if there is energy available to make the new choice quickly, it will be made without any attention to existing problems and with a minimum of time and energy.
p.8
By flight. In some cases choices are associated with problems (unsuccessfully) for some time until a choice more attractive to the problems comes along. The problems leave the choice, and thus it is now possible to make the decision. The decision resolves no problems; they having now attached themselves to a new choice.
p.11
Eighth (8th), although a large proportion of the choice are made, the choice failures that do occur are concentrated among the most important and least important choices. Choices of intermediate importance are virtually always made.
p.11
In a broad sense, these features of the process provide some clues to how organizations survive when they do not know what they are doing. Much of the process violates standard notions of how decisions ought to be made.
p.16
The garbage can process is one in which
(θ) problems,
(ι) solutions, and
(κ) participants
move from one choice opportunity to another in such a way that
(α) the nature of the choice,
(β) the time it takes, and
(γ) the problem it solves all depend on a relatively
complicated intermeshing of elements. These include
(δ) the mix of choices available at any one time,
(ε) the mix of problems that have access to the organization,
(ζ) the mix of solutions looking for problems, and
(η) the outside demands on the decision makers.
p.16
It is clear that the garbage can process does not resolve problem well.
p.16
But it does enable choices to be made and problems resolved, even when the organization is plagued with goal ambiguity and conflict, with poorly understood problems that wander in and out of the system, with a variable environment, and with decision makers who may have other things on their minds.
pp.16-17
There is a large class of significant situations in which the preconditions of the garbage can process cannot be eliminated. In some, such as pure research, or the family, they should not be eliminated.
(Michael D. Cohen; James G. March; and Johan P. Olsen, ‘A Garbage Can Model of Organizational Choice’, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 17, No. 1. (Mar., 1972), pp.1-25, March 1972 )
<------------------------------------------------------------------------>
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1XsYoALmyRdIdqs-nIf8A5LdW_Tdahlrx
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1XsYoALmyRdIdqs-nIf8A5LdW_Tdahlrx
No comments:
Post a Comment