1. Were the ongoing government studies commissioned to determine the need and a location for a potential second Sydney airport examples of decision making or problem solving? Justify your choice.
The government studies for the need for a potential second Sydney Airport are both decision making and a problem solving.
Decision-making: To arrive to a better decision-making, a thorough study should be involved. Years of research and feasibility should be conducted to assess the situation, in this case, having a second Sydney airport involves critical study on economic and environmental impact in both the future of Sydney metropolitan and population growth. The decision to build a second airport necessitated to a new metropolitan strategy around the new airport. (G. Searle & K. O’Connor 2022)
Problem-solving: The studies involve problem solving as well as it aims to address the capacity constraint of the existing Sydney Airport. Identifying the growing demands of air travel and a long-term solution are targeted with this study. Furthermore, this study addresses the future problem of tourism in Australia.
Decision-making often are part of problem-solving.
2. Do you think the government was using a rational or behavioural approach to decision making in the situation of the potential second Sydney airport? Explain your reasoning.
The decision-making of the government on a potential second Sydney airport is subjective and depends on several factors. I believe that both approaches were given a look in arriving a better decision-making.
Rationally, the government conducted a study; gathering and analysing data objectively and selecting the best possible option that meet its specific criteria.
In the context of building a second Sydney airport was heavily influenced as well by behavioural approach. As the decision-making recognizes real-world problem facing Sydney metropolitan in a future context. The study recognizes future planning, and future development within the region, with emphasis on the growing population and influx of tourist in the eastern region of Australia.
Decision-makers always considers combination of rational and behavioural elements to arrive to a better, albeit practical conclusion. The Government should always balance rational analysis; it is plausible that the decision has been made through both rational and behavioural factor
3. What examples of Evidence-Based Management (EBM) can you see in this case? How would you see EBM impacting on the decision making?
Evidence-Based Management (EBM) emphasizes the use of empirical evidence, data, and research in decision-making processes. The potential second Sydney airport shows EBM that impacts decision-making:
a) Data-driven analysis: collection and analysis of relevant data on air travel demand, capacity constraints, economic impact, environmental factors. This would provide a more accurate understanding and an informed decision-making based on empirical evidence.
b) Feasibility studies: EBM promotes comprehensive feasibility studies to assess the viability of having a second Sydney airport. This involves financial feasibility, environmental impact, infrastructure requirements, and the potential pros and cons of the project. The results from these studies would form a basis for a better decision-making.
c) Expert opinions: the consultation of relevant experts in the field of airport strategies and industry professionals are part of EBM. By seeking experts’ opinion, government decision-makers can gain confidence and knowledge in arriving to a better decision.
d) Evaluation of past experiences: EBM teaches us from learning from past experiences and evaluation of similar projects. Decision-makers would investigate outcomes and learning from previous or similar airport projects. The evaluation from previous projects would inform the decision-makers in arriving to a more robust decision and help avoid past mistakes from other similar projects.
4. What potential do you see for escalation of commitment and what might be some factors influencing the current decision-making path?
a.) Sunk cost: if the government has already invested a significant amount of money, time, and effort into the initial studies and planning for the second Sydney airport, decision-makers may feel compelled to continue the project to justify those sunk costs, even if new evidence suggests it may no longer be viable.
b.) Political unjust: Political factors can sway in the decision-making. If the political situation in Sydney has a strong support or opposition, decision-makers may be inclined to continue despite latest evidence that alternative options may be more viable.
c.) Stakeholder pressure: Decision-makers will eventually face pressure from various stakeholders, such as local communities, businesses, environmental groups, or associations. These factors can influence the decision-makers and potentially lead to escalation of commitment, regardless of its viability.
d.) Emotional attachment: Decision-makers can become emotionally invested in a particular course of action, dependent on their personal beliefs or legacy. This can cloud judgement and lead to a reluctance to abandon the original plan, even when evidence suggests it may no longer be the rational choice.
To mitigate these potential escalation of commitment, decision-makers should:
a.) Constantly evaluate and assess the project’s feasibility, open to new information and changing circumstances
b.) Encourage open dialogue, constructive criticism, and challenging assumptions
c.) Transparency in decision-making to ensure decisions are based on objective evidence
d.) Seek independent reviews and inputs from external experts to provide unbiased assessments and recommendations
e.) Regularly review and communicate the project’s goals, objectives, and progress to stakeholders, ensuring accountability
Reference
Glen Searle & Kevin O’Connor (2022) Flawed Vision? Sydney’s Three Cities Metropolitan Strategy, Urban Policy and Research, 40:4, p. 373, DOI: 10.1080/08111146.2022.2079626
No comments:
Post a Comment