I N F O R M A T I O N AND D E C I S I O N M A K I N G IN H U M A N SERVICES by Thomas P. Holland
The author discusses organizational decision making and the way administrators typically obtain and use information in their daily work. The informal processes o f information collection and utilization are stressed.
Service organizations face increasing demands from consumer groups and funding sources for greater accountability. This i n c l u d e s the e v a l u a t i o n of p r o g r a m performance by explicit criteria. In both public and private institutions, the acceptance of traditional operating procedures is declining and organizations are required to examine their p r o g r a m s against some specific performance measures. Often there are differences of opinion over exactly what results a program is intended to produce as well as the choice of relevant outcome indicators. At the same time, there are conflicting pressures to m o d i f y existing and i m p l e m e n t new procedures in the belief that these will lead to greater achievement of the organization's goals. In order to improve health, educational, and welfare services, planners are developing extensive procedures for obtaining and utilizing information about targeted human
Thomas P. Holland is Associate Professor, School of Applied Social Sciences, Case Western Reserve University.
26
needs and preferences. They are also monitoring and assessing the impacts of alternative approaches. Findings must then be t r a n s m i t t e d to d e c i s i o n m a k e r s a n d administrators for use in modifying and reshaping programs. The processes of collecting, assessing, and utilizing such information are crucial to the design and management of more effective services. In actual practice, however, decisions often seem to be made upon the basis of quite limited information. New information and knowledge often go unrecognized and technically magnificent systems for information retrieval go unused. The field of information systems has extensively addressed the issues of data collection, processing, and presentation. Actual utilization, however, has not been so successfully demonstrated. Originally developed to perform repetitive tasks on large batches of simple figures, data processing systems have been greatly expanded to deal with much more complex types of information. Their potential for contributing to macro-level planning and management decisions was soon recognized. An e l a b o r a t e p r o c e s s i n g t e c h n o l o g y developed, with the capacity for measuring,
storing, and printing out data on a vast range of variables. Unfortunately, the technology seems to have advanced far more rapidly than the ability to use it effectively. It is no secret that widespread disillusionment with the actual use of automated data systems has caused them to be viewed far more critically. Hopefully, such experiences will lead to more realistic expectations of what they can be expected to contribute to the planning, management, and evaluation of human service programs.
There are differences of opinion over what results a program is intended to produce. The author's experiences in developing and :rying to sustain computer-based information systems led to an interest in the all too frequent problem of breakdown after a system has been carefully designed and installed. Reams of print-out fill the shelves, but it has little impact on staff, except perhaps to aggravate their burdens of collecting and processing the data. Why is there so consistently this "slip between the cup and the lip?" What can be done to make the technology more useful? The literature on information systems and decision making describes numerous rational and normative models. Many of these rest upon such questionable assumptions as: (1) an organization has a single objective toward which all activities are oriented; and (2) decisions are made with perfect or near perfect knowledge of options and consequences (Edward and Tversky 1967; Papandreou 1952). N e i t h e r a s s u m p t i o n a d e q u a t e l y describes the actual functioning of organizations. At a less abstract level, others approach this area by assuming the constraints of automated data processing systems and then considering how managers should adapt themselves to efficient use of the technology (Brady et al 1975). The influences and constraints upon managers seem to be far more complex than
generally recognized in such literature. Hence, this article explores alternative frameworks for describing how human service organizations actually use information and arrive at decisions. Particular attention is paid to decision making by managers and staff in their daily operations as well as to some of the implications for the design of information systems.
A DESCRIPTIVE FRAMEWORK OF ORGANIZATIONAL DECISION MAKING Goals and Decisions An organization is a coalition of individuals grouped into subcoalitions and managed by a dominant coalition. The participants are likely to have quite divergent motivations and goals. The organization arrives at some overall goals through bargaining and compromise among the coalitions. The derived goals are subsequently stabilized and elaborated through internal organizational processes of social control. Coalition agreements are adjusted and modified over time in response to environmental changes (Dahrendorf 1958; Cyert and March 1974). Rather than a single, well specified objective, most organizations have several objectives somewhat imperfectly rationalized in terms of broad, vague, general goals. Certain groups in the coalition have a dominant influence over resources. This control is accompanied by a definition of the organizational tasks which in turn rationalizes the allocation of assignments to divisions or
New information often goes unrecognized and technically magnificent systems for information retrieval go unused. groups within the organization as well as the rewards they receive. 27
Among the essential requirements for the attainment of organizational goals is a system that will take in information about the organization's activities and its environment, filter, process, and communicate such information, and render decisions that guide the behavior of the participants. This system follows more or tess regular patterns or sequences. These organizational processes are shaped by such factors as the distribution of influence among participants, the negotiated objectives, commonly accepted operating procedures for work, and general guidelines for responding to novel situations (Katz and Kahn 1966).
Management of Uncertainty The administrative center of an organization seeks to cope with and control the diversity of the participant's interests as well as the numerous uncertain environmental influences upon the organization. Routines and procedures are thus set up that categorize and regulate the activities of the participants. T h e system of organizational control includes such components as patterns for performing tasks, channels for handling information, and procedures for handling novel situations. These components may be more or less standardized into rules or standard operating procedures. Standardization of work tasks is a major method of coping with program uncertainty and increasing predictability and control in any i1(i
ii
Standardization is a major method of coping with program uncertainty. organization (Etzioni 1964; Perrow 1970). The extent to which activites may be routinized is related to a number of factors. P e r r o w (1970) suggests two c r u c i a l considerations: (I) the degree of specificity of the technology utilized, and (2) the extent of uniformity and stability of the objects or 28
material with which the organization deals. Where techniques are well specified and materials are uniform (such as in a basic industry) the decisions are fewer and mainly involve selection among known alternatives. Conversely, when either the technology is not well developed or the objects are not uniform or well understood, the necessity to search for alternative responses is increased. This latter case is more typical of educational social welfare, and health care organizations, that provide individualized services to diverse groups. A crucial Consequence of standardization and the division of tasks in an organization is that each unit deals with only a limited set of problems and a limited set of objectives. Thus, the organization can avoid rationalizing every activity in terms of a single goal or solving every problem at once. A basic task of management is to oversee the activities of all the divisions and to maintain some acceptable d e g r e e of overall p r o d u c t i v i t y and coordination.
Decision Making and Planning A cross-sectional examination of the decisions in any organization may reveal an apparently illogical and inconsistent order. Each organizational unit is likely to respond to problems or conflicting pressures by acting sequentially toward its goals, solving one problem at a time. The emphasis is upon a short-run reaction to immediate feedback rather than the development of long-run strategies or plans in anticipation of uncertain future events (Lindblom 1965; Cyert and March 1964). The major preparation by the total organization for possible future events is made through a number of control devices for stabilizing the environment as much as possible. Contracts with external agencies represent one such means of coping with uncertainty in the external environment. Internal planning processes such as budgeting
provide a negotiated internal stability. In sum, organizations achieve a reasonably manageable decision situation by avoiding planning where plans depend upon prediction of uncertain future events and by emphasizing planning where plans can be made self-confirming through some controll device (Cyert and March 1963). Information Search The search for information in an organization is stimulated when it encounters a specific problem that requires a solution. Such solutions generally involve incremental adaptations to problems rather than optimal solutions. The discovery and selection of optimal alternative solutions require procedures far more complex than merely finding satisfactory ones (Taylor 1965; C h a r n e s and C o o p e r 1958). T h u s , organizational problem solving must be distinguished from the more abstract search for knowledge that characterizes academic research or the more rational sequences underlying management information systems (Guetzkow 1959; Havelock 1970). An organization or an individual recognizes a problem when a barrier to the satisfaction of some objective is encountered or anticipated. The response tends to be a sequential review and selection among familiar concepts or skills on the basis of their direct contribution to solving the problem. The problem may be resolved either by discovering an acceptable alternative that satisfies the goal or by revising the goal to a level that makes an available alternative acceptable. As soon as a satisfactory solution is found, search will cease (March and Simon 1967; Cyert and March 1964) and with it the interest in the system that provided information for the search. Besides requiring the existence of a problem, organizational search is likely to be restricted and parsimonious. It will be confined to
straightforward and familiar explanations of the problem until these are no longer satisfactory. F u r t h e r search will then emphasize those explanations closely associated with the problem symptom and as closely related as possible to current organizational responses. Only when familiar causal assumptions are unsuccessful will the organization consider more distant or novel responses (Perrow 1970). The screen through which organizational participants view and assess alternatives is biased by their own training, values, interests, and goals. Proposed solutions are filtered on the basis of their proximity to existing goals and their potential for minimal disturbance to existing assumptions and distributions of influence. Such screens serve both to ward off
Only when familiar assumptions are unsuccessful will the organization consider more novel responses. new explanations and to maintain the existing structure and repertoires of behavior (Mannheim 1952). As central problems go unresolved, rival explanations and proposals begin to compete for dominance. The biases and interest of the various subcoalitions influence the ensuing search and negotiations. As Berger and Luckmann (1967) suggest, the usefulness of any proposal is demonstrated not so much by virtue as by its applicability to the political interests of the sponsoring group. Innovation Departures from traditional practice in an organization are closely related to changes in its e n v i r o n m e n t t h a t m a k e e x i s t i n g assumptions and procedures unsatisfactory. Hence, one would expect greater efforts toward innovation in an organization whose resources are declining. The relative attention paid by management to information as well as 29
the extent of the dissatisfaction may vary. Nevertheless, it may be anticipated that i n n o v a t i o n will take place following recognition of the organization's diminishing social acceptability or other basic threats to its continued operation (March and Simon 1967; Glazer undated). The organization's search for adaptive responses to such threats will be heavily influenced by several factors: the nature and accessibility of new ideas and information; the communication structure through which information and proposals are presented to decision makers; the timing and sequence in which such data are presented. The types of ideas considered will be influenced by the differential interests of participants who encounter new information and the selective filtering of data during its transmission through the organization. As p r e v i o u s l y d e s c r i b e d , i n c r e a s e d awareness of a problem first brings forth solutions from among the familiar repertoires of the participants. The greater the problem, the wider the number of participants searching for alternatives and the greater diversity and innovativeness of the solutions considered (March and Simon 1967). Alternative proposals are examined sequentially and screened on the basis of their proximity to previous assumptions and procedures, as well as by their familiarity and acceptability as a solution to the problem (Katz and Kahn 1966). Over time, organizations adapt to changes in their environment and arrive at acceptable levels of goal attainment. Such negotiated stability or equilibrium is temporary and is in a continual state of change. Changes may occur in organizational goals, in responses to environmental changes, and in the processes by which it searches out solutions to problems. An organization may learn to pay attention to certain indicators and ignore others, or to observe closely some parts of its environment and avoid others (Cyert and March 1964). Likewise, the organization may develop more effective procedures for communicating such 30
information internally, classifying it, and utilizing it in decision making.
SOME IMPLICATIONS FOR ORGANIZATIONAL INFORMATION SYSTEMS A basic stimulus for examining information g a t h e r i n g a n d utilization systems in organizations is the need for some concepts and strategies to guide attempts at intervention into such systems. The design and management of more effective human service programs is strongly dependent upon u n d e r s t a n d i n g the m e t h o d s of active intervention in ongoing organizational processes. This is necessary to develop more adaptive and responsive systems for (1) goal formulation, (2) environmental scanning for goal-relevant information, (3) searching among new knowledge sources for alternative responses to problems, and (4) decision making to maximize desired outcomes.
Recognition of Problem There are a number of ways that organizations can strengthen their capacities to obtain, assess, and utilize information for decision m a k i n g . R e c o g n i t i o n by the organization's participants, particularly top administration, of the crucial influence of i n f o r m a t i o n u p o n decisions and the achievement of goals, is an essential component for organizational development in this area. Without such top level support, efforts to i m p r o v e the organization's information system are doomed.
Without top level support, efforts to improve the organization's information system are doomed. Human service organizations do not often examine their decision making processes or the
information they need. However, pressures for accountability and results as well as declining resources are likely to increase the frequency and extent of such self examination.
Building Upon Existing Systems Rather than assuming that a totally new information system is needed, the emphasis should be on developing the existing informal i n f o r m a t i o n h a n d l i n g p r o c e d u r e s and strengthening the organization's decision making processes. The initial focus should be toward identifying the problems in the existing system that make it unsatisfactory. While the systems designer may have some grand plan in mind, few organizations will sustain the costs necessary to operate such a system. Hence, the designer must move at the organization's pace and develop incremental adjustments in the existing system. While the "grand design" may provide a framework for his operations, the needs of others in the organization will constrain his contributions to a level that they feel is acceptable and feasible. The development of an information system should therefore be done gradually with i n c r e m e n t a l a d j u s t m e n t s in e x i s t i n g procedures. This is preferable to directly adopting some new pre-packaged, automated information system. Such an approach reduces the extent to which organizational change is necessary and can help reduce resistance to the change. The frequency with which elaborate automated systems fall into disuse underscores the necessity for caution and giving careful thought to the actual needs of the users. Incremental extensions of existing information handling procedures appear much more likely to survive and actually be used, despite their technical inelegance (Dearden 1965). The frustration of the information system designer over this incompatibility between the "real and ideal" must be acknowledged. For example, the exchange of data and comparison
of variables across o r g a n i z a t i o n s are important to the system designer and perhaps also to some state and federal planners. But to the administrator of a particular organization, information for other purposes may have a higher priority. Obviously, the resources necessary to implement the designer's objectives will be available only if more immediate organizational priorities are satisfied. Even the public planners are likely to find themselves constrained by political factors, regardless of what the "facts" seem to show. Probably the best to be hoped for is the slow improvement of decisions through the gradual application of systematic information to the issues at hand.
A good system willprovide what is needed when it will be needed. Another source of disillusionment with some formal information systems is their tendency to provide managers with large volumes of data on everything quantifiable while omitting more qualitative information that may be highly relevant to decision m a k i n g . This i n c l u d e s s u c h c r i t i c a l information as priorities and values in the external environment, internal capacity and performance indicators, and the more familiar service inputs and process factors (O'Brien and Service 1973; Spencer 1962). Such factors may be o n l y p a r t i a l l y q u a n t i f i a b l e . M o s t administrators intuitively distrust information that purports to reduce decisions to single indicators. Their protests regarding the uniqueness of their situation compared with all others are familiar. It may be a better approach to frankly acknowledge that there are some things that a formal information system cannot do, some things that will continue to depend upon the administrator's judgment. A system can provide information on some factors routinely and others on demand, but when and how attention will be paid to such information will probably always be an 31
administrative decision. A good system will provide what is needed when it is needed, with the recognition that its users will filter the output through numerous subjective screens.
Specifying Information Needs The information development process should begin in a particular problem area of the organization. It should involve front-line staff in the detailed examination and analysis of decisions actually being made as well as the nature, types, and sources of information currently utilized in handling the problem. This would be followed by the staff's specification of the information needed to facilitate a more satisfactory solution. The anlaysis would locate potential sources of such needed information, and specify how, in what form, and to whom such information would be maximally useful. This would include the internal monitoring of current operations and the collection of new information for extending the range of alternative responses available to participants (Daniel 1961). The system so developed may include only limited use of automated processes in combination with manual and individualized procedures.
Developing Collection and Processing Capacities Having determined the nature and sources of needed and useful information, the developmental process would next examine the organization's procedures for scanning, collecting, filtering, and routing information. Such analysis would locate the most appropriate points at which information might be gathered and determine the most efficient and effective methods for condensing and distributing it (Dearden 1965). Wherever possible, such procedures should attempt to build up existing methods of handling information before making new demands 32
upon personnel. Information should be summarized and presented to users in forms that are readily understandable, relevant to their needs, and available on time to answer their questions (O'Brien and Service 1973). Large amounts of quantifiable data may be handled by c o m p u t e r i z a t i o n but m o r e q u a l i t a t i v e information is less amenable to automation and requires a more imaginative and individualized approach. F o l l o w i n g the d e s i g n and i n i t i a l implementation of new or revised information
I f the system is working well, its users shouM be strongly motivated to support it. handling procedures, the development task is not complete without extensive testing and close monitoring. Breakdowns will occur in the early stages, particularly as the revised procedures involve more extensive departures from prior practice. If the system is working well, its users should be strongly motivated to support it (Spencer 1962).
Supporting Innovation The programs of a human service organization should be responsive to changes in its environment and therefore in its goals. For this reason, specific resources should be allocated for continuous scanning of the environment to draw new knowledge and innovative ideas into the organization. Informal reliance upon staff initiatives or the organization's own research department is not sufficient for bringing new information into most organizations (Glaser undated). As Larsen and Nichols (1972) report, the utilization of new information in human service organizations is strongly related to specific administrative policies that encourage and support innovation. Their studies indicate that exposure to new information through such methods as attending conferences and
workshops is a major source of innovative ideas. New concepts lead to further interest and attention to new information. The purposeful collection and communication of new information throughout an organization can serve to bring about change by suggesting solutions to immediate problems and by raising the aspiration level of participants. This can lead to the consideration of more effective and efficient methods for attaining the organization's goals.
Conclusions The development of more effective human services requires close attention to information gathering and decision making. These are shaped by the goals and values of the participants in the organization as well as by the problems and uncertainties inherent in providing services. When problems are encountered, a review of information and a search for new solutions are begun. Available alternatives are sequentially considered and filtered through the communications network of the organization and through the values of the participants. In most organizations, the collection and use of information is basically an informalprocess and decision making is far from routine or rational in the usual sense of that term. The kinds of information most often used in planning and management decisions are usually not collected in any systematic manner and are only partially quantifiable. Examples include individual values, benefits, priorities, previous experience with an activity, perceived capacity and readiness of staff to move, consumer preferences, and other very elusive areas. Most decision making is heavily influenced, if not determined, by filters composed of political and value factors. They are oriented toward several objectives simultaneously, only some of which are overt, explicit, and consistent with other organizational goals.
Automated information systems usually involve the superimposition of a rational process upon these basically quasi-rational procedures. Breakdowns occur where the quantitative and routinized aspects of the technical system do not fit with the qualitative needs of decision makers. In order to be more effective, systems designers must take into account such reality factors. This implies a m o r e holistic view of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l functioning and a more limited and realistic expectation of where and to what extent decision making can be enhanced by automated data systems. It also underscores the crucial need for more sensitive attention to analyzing the information needs of organizational users prior to designing and introducing any new procedures. Strengthening and extending systems requires a detailed examination of decision making points in the organization. It also requires a specification of the nature and types of information needed at each point. Such systems will include a range of information objective and subjective, quantitative and qualitative. Likewise, the procedures for collecting and processing information will include formal routinized and informal individualized components. This approach to information systems development requires a wide range of technical, administrative, and social science skills. While admonitions are often given to administrators on their need for technical experts, the reverse is equally true if we are to avoid situations where the "operation" was a success but the "patient" died. The development of multi-faceted systems for scanning, collecting, transmitting, and using a variety of information will produce a more extensive range of alternatives for decision making. Management effectiveness can be strengthened through the availability of new options for choice. The systematic utilization of new knowledge can thus serve to enhance and guide organizational change.
33
REFERENCES Berger, P.L., and Luckmann, T. The Social Construction of Reality. New York: Anchor, 1967. Boulding, K., ed. Conflict Management in Organizations. Ann Arbor: Foundation for Research on Human Behavior, 1961. Brady, R.W., et al. Administrative Data Processing: The Casefor Executive Management Involvement. Boulder, Colorado: National Center for Higher Education Management Systems, 1975. Charnes, A., and Cooper, W.W. The theory of search: optimum distribution of search effort. Management Science, 5: 44-50, 1959. Coser, R.L. Authority and decision making in a hospital. American Sociological Review,23 (1): 56-63, 1958. Cyert, R.M., and March, J.G. A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: PrenticeHall, t964. Daniel, D.R. Management information crisis. Harvard Business Review, 39:111-12t, 1961. Dearden, J. How to organize information systems. Harvard Business Review 43: 65-73, 1965. 34
Edwards, W., and Tversky, A., eds. Decision Making. Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1967. Etzioni, A. Modern Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1964. Gtaser, E.M. " K n o w l e d g e Transfer and Institutional Change." Human Interaction Research Institute, Los Angeles. (Unpublished manuscript). Guetzkow, H. Conversion barriers in using the social sciences. Administrative Science Quarterly, 4 (1): 68-81, 1959. Havelock, R.G. Planning for Innovation through Dissemination and Utilization of Knowledge. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1970. Havelock, R.G. "Research Utilization in Four Federal Agencies." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting, American Psychological Association, Honolulu, Hawaii, 1971. Katz, D., and Kahn, R.L. The Social Psychology of Organizations. New York: Wiley, 1966. Kitchel, J.M. (ed.). Knowledge Production and Utilization in Educational Administration. Eugene, Ore.: Center for the Advanced Study of Educational Administration, 1968. Larson, J.K., and Nichols, D.G. If nobody knows you've done it, have you? Evaluation, 1:39-44, 1972.
Lindblom, C.E. The Intelligence of Democracy:
Decision Making through Mutual Adjustment. New York: Free Press, 1965. Lupton, T. Management and the Social Sciences. Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1971. Manneheim, K. Ideology and Utopia. New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1952. March, J.G., and Simon, H.A. Organizations. New York: Wiley, 1967. McRae, T.W., ed. Management Information Systems. Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1971. O'Brien, G.M. Research utilization in program design, Welfare in Review, 10(2): 1-10. 1972. O'Brien, G.M., and Service, A.L. "A Decision Support System for Community Mental Health." Human Services Design Laboratory, School of Applied Social Sciences, Case Western Reserve University, 1973. (Unpublished manuscript) Papandreou, A.G. Some basic problems in the theory of the firm. In: Haley, B.F., ed. A Survey of Contemporary Economics. Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, 1952. Perrow, C. Organizational Analysis: A Sociological View. Belmont, Calif."Wadsworth, 1970.
Shaw, M.E. Some effects of unequal distribution of information upon group performance in various communication nets. Journal of Social Psychology, 49: 547-553, 1954. Simon, H.A. Administrative Behavior. New York: MacMillan, 1957. Simon, H.A. A behavioral model of rational choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69: 99118, 1955. Spencer, S.A. The dark at the top of the stairs. Management Review, 51: 4-12, 1962. Street, D., Vinter, R.D., and Perrow, C. Organization of Treatment. New York: Free Press, 1966. Taylor, D.W. Decision making and problem solving. In: March, J.G., ed. Handbook of Organizations. Chicago: Rand-McNally, 1965. Thomas, J.M., and Bennis, W.G., eds. Management of Change and Conflict. Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1972. Welsch, L.A., and Cyert, R.M., eds. Management Decision Making. Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1971.
A D M I N I S T R A T I O N IN MENTAL HEALTH
35
The author discusses organizational decision making and the way administrators typically obtain and use information in their daily work. The informal processes o f information collection and utilization are stressed.
Service organizations face increasing demands from consumer groups and funding sources for greater accountability. This i n c l u d e s the e v a l u a t i o n of p r o g r a m performance by explicit criteria. In both public and private institutions, the acceptance of traditional operating procedures is declining and organizations are required to examine their p r o g r a m s against some specific performance measures. Often there are differences of opinion over exactly what results a program is intended to produce as well as the choice of relevant outcome indicators. At the same time, there are conflicting pressures to m o d i f y existing and i m p l e m e n t new procedures in the belief that these will lead to greater achievement of the organization's goals. In order to improve health, educational, and welfare services, planners are developing extensive procedures for obtaining and utilizing information about targeted human
Thomas P. Holland is Associate Professor, School of Applied Social Sciences, Case Western Reserve University.
26
needs and preferences. They are also monitoring and assessing the impacts of alternative approaches. Findings must then be t r a n s m i t t e d to d e c i s i o n m a k e r s a n d administrators for use in modifying and reshaping programs. The processes of collecting, assessing, and utilizing such information are crucial to the design and management of more effective services. In actual practice, however, decisions often seem to be made upon the basis of quite limited information. New information and knowledge often go unrecognized and technically magnificent systems for information retrieval go unused. The field of information systems has extensively addressed the issues of data collection, processing, and presentation. Actual utilization, however, has not been so successfully demonstrated. Originally developed to perform repetitive tasks on large batches of simple figures, data processing systems have been greatly expanded to deal with much more complex types of information. Their potential for contributing to macro-level planning and management decisions was soon recognized. An e l a b o r a t e p r o c e s s i n g t e c h n o l o g y developed, with the capacity for measuring,
storing, and printing out data on a vast range of variables. Unfortunately, the technology seems to have advanced far more rapidly than the ability to use it effectively. It is no secret that widespread disillusionment with the actual use of automated data systems has caused them to be viewed far more critically. Hopefully, such experiences will lead to more realistic expectations of what they can be expected to contribute to the planning, management, and evaluation of human service programs.
There are differences of opinion over what results a program is intended to produce. The author's experiences in developing and :rying to sustain computer-based information systems led to an interest in the all too frequent problem of breakdown after a system has been carefully designed and installed. Reams of print-out fill the shelves, but it has little impact on staff, except perhaps to aggravate their burdens of collecting and processing the data. Why is there so consistently this "slip between the cup and the lip?" What can be done to make the technology more useful? The literature on information systems and decision making describes numerous rational and normative models. Many of these rest upon such questionable assumptions as: (1) an organization has a single objective toward which all activities are oriented; and (2) decisions are made with perfect or near perfect knowledge of options and consequences (Edward and Tversky 1967; Papandreou 1952). N e i t h e r a s s u m p t i o n a d e q u a t e l y describes the actual functioning of organizations. At a less abstract level, others approach this area by assuming the constraints of automated data processing systems and then considering how managers should adapt themselves to efficient use of the technology (Brady et al 1975). The influences and constraints upon managers seem to be far more complex than
generally recognized in such literature. Hence, this article explores alternative frameworks for describing how human service organizations actually use information and arrive at decisions. Particular attention is paid to decision making by managers and staff in their daily operations as well as to some of the implications for the design of information systems.
A DESCRIPTIVE FRAMEWORK OF ORGANIZATIONAL DECISION MAKING Goals and Decisions An organization is a coalition of individuals grouped into subcoalitions and managed by a dominant coalition. The participants are likely to have quite divergent motivations and goals. The organization arrives at some overall goals through bargaining and compromise among the coalitions. The derived goals are subsequently stabilized and elaborated through internal organizational processes of social control. Coalition agreements are adjusted and modified over time in response to environmental changes (Dahrendorf 1958; Cyert and March 1974). Rather than a single, well specified objective, most organizations have several objectives somewhat imperfectly rationalized in terms of broad, vague, general goals. Certain groups in the coalition have a dominant influence over resources. This control is accompanied by a definition of the organizational tasks which in turn rationalizes the allocation of assignments to divisions or
New information often goes unrecognized and technically magnificent systems for information retrieval go unused. groups within the organization as well as the rewards they receive. 27
Among the essential requirements for the attainment of organizational goals is a system that will take in information about the organization's activities and its environment, filter, process, and communicate such information, and render decisions that guide the behavior of the participants. This system follows more or tess regular patterns or sequences. These organizational processes are shaped by such factors as the distribution of influence among participants, the negotiated objectives, commonly accepted operating procedures for work, and general guidelines for responding to novel situations (Katz and Kahn 1966).
Management of Uncertainty The administrative center of an organization seeks to cope with and control the diversity of the participant's interests as well as the numerous uncertain environmental influences upon the organization. Routines and procedures are thus set up that categorize and regulate the activities of the participants. T h e system of organizational control includes such components as patterns for performing tasks, channels for handling information, and procedures for handling novel situations. These components may be more or less standardized into rules or standard operating procedures. Standardization of work tasks is a major method of coping with program uncertainty and increasing predictability and control in any i1(i
ii
Standardization is a major method of coping with program uncertainty. organization (Etzioni 1964; Perrow 1970). The extent to which activites may be routinized is related to a number of factors. P e r r o w (1970) suggests two c r u c i a l considerations: (I) the degree of specificity of the technology utilized, and (2) the extent of uniformity and stability of the objects or 28
material with which the organization deals. Where techniques are well specified and materials are uniform (such as in a basic industry) the decisions are fewer and mainly involve selection among known alternatives. Conversely, when either the technology is not well developed or the objects are not uniform or well understood, the necessity to search for alternative responses is increased. This latter case is more typical of educational social welfare, and health care organizations, that provide individualized services to diverse groups. A crucial Consequence of standardization and the division of tasks in an organization is that each unit deals with only a limited set of problems and a limited set of objectives. Thus, the organization can avoid rationalizing every activity in terms of a single goal or solving every problem at once. A basic task of management is to oversee the activities of all the divisions and to maintain some acceptable d e g r e e of overall p r o d u c t i v i t y and coordination.
Decision Making and Planning A cross-sectional examination of the decisions in any organization may reveal an apparently illogical and inconsistent order. Each organizational unit is likely to respond to problems or conflicting pressures by acting sequentially toward its goals, solving one problem at a time. The emphasis is upon a short-run reaction to immediate feedback rather than the development of long-run strategies or plans in anticipation of uncertain future events (Lindblom 1965; Cyert and March 1964). The major preparation by the total organization for possible future events is made through a number of control devices for stabilizing the environment as much as possible. Contracts with external agencies represent one such means of coping with uncertainty in the external environment. Internal planning processes such as budgeting
provide a negotiated internal stability. In sum, organizations achieve a reasonably manageable decision situation by avoiding planning where plans depend upon prediction of uncertain future events and by emphasizing planning where plans can be made self-confirming through some controll device (Cyert and March 1963). Information Search The search for information in an organization is stimulated when it encounters a specific problem that requires a solution. Such solutions generally involve incremental adaptations to problems rather than optimal solutions. The discovery and selection of optimal alternative solutions require procedures far more complex than merely finding satisfactory ones (Taylor 1965; C h a r n e s and C o o p e r 1958). T h u s , organizational problem solving must be distinguished from the more abstract search for knowledge that characterizes academic research or the more rational sequences underlying management information systems (Guetzkow 1959; Havelock 1970). An organization or an individual recognizes a problem when a barrier to the satisfaction of some objective is encountered or anticipated. The response tends to be a sequential review and selection among familiar concepts or skills on the basis of their direct contribution to solving the problem. The problem may be resolved either by discovering an acceptable alternative that satisfies the goal or by revising the goal to a level that makes an available alternative acceptable. As soon as a satisfactory solution is found, search will cease (March and Simon 1967; Cyert and March 1964) and with it the interest in the system that provided information for the search. Besides requiring the existence of a problem, organizational search is likely to be restricted and parsimonious. It will be confined to
straightforward and familiar explanations of the problem until these are no longer satisfactory. F u r t h e r search will then emphasize those explanations closely associated with the problem symptom and as closely related as possible to current organizational responses. Only when familiar causal assumptions are unsuccessful will the organization consider more distant or novel responses (Perrow 1970). The screen through which organizational participants view and assess alternatives is biased by their own training, values, interests, and goals. Proposed solutions are filtered on the basis of their proximity to existing goals and their potential for minimal disturbance to existing assumptions and distributions of influence. Such screens serve both to ward off
Only when familiar assumptions are unsuccessful will the organization consider more novel responses. new explanations and to maintain the existing structure and repertoires of behavior (Mannheim 1952). As central problems go unresolved, rival explanations and proposals begin to compete for dominance. The biases and interest of the various subcoalitions influence the ensuing search and negotiations. As Berger and Luckmann (1967) suggest, the usefulness of any proposal is demonstrated not so much by virtue as by its applicability to the political interests of the sponsoring group. Innovation Departures from traditional practice in an organization are closely related to changes in its e n v i r o n m e n t t h a t m a k e e x i s t i n g assumptions and procedures unsatisfactory. Hence, one would expect greater efforts toward innovation in an organization whose resources are declining. The relative attention paid by management to information as well as 29
the extent of the dissatisfaction may vary. Nevertheless, it may be anticipated that i n n o v a t i o n will take place following recognition of the organization's diminishing social acceptability or other basic threats to its continued operation (March and Simon 1967; Glazer undated). The organization's search for adaptive responses to such threats will be heavily influenced by several factors: the nature and accessibility of new ideas and information; the communication structure through which information and proposals are presented to decision makers; the timing and sequence in which such data are presented. The types of ideas considered will be influenced by the differential interests of participants who encounter new information and the selective filtering of data during its transmission through the organization. As p r e v i o u s l y d e s c r i b e d , i n c r e a s e d awareness of a problem first brings forth solutions from among the familiar repertoires of the participants. The greater the problem, the wider the number of participants searching for alternatives and the greater diversity and innovativeness of the solutions considered (March and Simon 1967). Alternative proposals are examined sequentially and screened on the basis of their proximity to previous assumptions and procedures, as well as by their familiarity and acceptability as a solution to the problem (Katz and Kahn 1966). Over time, organizations adapt to changes in their environment and arrive at acceptable levels of goal attainment. Such negotiated stability or equilibrium is temporary and is in a continual state of change. Changes may occur in organizational goals, in responses to environmental changes, and in the processes by which it searches out solutions to problems. An organization may learn to pay attention to certain indicators and ignore others, or to observe closely some parts of its environment and avoid others (Cyert and March 1964). Likewise, the organization may develop more effective procedures for communicating such 30
information internally, classifying it, and utilizing it in decision making.
SOME IMPLICATIONS FOR ORGANIZATIONAL INFORMATION SYSTEMS A basic stimulus for examining information g a t h e r i n g a n d utilization systems in organizations is the need for some concepts and strategies to guide attempts at intervention into such systems. The design and management of more effective human service programs is strongly dependent upon u n d e r s t a n d i n g the m e t h o d s of active intervention in ongoing organizational processes. This is necessary to develop more adaptive and responsive systems for (1) goal formulation, (2) environmental scanning for goal-relevant information, (3) searching among new knowledge sources for alternative responses to problems, and (4) decision making to maximize desired outcomes.
Recognition of Problem There are a number of ways that organizations can strengthen their capacities to obtain, assess, and utilize information for decision m a k i n g . R e c o g n i t i o n by the organization's participants, particularly top administration, of the crucial influence of i n f o r m a t i o n u p o n decisions and the achievement of goals, is an essential component for organizational development in this area. Without such top level support, efforts to i m p r o v e the organization's information system are doomed.
Without top level support, efforts to improve the organization's information system are doomed. Human service organizations do not often examine their decision making processes or the
information they need. However, pressures for accountability and results as well as declining resources are likely to increase the frequency and extent of such self examination.
Building Upon Existing Systems Rather than assuming that a totally new information system is needed, the emphasis should be on developing the existing informal i n f o r m a t i o n h a n d l i n g p r o c e d u r e s and strengthening the organization's decision making processes. The initial focus should be toward identifying the problems in the existing system that make it unsatisfactory. While the systems designer may have some grand plan in mind, few organizations will sustain the costs necessary to operate such a system. Hence, the designer must move at the organization's pace and develop incremental adjustments in the existing system. While the "grand design" may provide a framework for his operations, the needs of others in the organization will constrain his contributions to a level that they feel is acceptable and feasible. The development of an information system should therefore be done gradually with i n c r e m e n t a l a d j u s t m e n t s in e x i s t i n g procedures. This is preferable to directly adopting some new pre-packaged, automated information system. Such an approach reduces the extent to which organizational change is necessary and can help reduce resistance to the change. The frequency with which elaborate automated systems fall into disuse underscores the necessity for caution and giving careful thought to the actual needs of the users. Incremental extensions of existing information handling procedures appear much more likely to survive and actually be used, despite their technical inelegance (Dearden 1965). The frustration of the information system designer over this incompatibility between the "real and ideal" must be acknowledged. For example, the exchange of data and comparison
of variables across o r g a n i z a t i o n s are important to the system designer and perhaps also to some state and federal planners. But to the administrator of a particular organization, information for other purposes may have a higher priority. Obviously, the resources necessary to implement the designer's objectives will be available only if more immediate organizational priorities are satisfied. Even the public planners are likely to find themselves constrained by political factors, regardless of what the "facts" seem to show. Probably the best to be hoped for is the slow improvement of decisions through the gradual application of systematic information to the issues at hand.
A good system willprovide what is needed when it will be needed. Another source of disillusionment with some formal information systems is their tendency to provide managers with large volumes of data on everything quantifiable while omitting more qualitative information that may be highly relevant to decision m a k i n g . This i n c l u d e s s u c h c r i t i c a l information as priorities and values in the external environment, internal capacity and performance indicators, and the more familiar service inputs and process factors (O'Brien and Service 1973; Spencer 1962). Such factors may be o n l y p a r t i a l l y q u a n t i f i a b l e . M o s t administrators intuitively distrust information that purports to reduce decisions to single indicators. Their protests regarding the uniqueness of their situation compared with all others are familiar. It may be a better approach to frankly acknowledge that there are some things that a formal information system cannot do, some things that will continue to depend upon the administrator's judgment. A system can provide information on some factors routinely and others on demand, but when and how attention will be paid to such information will probably always be an 31
administrative decision. A good system will provide what is needed when it is needed, with the recognition that its users will filter the output through numerous subjective screens.
Specifying Information Needs The information development process should begin in a particular problem area of the organization. It should involve front-line staff in the detailed examination and analysis of decisions actually being made as well as the nature, types, and sources of information currently utilized in handling the problem. This would be followed by the staff's specification of the information needed to facilitate a more satisfactory solution. The anlaysis would locate potential sources of such needed information, and specify how, in what form, and to whom such information would be maximally useful. This would include the internal monitoring of current operations and the collection of new information for extending the range of alternative responses available to participants (Daniel 1961). The system so developed may include only limited use of automated processes in combination with manual and individualized procedures.
Developing Collection and Processing Capacities Having determined the nature and sources of needed and useful information, the developmental process would next examine the organization's procedures for scanning, collecting, filtering, and routing information. Such analysis would locate the most appropriate points at which information might be gathered and determine the most efficient and effective methods for condensing and distributing it (Dearden 1965). Wherever possible, such procedures should attempt to build up existing methods of handling information before making new demands 32
upon personnel. Information should be summarized and presented to users in forms that are readily understandable, relevant to their needs, and available on time to answer their questions (O'Brien and Service 1973). Large amounts of quantifiable data may be handled by c o m p u t e r i z a t i o n but m o r e q u a l i t a t i v e information is less amenable to automation and requires a more imaginative and individualized approach. F o l l o w i n g the d e s i g n and i n i t i a l implementation of new or revised information
I f the system is working well, its users shouM be strongly motivated to support it. handling procedures, the development task is not complete without extensive testing and close monitoring. Breakdowns will occur in the early stages, particularly as the revised procedures involve more extensive departures from prior practice. If the system is working well, its users should be strongly motivated to support it (Spencer 1962).
Supporting Innovation The programs of a human service organization should be responsive to changes in its environment and therefore in its goals. For this reason, specific resources should be allocated for continuous scanning of the environment to draw new knowledge and innovative ideas into the organization. Informal reliance upon staff initiatives or the organization's own research department is not sufficient for bringing new information into most organizations (Glaser undated). As Larsen and Nichols (1972) report, the utilization of new information in human service organizations is strongly related to specific administrative policies that encourage and support innovation. Their studies indicate that exposure to new information through such methods as attending conferences and
workshops is a major source of innovative ideas. New concepts lead to further interest and attention to new information. The purposeful collection and communication of new information throughout an organization can serve to bring about change by suggesting solutions to immediate problems and by raising the aspiration level of participants. This can lead to the consideration of more effective and efficient methods for attaining the organization's goals.
Conclusions The development of more effective human services requires close attention to information gathering and decision making. These are shaped by the goals and values of the participants in the organization as well as by the problems and uncertainties inherent in providing services. When problems are encountered, a review of information and a search for new solutions are begun. Available alternatives are sequentially considered and filtered through the communications network of the organization and through the values of the participants. In most organizations, the collection and use of information is basically an informalprocess and decision making is far from routine or rational in the usual sense of that term. The kinds of information most often used in planning and management decisions are usually not collected in any systematic manner and are only partially quantifiable. Examples include individual values, benefits, priorities, previous experience with an activity, perceived capacity and readiness of staff to move, consumer preferences, and other very elusive areas. Most decision making is heavily influenced, if not determined, by filters composed of political and value factors. They are oriented toward several objectives simultaneously, only some of which are overt, explicit, and consistent with other organizational goals.
Automated information systems usually involve the superimposition of a rational process upon these basically quasi-rational procedures. Breakdowns occur where the quantitative and routinized aspects of the technical system do not fit with the qualitative needs of decision makers. In order to be more effective, systems designers must take into account such reality factors. This implies a m o r e holistic view of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l functioning and a more limited and realistic expectation of where and to what extent decision making can be enhanced by automated data systems. It also underscores the crucial need for more sensitive attention to analyzing the information needs of organizational users prior to designing and introducing any new procedures. Strengthening and extending systems requires a detailed examination of decision making points in the organization. It also requires a specification of the nature and types of information needed at each point. Such systems will include a range of information objective and subjective, quantitative and qualitative. Likewise, the procedures for collecting and processing information will include formal routinized and informal individualized components. This approach to information systems development requires a wide range of technical, administrative, and social science skills. While admonitions are often given to administrators on their need for technical experts, the reverse is equally true if we are to avoid situations where the "operation" was a success but the "patient" died. The development of multi-faceted systems for scanning, collecting, transmitting, and using a variety of information will produce a more extensive range of alternatives for decision making. Management effectiveness can be strengthened through the availability of new options for choice. The systematic utilization of new knowledge can thus serve to enhance and guide organizational change.
33
REFERENCES Berger, P.L., and Luckmann, T. The Social Construction of Reality. New York: Anchor, 1967. Boulding, K., ed. Conflict Management in Organizations. Ann Arbor: Foundation for Research on Human Behavior, 1961. Brady, R.W., et al. Administrative Data Processing: The Casefor Executive Management Involvement. Boulder, Colorado: National Center for Higher Education Management Systems, 1975. Charnes, A., and Cooper, W.W. The theory of search: optimum distribution of search effort. Management Science, 5: 44-50, 1959. Coser, R.L. Authority and decision making in a hospital. American Sociological Review,23 (1): 56-63, 1958. Cyert, R.M., and March, J.G. A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: PrenticeHall, t964. Daniel, D.R. Management information crisis. Harvard Business Review, 39:111-12t, 1961. Dearden, J. How to organize information systems. Harvard Business Review 43: 65-73, 1965. 34
Edwards, W., and Tversky, A., eds. Decision Making. Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1967. Etzioni, A. Modern Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1964. Gtaser, E.M. " K n o w l e d g e Transfer and Institutional Change." Human Interaction Research Institute, Los Angeles. (Unpublished manuscript). Guetzkow, H. Conversion barriers in using the social sciences. Administrative Science Quarterly, 4 (1): 68-81, 1959. Havelock, R.G. Planning for Innovation through Dissemination and Utilization of Knowledge. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1970. Havelock, R.G. "Research Utilization in Four Federal Agencies." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting, American Psychological Association, Honolulu, Hawaii, 1971. Katz, D., and Kahn, R.L. The Social Psychology of Organizations. New York: Wiley, 1966. Kitchel, J.M. (ed.). Knowledge Production and Utilization in Educational Administration. Eugene, Ore.: Center for the Advanced Study of Educational Administration, 1968. Larson, J.K., and Nichols, D.G. If nobody knows you've done it, have you? Evaluation, 1:39-44, 1972.
Lindblom, C.E. The Intelligence of Democracy:
Decision Making through Mutual Adjustment. New York: Free Press, 1965. Lupton, T. Management and the Social Sciences. Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1971. Manneheim, K. Ideology and Utopia. New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1952. March, J.G., and Simon, H.A. Organizations. New York: Wiley, 1967. McRae, T.W., ed. Management Information Systems. Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1971. O'Brien, G.M. Research utilization in program design, Welfare in Review, 10(2): 1-10. 1972. O'Brien, G.M., and Service, A.L. "A Decision Support System for Community Mental Health." Human Services Design Laboratory, School of Applied Social Sciences, Case Western Reserve University, 1973. (Unpublished manuscript) Papandreou, A.G. Some basic problems in the theory of the firm. In: Haley, B.F., ed. A Survey of Contemporary Economics. Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, 1952. Perrow, C. Organizational Analysis: A Sociological View. Belmont, Calif."Wadsworth, 1970.
Shaw, M.E. Some effects of unequal distribution of information upon group performance in various communication nets. Journal of Social Psychology, 49: 547-553, 1954. Simon, H.A. Administrative Behavior. New York: MacMillan, 1957. Simon, H.A. A behavioral model of rational choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69: 99118, 1955. Spencer, S.A. The dark at the top of the stairs. Management Review, 51: 4-12, 1962. Street, D., Vinter, R.D., and Perrow, C. Organization of Treatment. New York: Free Press, 1966. Taylor, D.W. Decision making and problem solving. In: March, J.G., ed. Handbook of Organizations. Chicago: Rand-McNally, 1965. Thomas, J.M., and Bennis, W.G., eds. Management of Change and Conflict. Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1972. Welsch, L.A., and Cyert, R.M., eds. Management Decision Making. Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1971.
A D M I N I S T R A T I O N IN MENTAL HEALTH
35
