Sloppy Writing Accompanies Flawed Decision Making: USFS and the Courts Dave

In a recent post I mentioned that Forest Service Chief Bosworth might want to hand out a few hundred copies of two classics on clear and definitive writing. But that alone will not begin to address the problems the Forest Service repeatedly faces in court. Another place to begin might be decision making.

Here are two classics on administrative decision making that might accompany any attempt to correct imprecise writing. Both stress the very public and political nature of administrative decisions:
   A Primer on Decision Making: How Decisions Happen. James G. March
    Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making. Deborah Stone

Both books deal with too-narrow and mistaken problem framing. Stone argues that such mistaken framing derives from what she calls "the rationality project." In "rational decision making" decision makers are supposed to follow these well-defined steps:

1. Identify objectives.
   
2. Identify alternative courses of action for achieving objectives.
   
3. Predict the possible consequences of each alternative.
   
4. Evaluate the possible consequences of each alternative.
   
5. Select the alternative that maximizes the attainment of objectives.

As both books point out, the problem is that in real life—the life of political administrative decision making—nothing works out according to "the rationality project" and decisions are not made that way.

It would be good to spend some time discussing decision making in real world contexts, but such a discussion is not likely in the Forest Service any time soon. Instead we'll see mad-dash attempts to build new systems (e.g. most recently Environmental Management Systems), rework process requirements, and almost anything but taking an in-depth look at agency policy making and decision making.