Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
included in the modeling process. Indeed, because system function is rarely
precisely understood, the effects of management actions are never certain and
the future states are unknown, decisions are almost always made in the face of
uncertainty. Uncertainty can make differentiating among alternatives difficult,
but because uncertainty is an inherent part of the decision process, it must not be
ignored. It is important that uncertainty be confronted throughout the decision
process and that the uncertainties are identified and the possible impacts on the
system and the ability to achieve stated objectives documented.
Once the modeling process has predicted the likely outcomes of each man-
agement action and the corresponding ability to address each objective, the next
step is to develop a consequence table. The purpose of a consequence table is to
produce a visual summary of the consequences of each potential management
action on each of the objectives in a table or matrix. A consequence table can
take a variety of forms, from a simple rating system (e.g., consumer report 5-star
rating) to a complex table with specific probabilities of outcomes and subsequent
likelihoods of achieving each objective. Independent of the complexity of the
underlying models that populate the matrix, the purpose of the consequence
table is to ease and facilitate direct comparison of each management actions'
ability to achieve each objective.
5.
Identify and Evaluate Tradeoffs
- Ideally the structured decision making process
would lead to a clear management alternative that achieves the objectives of all
interested parties; unfortunately, this is rarely the case. Generally, the process
of developing a consequence table will clearly elucidate which options are the
least likely to be effective, but if there are multiple stakeholders and thus mul-
tiple objectives, most decisions will require a trade-off between the ability of the
remaining options to achieve each objective. The process of identifying
where these trade-offs arise is analytical, but the decision process itself is highly
value laden and thus dependent upon stakeholders. In most complex decisions,
this will involve stakeholders choosing between less-than-perfect alternatives.
There are a variety of methods to facilitate highly value-laden decisions by
weighing options based on the values of the stakeholders and then comparing
alternatives to find the “best” compromise solutions. However, trade-offs are real
and it is unlikely that all parties will be totally satisfied with the eventual outcome.
Indeed, although consensus is ideal, it is not necessary and is often unachievable;
however, the benefit of the structured decision-making process is that even if
there is disagreement, the process makes the disagreement transparent and
enables stakeholders to re-evaluate using new knowledge and/or perspectives.
6.
Implement Management Action
- The final step in the structured decision-
making process is implementation. Although this may always seem to be the
desired outcome of a decision process, unfortunately, social and political
pressures to reach “perfection” often impede implementation and leave
decisions in a continuous state of inaction. To ensure success, managers, policy
makers, and stakeholders must work together to move through the decision
process in a timely manner to ensure action can be taken. Failure to take action
is a decision, whether it is made passively or actively.
