Decision-Making Models Comparison Guide

Four Models of Public Decision-Making

Public administrators use different decision-making approaches depending on the situation, available information, time constraints, and stakeholder involvement.

🎯 Model 1: Rational Decision-Making

“The Textbook Approach”

Core Process:

1. Define the problem clearly and completely
2. Identify all alternatives and possible solutions
3. Evaluate each option using consistent criteria
4. Select the best alternative based on analysis
5. Implement the decision systematically
6. Monitor and evaluate results for future learning

Assumptions:

• Complete information is available
• All alternatives can be identified
• Consequences can be predicted accurately
• Decision-makers are purely objective
• Unlimited time and resources for analysis

Criminal Justice Examples

When It Works:

• Policy Development: Creating new use-of-force policies with research, stakeholder input, and pilot testing
• Major Procurement: Selecting new case management system with formal RFP process and scoring criteria
• Facility Planning: Designing new jail with capacity analysis, cost projections, and architectural review

Typical Process:

1. Research best practices and legal requirements
2. Analyze current problems and future needs
3. Develop multiple policy/system options
4. Evaluate options using cost-benefit analysis
5. Select best option based on objective criteria
6. Implement with training and evaluation plan

When to Use Rational Model

• High-stakes decisions with major long-term consequences
• Complex policy issues requiring thorough analysis
• Sufficient time and resources for comprehensive study
• Technical decisions where expertise is crucial
• Stakeholder consensus needed for legitimacy

Limitations

• Time-consuming when quick decisions are needed
• Expensive in terms of staff time and resources
• Paralysis by analysis—perfect can be enemy of good
• Political naivety—ignores real-world constraints
• Information overload can confuse rather than clarify

⚡ Model 2: Bounded Rationality

“Good Enough” Solutions

Core Process:

1. Simplify the problem to manageable components
2. Search for alternatives until acceptable option found
3. Apply experience and rules of thumb for quick evaluation
4. Choose first “satisficing” solution that meets minimum criteria
5. Implement quickly and adjust as needed
6. Learn from results to improve future decisions

Key Concept: “Satisficing” - choosing first acceptable solution rather than optimal one

Herbert Simon’s Insight: Decision-makers have limited time, information, and cognitive capacity

Criminal Justice Examples

Emergency Deployment:

• Problem: Multiple calls for service, limited officers available
• Process: Use established protocols and experience to deploy quickly
• Outcome: Good enough coverage that can be adjusted as situations develop

Daily Operational Decisions:

• Court scheduling: Fill available slots using standard procedures
• Patrol assignments: Use beat assignments and recent activity patterns
• Case prioritization: Apply prosecutor guidelines and resource constraints

Routine Administration:

• Budget adjustments: Make incremental changes based on immediate needs
• Personnel decisions: Use established criteria and quick evaluation
• Equipment purchases: Select from approved vendors meeting basic requirements

When to Use Bounded Rationality

• Time pressure requiring quick decisions
• Routine operations with established procedures
• Limited resources for extensive analysis
• Experienced decision-makers who can use judgment effectively
• Situations where “good enough” is adequate

Advantages

• Speed: decisions made quickly when needed
• Efficiency: uses available information effectively
• Practicality: works within real-world constraints
• Flexibility: can adjust as new information emerges
• Experience-based: leverages professional judgment

🔄 Model 3: Incremental Decision-Making

“Muddling Through” with Small Steps

Core Process:

1. Start with existing policies as baseline
2. Consider only small changes from current practice
3. Build consensus through gradual modification
4. Test changes on limited scale before full implementation
5. Adjust and adapt based on feedback and results
6. Evolve policy through series of small improvements

Charles Lindblom’s “Science of Muddling Through”:

• Large changes are politically and practically difficult
• Small changes are safer and more achievable
• Policy emerges through incremental adjustments

Criminal Justice Examples

Police Reform:

• Traditional approach: Comprehensive department overhaul
• Incremental approach: Gradual policy changes, pilot programs, training improvements
• Example: Implementing community policing through neighborhood-by-neighborhood expansion

Court Modernization:

• Traditional approach: Complete system replacement
• Incremental approach: Phase in electronic filing, add online services gradually
• Example: Starting with traffic cases before moving to criminal cases

Corrections Improvement:

• Traditional approach: Wholesale program replacement
• Incremental approach: Add new programs while maintaining existing ones
• Example: Gradually expanding drug treatment from one housing unit to entire facility

When to Use Incremental Model

• Political sensitivity requiring consensus building
• High uncertainty about outcomes of major changes
• Limited resources for comprehensive reform
• Risk aversion when failure would be costly
• Stakeholder resistance to dramatic change

Benefits

• Politically feasible: easier to build support
• Lower risk: small changes have limited negative impact
• Learning opportunity: can adjust based on experience
• Builds momentum: success creates support for further change
• Preserves stability while allowing improvement

Drawbacks

• Slow progress may not address urgent problems
• Status quo bias: difficult to make necessary major changes
• May perpetuate problems rather than solving them
• Crisis vulnerability: incremental change may not prevent disasters

🗑️ Model 4: Garbage Can Decision-Making

“Organized Anarchy” in Crisis Situations

Core Concept: Decision-making in chaotic environments where:

• Problems seeking solutions
• Solutions looking for problems to solve
• Participants moving in and out of process
• Choice opportunities arising unpredictably

Cohen, March, and Olsen’s Model: Solutions may be chosen based on:

• Who happens to be in the room
• What solutions are readily available
• Timing of when choices must be made
• Political pressures of the moment

Criminal Justice Examples

Major Incident Response:

• Multiple problems: Public safety threat, media pressure, political demands
• Multiple solutions: Deploy SWAT, call for mutual aid, hold press conference
• Multiple participants: Police commanders, mayor, emergency management, media
• Result: Solutions chosen based on availability and who’s present

Crisis Budget Cuts:

• Problem: Sudden revenue shortfall requiring immediate cuts
• Solutions: Hiring freeze, equipment delays, service reductions
• Participants: Police chief, city manager, union representatives, council members
• Process: Quick decisions based on what’s politically feasible and immediately available

Court Emergency Procedures:

• Problem: Courthouse closure due to emergency
• Solutions: Virtual hearings, case postponements, remote operations
• Participants: Judges, court administrators, IT staff, attorneys
• Decision: Use whatever technology and procedures are immediately implementable

When Garbage Can Occurs

• Crisis situations requiring immediate action
• High uncertainty about problems and solutions
• Multiple urgent issues competing for attention
• Unclear authority or responsibility
• Fluid participation with people entering and leaving the process

Managing Garbage Can Situations

• Pre-planning: develop emergency procedures in advance
• Clear authority: designate who makes decisions under pressure
• Communication: ensure key information reaches decision-makers
• Documentation: record decisions for later review and learning
• After-action review: analyze what worked and what did not

Decision-Making Model Selection Matrix

Real-World Example: Police Use-of-Force Policy

Rational Approach

1. Research national best practices and legal requirements
2. Analyze current incidents and training gaps
3. Develop multiple policy options with stakeholder input
4. Evaluate options using legal, practical, and community criteria
5. Select best policy based on comprehensive analysis
6. Implement with training, equipment, and monitoring systems

Bounded Rational Approach

1. Review model policies from similar departments
2. Adapt existing policy to address immediate concerns
3. Quick consultation with legal counsel and training staff
4. Select workable policy that meets basic requirements
5. Implement with standard training and supervision

Incremental Approach

1. Start with current policy as baseline
2. Identify specific problems needing adjustment
3. Make small changes to address each problem
4. Test changes through pilot programs or specific units
5. Gradually expand successful modifications department-wide

Garbage Can Scenario

1. Crisis event creates immediate pressure for policy change
2. Multiple solutions proposed simultaneously by different groups
3. Quick decision based on who’s available and what’s politically feasible
4. Implementation using available resources and procedures

Practical Guidelines for Decision-Makers

Choosing Your Approach

Ask These Questions:

1. How much time do I have?
2. What information is available?
3. How important is this decision?
4. Who needs to be involved?
5. What resources are available?
6. How much risk can we accept?

Hybrid Strategies

Most real decisions combine elements:

• Start with bounded rationality for quick assessment
• Use incremental approach for implementation
• Apply rational analysis for key components
• Prepare for garbage can situations through planning

Common Mistakes

• Using the wrong model for the situation, such as applying rational analysis during a crisis
• Getting stuck in “analysis paralysis” by over-analyzing routine decisions
• Ignoring political realities when using the rational model in politically sensitive situations
• Failing to plan ahead for unpredictable or chaotic (garbage can) situations
• Relying on a one-size-fits-all approach instead of adapting to the specific decision context

Decision-Making Checklist

Before making any significant decision, consider:

Problem Definition:

• Is the problem clearly defined?
• Are we solving the right problem?
• What are the underlying causes?

Time and Resources:

• How much time is available?
• What resources can be dedicated?
• Who needs to be involved?

Information:

• What information is available?
• What information is missing?
• How reliable are our sources?

Stakeholders:

• Who will be affected?
• Who has input or approval authority?
• What are their concerns and priorities?

Implementation:

• How will the decision be carried out?
• What resources are needed?
• How will we measure success?

Risk Assessment:

• What could go wrong?
• How serious would failures be?
• What contingency plans are needed?

Use this guide to select appropriate decision-making approaches throughout your public administration career.