Not only will the choice have to be officially made, but that choice will then need to be put into action as quickly as possible. Putting the decision into action may be as simple as delegating responsibility down to those in the Perform group, or there may be other steps that are required along the way.
It should be obvious by this point that the RAPID framework for decision making is a process that is to be undertaken only when very important decisions need to be made. The number of people that will be involved in this process can be quite considerable. If you are going to make RAPID a part of the decision making process that you use for choices in your business, you should establish some type of threshold that will need to be crossed before this option is deployed.
By knowing how important a decision must be in order to start up the RAPID process, you can be sure to only go down this road when it really is necessary. Good decisions are the lifeblood of every successful organization, and making good decisions often comes down to using a good process. Sure, you are probably able to make plenty of smart choices on your own as an owner or manager, but some of the decisions that come in front of you are going to require the efforts of the entire team to handle properly.
Learn how to put RAPID to use within your organization and you should be well on your way to a future that is filled with correct choices on the biggest issues facing your company. See the full list of Strategy Skills eBooks, templates and checklists available for free download right now. The RAPID framework for decision making is a process that is to be undertaken only when important decisions need to be made. It is a particular tool for clarifying the accountability of critical decisions in organizations. RAPID is an acronym for five roles that can exist within the decision making process.
Recommend: This group create the proposals and recommendations. Agree: This group must agree with the proposals provided by the recommend group. Perform: This group will execute the process after performing the recommendations and will finally deliver the modified process. At which point, you review your original reasons for purchasing the camera and determine whether the camera satisfied those reasons.
You then decide whether you had a successful or failed outcome from your decision. Once we start separating decisions into these four phases, we can start analyzing each phase separately. For instance, what are the types of decisions that can be made? Are there certain preparation steps which are better suited to certain types of decisions? Can we start correlating preparations and decisions to outcomes to improve our decision-making?
In our camera example, we chose a single option from a set of choices. Consider a different type of decision: allocation. Allocation decisions involve distributing a fixed amount of resources across multiple options.
- Effective Decision Making – A Framework;
- Männer verpisst Euch! Wir wollen an die Macht (German Edition)!
- Die politische Vereinnahmung des Nibelungenliedes in der ersten Hälfte des 20. Jahrhunderts (German Edition);
My question has changed from which camera to purchase to how many cameras of each type to purchase. Yet in this example, my preparation might be exactly the same. However, my decision now involves determining the quantity of each camera to purchase. Afterwards, I might still go through the same implementation process, ordering my cameras online. But the consequences, and how I evaluate the final outcome, will likely be different.
Understanding which type of decision is being made can help me decide what types of preparations are best suited for that decision, how to track the consequences of that decision, and how to correlate that back to the preparation and decision processes to improve future decision-making.
For example, the methods for tracking and correlating successful single option decisions differ greatly from the methods used for allocation decisions. Do you have your own decision framework? Or any comments about the framework I laid out? Contact me at trevor at fastfedora. October 13, For example, management decisions related to the Spirit Lake debris blockage could have consequences that extend to the Cowlitz River or beyond; some decisions related to the SRS may be found to have consequences only downstream, but others may have implications for management of Spirit Lake; certain.
Similarly, consideration of the other lakes in the region impounded by Mount St. Helens may be important in many of the decisions to be made. Early agreement among participants on both the definition of the system and the geographic scope is important so that objectives can be identified, allowing alternatives and consequences to be appropriately analyzed.
In the immediate aftermath of the eruption, multiple alternatives to manage flooding and sedimentation on the Toutle River system were considered. While the original USACE effort to address those hazards contained both flood mitigation and related sediment control alternatives, the solutions to what is a system-wide problem were considered in an ad hoc manner and independently USACE, , a pattern that continues today among all parties. It is important to have an early and explicit discussion with participants about the scope of the process.
This helps to identify differences in expectations between the agencies—and between agencies and the public—to ensure alignment between what the participants want to achieve and what the agencies are willing and able to deliver NRC, For example, to control a catastrophic breakout of Spirit Lake, it might be decided to consider alternative lake water levels; alternatives to manage sediment at the SRS and above; and downstream alternatives that reduce risk to populations such as levee construction or improvement, rezoning, and resettlement.
All these alternatives may be considered, but in practice there may be disagreement regarding the scope: for example, because of limitations on agency authorities. Such limitations need to be clarified and,. All parties need to have a shared understanding of the scope early in the problem formulation process.
Box 6. Interactions with agency representatives and other interested and affected parties during the course of this study revealed a diverse set of views regarding appropriate planning time frames. Because different planning time frames can lead to radically different management strategies, choosing a time frame can represent an institutional and social conflict associated with management of the Spirit Lake and Toutle River system.
Overly long time frames may cause planners to overlook short-term solutions to immediate problems or not to anticipate changes in the physical system that might occur during a long time frame. For instance, a long enough time frame will also make it a near certainty that a low-probability but high-consequence event e.
Planning based on short time horizons, on the other hand, may be appealing because they favor alternatives that promise solutions to existing problems. Time frames that are too short, however, may preclude otherwise desirable capital-intensive projects thereby narrowing the range of alternatives that might be considered. They may also understate the importance of various low-probability but high-consequence events that could have substantial effects on different infrastructure elements of the Spirit Lake and Toutle River system.
Arbitrary time frames that are not meaningful for the decisions under consideration can hamper appropriate consideration of management alternatives. For example, the congressional authorization for the SRS was 50 years i. This authorization excludes. This planning horizon fails to identify how current decisions affect management and decommissioning impacts beyond The long-term risk and financial and other burdens to future residents and taxpayers may be left unaddressed see Box 6.
This issue was raised by an independent evaluation of the SRS project:. Helens limited Re-evaluation Report] does not address the uncertainty surrounding sediment transport in the basin for the period beyond and may affect the economic and environmental results of alternative evaluations. The Panel believes that the physical life of the project is of primary importance when considering the long-term effectiveness and the environmental consequences of the project.
Therefore, discussion and evaluation of the alternatives for the period beyond should be provided for a more complete understanding of the longer term economic and environmental aspects of the alternatives and to support the selection of the recommended plan. Battelle, : 6.
The committee is not aware that such action has been taken. Early on in the process, the decision participants described in Box 6. They could be informed, for example, by presentations from experts in volcanic and seismic hazards to learn the probability of cataclysmic volcanic or seismic events over short and long time horizons.
- Help Me! Guide to the iPod Touch: Step-by-Step User Guide for the iPod Touch!
- Me Gusta Meme Book.
- Italian Journeys (TREDITION CLASSICS);
- Decision Framework Information.
- Moving in the Right Direction: The Seniors Guide to Moving and Downsizing.
Explicit recognition of the trade-offs associated with the choice of different management time frames will also need to be presented. Chapter 7 discusses the next steps of the decision process, which include identifying and choosing among the various priorities and objectives of interested and affected parties and the generation of potential sets of alternative actions. The eruption of Mount St. Helens in southwest Washington State radically changed the physical and socio-economic landscapes of the region. The eruption destroyed the summit of the volcano, sending large amounts of debris into the North Fork Toutle River, and blocking the sole means of drainage from Spirit Lake 4 miles north of Mount St.
As a result of the blockage, rising lake levels could cause failure of the debris blockage, putting the downstream population of approximately 50, at risk of catastrophic flooding and mud flows. Further, continued transport of sediment to the river from volcanic debris deposits surrounding the mountain reduces the flood carrying capacity of downstream river channels and leaves the population vulnerable to chronic flooding.
The legacy of the eruption and the prospect of future volcanic, seismic, and flood events mean that risk management in the Spirit Lake Toutle River system will be challenging for decades to come. This report offers a decision framework to support the long-term management of risks related to the Spirit Lake and Toutle River system in light of the different regional economic, cultural, and social priorities, and the respective roles of federal, tribal, state, and local authorities, as well as other entities and groups in the region.
It also considers the history and adequacy of characterization, monitoring, and management associated with the Spirit Lake debris blockage and outflow tunnel, other efforts to control transport of water and sediment from the and later eruptions, and suggests additional information needed to support implementation of the recommended decision framework.
Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website. Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.
Decision-Making Framework | NIWA
Switch between the Original Pages , where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text. To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter. Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.
Do you enjoy reading reports from the Academies online for free? Sign up for email notifications and we'll let you know about new publications in your areas of interest when they're released. Get This Book. Visit NAP. Looking for other ways to read this? No thanks. CHAPTER 6 Choosing a Decision Framework and Identifying the Decision Problem Long-term management of risks in the Spirit Lake and Toutle River system conducted in a way that is responsive to safety as well as to the multiple values and points of view of interested and affected parties in the region is challenging, but not impossible Rittel and Weber, The process of identifying and comparing alternatives to manage both routine and catastrophic risk in the Spirit Lake and Toutle River system is made more difficult due to Analytical uncertainty resulting from incomplete or outdated information; Analytically irreducible uncertainty associated with low-probability moderate-intensity events and very low-probability but potentially catastrophic events; Competing values and interests across multiple interested and affected parties; Lack of agreement on the appropriate time horizon for planning; Overlapping decision authorities with separate but interdependent responsibilities and budgets; Low trust among agencies and the public;.
Page Share Cite. Lack of a single solution that is likely to completely satisfy all agencies of governments and other interested and affected parties; and Inadequate budgets for implementing potentially desired alternatives. Helens, Spirit Lake, and surrounding lands; funds operation and maintenance of Spirit Lake tunnel; funds emergency repairs on tunnel.
Subscribe to Smarter With Gartner
Protect the geologic, ecologic, and cultural resources while allowing geologic forces and ecological succession to continue substantially unimpeded; conduct scientific study and research; allow for recreational and interpretive facilities and for the Cowlitz Indian Tribe and Yakama Nation to continue to use the mountain for cultural purposes. Protect environment and natural resources through technical expertise; provide housing, transportation, and health services for their peoples as well as spiritual guidance and other cultural resources consistent with their duties as sovereign nations.
Protect habitats to assure optimal number, diversity, and distribution of wildlife; optimize wintering elk habitat; support recovery of fish, especially endangered species; operate fish collection facility on the North Fork Toutle River. Manage public trust lands to provide continuous revenue through activities such as harvesting timber and other forest products and other activities. Manage trust lands to earn income for state beneficiaries, protect water and habitat for native plant and animal species, and provide diverse recreation opportunities.
Local County, local governments; private landowners Manage their parcels in the area. Identify the decision O bjectives and ways to measure them. Create a diverse set of A lternatives. Identify the C onsequences. Clarify the T rade-offs. Some key questions to be asked during problem formulation include Who leads the process? Who is involved, and what is their role? What types of solutions can be considered?
What is the geographic scope under consideration? What is the time frame being considered for this decision problem? Who Leads the Process? A lead could approach the problem of neutrality by creating two distinct roles for the agency in the decision process: A neutral support team to implement the framework. This team brings with them:. Engagement skills to identify and engage interested and affected parties; Facilitation skills to navigate difficult topics, interest-based discussions, and value trade-offs e.
Risk aversion is the behavioral trait of people to minimize uncertainty even if actions taken means sacrificing certain benefits.