Decision Making Assessment - US Army Corps Engineers - Term Paper Example

? DECISION MAKING ASSESSMENT--- US ARMY CORPS ENGINEERS Decision making is the process where the decision maker identifies the problem and chooses the alternatives based on his values and preferences. In decision making there are set of preferences and alternatives that are to be considered. Choosing the best fitting alternative is the main challenge for the decision maker. Choosing the alternatives is driven by the factors like purpose, objectives, desires and values. The process of decision-making starts with identification of the decision maker and stakeholders who are the parts of the decision-making process. The problem needs to be defined first and there should not be any type of disagreement between the stakeholder and the decision maker. The criteria, requirements and goals need to be set properly. For effective decision making the problem should be first defined. The problem statement should clearly state the initial and desired conditions. The root cause along with the limiting assumptions needs to be identified. The second step of decision making is to set the requirements clearly. By requirement it is meant that conditions that are the acceptable solution to the problem must meet. Again solution to the problem must meet the requirement. The third step of decision making deals with setting up the goal. Goal does not only mean requirement to be met but it means clearly defining the wants and desires. The forth step defines identification of the alternatives. The alternatives should be close to the requirements of the condition. It transforms the initial condition into desired condition. The fifth step is to clearly define the criteria for the problem solution. For judging the effectiveness of the alternative, setting of criteria becomes important. Whether the alternative properly achieves the goal or not is dependent on the definition of criteria. For solving the decision problem proper tool needs to be used. Selection of proper tool is a challenging task and depends on the decision of the decision maker. In the seventh step the alternatives are mapped with the criteria to see whether the alternatives are in sync with the criteria. After this evaluation is done the decision maker now ranks the alternatives and chooses the most promising alternatives. In the final step the alternatives chosen by the decision maker needs to be validated with the requirement and goal of the problem (Fulop, n.d., pp. 1-3). This study assesses the decision making process of US Army Corp Engineer and helps the senior leaders in understanding the decision making culture of the organization. Decision making environment US Army Corp Engineer has a large team of dedicated soldiers and civilians who are delivering engineering services to their customers. Environmental sustainability is the guiding principal of the organization, which encourages the employees to work diligently and efficiently to strengthen the communications of United States by building proper infrastructure. US Army Corp aims towards promoting stability and improving quality of life. Developing the waterways of America is one of the chief mottos of US Army Corp. By doing this they aim to energize the economy of the nation by improving the movement of the commodities and providing recreation opportunities to the lakes and marinas. Therefore most of the decision making process involves the procedures related to the development of the waterways (About Us, 2013). Behind any decision taken by the US Corp Engineers the main reason is to “strengthen the security system, energize the economy and reduce the risks from disasters” (Mission & Vision, 2013). For this motive a group of skilled individual is constantly working to provide innovative and sustainable solutions (Mission & Vision, 2013) In the policy of the US Army Corp a special guidance to the planning of integrated watershed and coastal system has been found. The development clearly states that civil works planning must incorporate watershed whether the planning involves project viability study or wide-ranging watershed study. Every effort made to develop the watershed should be done such that economic and environmental values are assured. Moreover the policy also emphasizes on the sustainability of the water shed resource in future, specifically taking into account environmental quality, economic development and social well being. The project consists of six steps that have planned the water resource project for US Army Corp. The first step identifies the crisis and opportunities that replicates the precedence and predilections of the local sponsor, the federal government and other participating in the planning study. This process leads to the framing of the planning objective that describes the desired outcome of the project. The second step is to extend an inventory and anticipate relevant resources in the planning area under current and future devoid of project condition. With third step the first phase of the plan formulation process starts. It identifies the “structural and non structural management” (River Basins and Coastal Systems Planning Within the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2004, pp. 84-86) alternatives that would achieve the objectives of the study participant. In the fourth step the management alternatives are evaluated by anticipating the most likely “with project condition” (River Basins and Coastal Systems Planning Within the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2004, pp. 84-86) expected under each alternative plan. This comprises of “characterization of the beneficial and adverse social, environmental and economic effects of each alternative” (River Basins and Coastal Systems Planning Within the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2004, pp. 84-86). In the fifth step the Corps compares the beneficial and unfavorable effects of the various alternative plans including the non action alternatives too. After finishing with the comparisons the plans are ranked. In the sixth and the last step the process culminates with the selection of a project plan from the alternatives or the decision to recommend that no action has been selected. The criteria for selecting the recommended plan depend on the type of plan and whether the project outputs support “the national economic development, national ecosystem restoration or a combination of the both” (River Basins and Coastal Systems Planning Within the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2004, pp. 84-86). With the exemption of projects clearly focused on ecosystem refurbishment. Corps policy mandates the most cost effective implementable alternative as the alternative (River Basins and Coastal Systems Planning Within the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2004, pp. 84-86). A review was conducted on the water and land related resources of the nation’s river and coastal areas and the attendant physical water management infrastructure. The report focuses on Corps built physical infrastructure, although it is recognized that in many places, Corps project are part of the larger system that include privately funded project as well as the projects of other federal and state agencies. The term planning includes both analytical approaches and decision making processes that govern investment and management strategies for the portfolio of natural and infrastructure assets. The portfolio planning metaphor suggests that the nation must strive to make the best use of existing Corps-built physical infrastructure, rivers and coastlines. The metaphor also applies to governance issues regarding the issues related to the portfolio of infrastructure for which the Corp’s are responsible and to financial issues as the Corps may decide to invest or divest itself of some responsibilities and thus change the composition of portfolio assets. The portfolio assets and concerns of the Corp not only focus on the traditional benefits of flood control and navigation but also encompass natural resources conservation and environmental values (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Water Resources Planning: A New Opportunity for Service, 2004, p. 33). Bias in the in decision making Most common biases that appear when decision is taken under uncertainty are availability, representativeness, anchor and adjustment and overconfidence. Framing effect is another issue of interest that has been identified as prevalent in the decision making literature and relevant to risk perception. Though this is not considered as a bias but the systematic effect that it does on the study, it suggests that it can be taken as one. Framing Effect Tversky and Kahneman identified framing effect that traditionally refers to risky choice framing. But there are some other types of frame that are identified like attribute framing and goal framing. Risky choice framing involves manipulation of risk through the variation of probability information. There are two types of frame, positive and negative frame. In positive frame people demonstrates a bias towards risk averse behavior. On the other hand negative frame refers to bias towards risk seeking behavior by choosing a risky option over certain other options. Attribute framing refers to a particular characteristic or attribute of an object that is manipulated and described in a positive as well as negative light. This form ascertains that risk perception is not an essential feature of framing bias and it suggests that many of the decision making situations require consideration of risk while others do not. Goal framing refers to the situations when any particular action or behavior is framed in terms of gains and losses. People generally demonstrate bias towards the negative frame. Goal framing operates through confirmatory bias which suggests that people choose the risky negative frame as it is congruent with negative attitude (Cook, Noyes & Masakowski, 2007). Availability bias The availability bias refers to the readily recalling of information that is relevant to the current decision and similar situation. Perception of risk might be based on events that occur frequently, which are easier to imagine and recall than rare events and are therefore considered more likely. The availability bias does not always refer to negative consequences for risk perception and decision making. When the judgment is made on the basis of experience or adequate evaluation of the relevant information it provides a more accurate basis (Cook, Noyes & Masakowski, 2007). Representativeness Representativeness is likely to be erroneous due to the ignorance of relevant information that leads to insufficient evaluation of the situation. This situation ultimately leads to a sub-optimal decision making (Cook, Noyes & Masakowski, 2007). Anchor and adjustment The decision making process begins with judgment of the situation being faced. The anchor or the initial value can be evoked by the formulation of the problem, partial computation of the information. In any uncertain situation, profound effect may be displayed by seemingly trivial factors. The anchor process can be influenced by the availability bias since the available information can be quickly and easily recalled ((Cook, Noyes & Masakowski, 2007). Overconfidence In case of over-arching bias of cognitive processing occurs when people becomes overconfident about their judgment, particularly those based on heuristics. There can be a number of mutually exclusive effects on the on risk perception and assessment. The overconfidence bias may lead to reduced perception of risk and erroneous conclusion. Overconfidence can be recognized as the final step in the process of attempting to bring a degree of certainty to an uncertain situation. Therefore overconfidence appears to be mediated by the process of risk denial and illusion of control. This situation can be seen as creating an inappropriate impression such that an individual is less susceptible to the negative consequences associated with risk (Cook, Noyes & Masakowski, 2007). Biases in US Army Corp Engineering The prediction that the Corp will be able to construct future national waterway system traffic is a case of self-serving bias towards large-scale, exclusive, structural solution in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers'. In reply to a appeal from the House Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee during budget discussions, the Corps' Institute for Water Resources assembled a report permitting "Projected and Actual Traffic on Inland Waterways" (Bias in Corps of Engineers Inland Navigation Traffic Forecasts and Recent Congressional Testimony, n.d., p. 1) in August 2000. The report provided a comparison between the projected original waterway traffic for inland waterways across the Nation with the actual traffic levels comprehended on those waterways. General Robert Flowers, the chief of engineers in 15 March 2001 cited that there was no bias in the reports and plans documented by the US Army Corp Engineers. But the self selection examination in the report prepared by the Corp provided evidences on very strong bias. The report focused on the anticipation of the Corp made outside the endorsement of the construction process. The forecast made by the Corp does not have any budgetary risk in the outcome. The reports omits many of the forecast analysis made by the Corp like “supporting authorization of recently authorized, completed, and ongoing large-scale, expensive, structural inland navigation projects in the face of declining or stagnant traffic levels” (Bias in Corps of Engineers Inland Navigation Traffic Forecasts and Recent Congressional Testimony, n.d., p. 1). Few years back US Army Corp was in news since some of their white workers were regularly using racist jokes in presence of black co workers which was affecting their progress in work (Sack, 1997). Managerial Decision Making The US Army Corp Engineer prepared a report that consists of guidelines regarding the planning approaches that matches with the challenges faced by the Corp. Many of the guidelines mentioned in the plan were incorporated when water infrastructure investment was the first priority and there were huge opportunities for erecting civil work projects on the large interstate rivers. Today Corps is in a state that it must preserve and operate a water resource infrastructure that can serve both conventional and renovation purpose. However there is a diminishing trend in the prospect of erecting civil work structures. This issue has been addressed in the report that suggests that some type of reorientation program is necessary within the Corp’s civil work programs that works on planning of water resources. The Corp constructs, activates and maintains the water management infrastructures of the nation. Over the past few years there has been a decline in the construction spending but there is a growth in the backlog of authorization. In near future there will be greater emphasis on the maintenance and operation of the existing infrastructure and a reduced emphasis on investment in the construction of the new infrastructure for flood control and navigation purpose. The emphasis on the operations of the new project will lead to a substantial demand in the federal budget, thus ensuring utility and viability of the past investment. Therefore due to this reason the investment requires much more attention. Keeping this aim in mind the Corps has centered its activities towards portfolio planning. The term portfolio includes both the water and land related resources of river and coastal area of the nation. It also includes the water management infrastructures on the river. On the other hand the term planning signifies the analytical approaches and the processes that involve decision making in order to govern the management and investment strategy. Entering into portfolio does not necessarily means that the Corp will no longer deal with the traditional navigation and management of risk from flood, but it signifies that the present need cannot define how the investment in past projects are operated and new projects are evaluated. The Corp is now reducing the professional staff and budget along with that it is also emphasizing on the responsibilities related to security of the homeland and military actions (US Army Corps of Engineers Water Resources Planning: A new opportunity for service, 2004, pp. 2-3). This case suggests that the US Army Corp has considered the requirement of the situation and has accordingly adopted changes to cater to the crisis situation. Ethics in Decision Making Sustainability results from incorporating of “economic, social and environmental elements” into organizational approaches to meet the needs of both present and future generations. Applying a system to the concept of sustainability enables the US Army Corp Engineer to undertake wise decision making about “financial, human and natural resources” that will ensure fulfilling the future mission. In March 2002, Environmental Operating Principles was adopted by the Corps and since then they became the part of ethical sustainability. The Corps are based on the principle of Environmental sustainability. To support life maintaining a strong, assorted and sustainable condition becomes important. The New Campaign plan of the Corps envisages a great engineering force backed by a team of skilled and highly disciplined people who works along with the partners through a set of thoughts and action in order to deliver pioneering and sustainable solutions that meet the challenges of the nation. Whatever the Corps do sustainable ethics is evident from all the actions, whether it is regarding improving navigation or restoring and renovating the ecosystem (The US Army Corps of Engineers: Engineering solution for a sustainable and secured future, n.d., p. 2) Cross-boundary Decision Making There has been a huge change in the decision environment due to globalization, which has lead to the evolving information environment. The decision environment is defined as the collection of “information, alternatives, goals, values and preferences available at the time of the decision” (O’Sullivan, 2008, p. 123). The parameters like time and resources are always constrain in gathering and analyzing the collected information due to which there is uncertainty regarding the outcome and unintended consequences in decision making. The social and technical development creates opportunities for the government leaders to improve quality, decision and performance. Decision taken by an authoritative single individual no longer works due to the problem of data overloading and increase in the complexities of global cross boundary problems. In many of the interconnected enterprise people have the capacity to contribute decision by collaborating and sharing information across the organizational boundary. Various analytical tools are available using which the leaders can take effective business decision. Due to cross boundary transaction there is a change in the decision environment (O’Sullivan, 2008, pp. 123-124). A descriptive approach is used to describe the steps adopted by the managers in decision making. It addresses the issues like amount of required information, kind of approval required, the commands that must be respected and the time taken to deliver the decision (Phatak, 2006, p. 405). Collaboration efforts adopted by US Army Corps Engineer The restoration project initiated by the Corps may be unable to address the efficient and structural characteristics or it may be unnecessary due to the degree of impairment that is limited to few parameters. Some of the restoration projects only address the symptoms of degradation and not the cause. Proper cautions are to be adopted while dealing with such situation, considering that whether the investment is going to be fruitful or not. Without understanding the situation and its cause and only addressing the disturbance may lead to a reduction in the long term success of the organization. There is an increased need of proper maintenance and operation. It is advantageous to initiate the restoration process in context to the program and objectives that both national watershed and regional water reserve management, with joint collaboration with both Federal and non Federal organizations. Thus collaborative approach ensures successful restoration process. For the ecosystem approach too “involvement of stakeholders, providing opportunities for public involvement, and an increased use of collaborative decision making” (Ecosystem Restoration Supporting Policy information, 1999, p. 15) plays an important role. Collaborative decision making provides a useful way to evaluate the alternatives where there are no monetary gains. Cooperation in cross boundary decision making The “Water Resources Development Act of 1974” states that the engineers of the US Army Corps need to cooperate with the Indian tribes in preparing the design for the “development, utilization, and conservation of water and related land resources” (Ecosystem Restoration Supporting Policy information, 1999, p. 17) that are located within the boundary of Indian subcontinent. Moreover the US Army Corps also encourages cooperative efforts between the Federal and non Federal agencies in order to achieve success in the ecosystem restoration goals. The successful restoration depends on the coordination of the programs among the agencies, which are responsible for managerial decision on the separate components of ecosystem. In addition the cooperation with Federal investment will also lead to the greater achievement of the benefits of the restoration of ecosystem than the individual agencies could have done. Moreover an increased pressure on the financial role of the Federal program has encouraged cooperation. By means of cooperation, the partners are able to utilize the funds in a more effective way. Cooperative efforts include “information and data base sharing, cooperative planning efforts, as well as collaboration in implementation, operation and maintenance, and monitoring activities” (Ecosystem Restoration Supporting Policy information, 1999, p. 18). Use of judgment in decision making Ethical and fair judgment can be established by effectively using the sound decision making. When an organization consistently adopts sound decision making and judgment, the effectiveness and credibility of the organization increases. People and other employees working in the organization will then start relying upon the management decisions taken by the decision makers. Sound judgment is a necessity for successful decision making. Moreover at the same time decision making also plays a vital role in the development of judgment skill. Judgment can be based on biases and assumptions. But good judgment requires the proper analysis of all the facts and data; it should not use opinions and assumptions. While delivering sound judgment the decision maker should consider all the sides of an issue. Partial view may lead to erroneous outcomes. If the decision maker considers only one side view of the issue then that will lead to unnecessary opinions and assumptions that may hamper the judgment. Moreover for effective judgment the decision maker should collect the facts and full description of the issue from the various sources. He should be confirmed that the sources that are providing the information must be balanced (Bednarz, 2012). For US Army Corp Engineering, judgment is related to engineering, which includes “major rehabilitation, assessment of system performance, replacement, maintenance, and other situations that have become unique to each embankment structure and instrument system” (INSTRUMENTATION OF EMBANKMENT DAMS AND LEVEES, 1995, p. 1-2). Conclusion US Army Corps Engineers has a large number of dedicated and skilled soldiers and civilians, who work diligently to strengthen the security of the nation by constructing and maintaining the infrastructure of the nation. The main vision of the organization is to provide innovative and sustainable solutions with a team of highly disciplined individuals to meet the engineering challenges of the nation. The objective of the organization is to energize the economy by developing the waterways so that the commodities may move from one place to another. The organization is also responsible for cleaning the toxic wastes, which are hazardous. In performing these tasks various decisions are to be taken. This study assesses the decision making system of the organization. The organization follows a very effective way of decision making. The organization is showing a sustainable growth in its own field. REFERENCES About Us (2013), US Army Corp of Engineers, February 7, 2013 from http://www.usace.army.mil/About.aspx Bednarz, T.F. (2012) What Does Sound Judgment Have to Do With Decision-Making?. (2012). Retrieved on February 12, 2013 from http://blog.majoriumbusinesspress.com/2012/08/16/what-does-sound-judgment-have-to-do-with-decision-making/ Cook, M. J., Noyes, J. M. & Masakowski, Y. (2007). Decision Making in Complex Environments. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. Ecosystem Restoration Supporting Policy information. (1999). Retrieved on February 13, 2013 from http://publications.usace.army.mil/publications/eng-pamphlets/EP_1165-2-502/EP_1165-2-502.pdf Fulop, J. (n.d.). Introduction to Decision Making Methods. Retrieved on February 7, 2013 from https://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&ved=0CEsQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.86.6292%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&ei=9eMRUaCNAYPJrQexj4CoDg&usg=AFQjCNHQ3VeHogt7Dhz3zbr0ETd9wUa4Fg&bvm=bv.41934586,d.bmk INSTRUMENTATION OF EMBANKMENT DAMS AND LEVEES. (1995). Retrieved on February 13, 2013 from http://140.194.76.129/publications/eng-manuals/EM_1110-2-1908_sec/EM_1110-2-1908.pdf Mission & Vision (2013), US Army Corps of Engineers, February 7, 2013 from http://www.usace.army.mil/About/MissionandVision.aspx O'Sullivan, K. (2008). 5th International Conference on Intellectual Capital, Knowledge Management and Organisational Learning, Academic Conferences Limited Phatak. (2006). International Management. Tata McGraw-Hill Education River Basins and Coastal Systems Planning Within the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (2004). Panel on River Basin and Coastal Systems Planning, Committee to Assess the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Methods of Analysis and Peer Review for Water Resources Project Planning, National Research Council. National Academies Press. Sack, K. (1997), “Army Corps Of Engineers Strikes Accord In Bias Case”, New York Times, retrieved on February 13, 2013 from: http://www.nytimes.com/1997/07/25/us/army-corps-of-engineers-strikes-accord-in-bias-case.html The US Army Corps of Engineers: Engineering solution for a sustainable and secured future. (n.d.). Retrieved on February 13, 2013 from http://www.usace.army.mil/Portals/2/docs/USACE_Sustainability_Brochure.pdf U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Water Resources Planning: A New Opportunity for Service. (2004). Coordinating Committee, Committee to Assess the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Methods of Analysis and Peer Review for Water Resources Project Planning, National Research Council. National Academies Press US Army Corps of Engineers Water Resources Planning: A new opportunity for service. (2004). Retrieved on February 13, 2013 from http://www.aapa-ports.org/files/PDFs/Corps_Rvw_Rpt_0404.pdf Read More