Advertisement

The Process Manager and the Substance of Decision Making

Chapter
  • 3.3k Downloads

Abstract

The fourth core element of the process approach is substance: the process that is developed under the guidance of the process manager must be sufficiently substantive. After all, a process without substance is empty.

The preceding chapters have already pointed out repeatedly that a decision-making process may degenerate into a process for the sake of the process. This may affect its speed (core element 3), but also its substance. When a process drifts too far away from the substance, it is vulnerable and fails to meet its original objective: a process is designed to produce substantive problem definitions and problem solutions.

Keywords

Decision Making Process Manager Strategic Behaviour Basic Belief Cognitive Learning 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Bell R (1998) The Bottomless Pit: megaproiects and manipulation. Translated into Dutch by H. Vander Kooy. Aristos, RotterdamGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    De Bruijn JA (2000) Processen van verandering. Lemma, UtrechtGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    De Bruijn JA, ten Heuvelhof EF, in’t Veld RJ (1998) Procesmanagement: Besluitvorming over de milieu- en economische aspecten van verpakkingen voor consumentenprodukten, Delft, commissioned by Foundation Verpakking en MilieuGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    De Jong WM (1999) Institutional transplantation: how to adopt good transport infrastructure decision making ideas from other countries? Eburon, DelftGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dutch Scientific Council for Government Policy (2008) Onzekere Veiligheid. Amsterdam University Press, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Eden L (2004) Whole World on fire: organizations, knowledge, and nuclear weapon devastation. Cornell University Press, IthacaGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Funtowicz SO, Ravetz JR (1992) Risk management as a postnormal science. Risk Anal 12(1):95–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Funtowicz SO, Ravetz JR (1993) Science for the post-normal age. Futures 25(7):735–755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Garvin T, Eyles J (1997) The sun safety metanarrative: translating science into public health discourse. Policy Sci 30(2):47–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gibbons M, Limoges C, Nowotny H, Schwartzman S, Scott P, Trow M (1994) The new production of knowledge: the dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Giddens A (1994) Beyond left and right: the future of radical politics. Stanford University Press, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jasanoff S (1990) The fifth branch: science advices as policy managers. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mayer IS (1997) Debating technologies. A methodological contribution to the design and evaluation of participatory policy analysis. Tilburg University Press, TilburgGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Miranda ML et al (1996) Informing policymakers and the public in landfill siting processes. In: Technical expertise and public decisions. Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Salsich PW (2000) Grassroots consensus building and collaborative planning. Festschrift 3:709–740Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Siebenhüner B (2003) The changing role of nation states in international environmental assessments-the case of the IPCC. Glob Environ Chang 13(2):113–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Steelman TA (1999) The public comment process: what do citizens contribute to national forest management? J For 97(1):22–26Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Steelman TA (2005) Elite and participatory policymaking: finding balance in a case of national forest planning. Policy Stud J 29(1):71–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tanaka Y, Hirasawa R (1996) Features of policy-making processes in Japan’s council for science and technology. Res Policy 25(7):999–1011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ten Heuvelhof EF, Nauta C (1997) Environmental impact: the effects of environmental impact assessment in the Netherlands. Project Appraisal 12(1):25–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Technology, Policy and ManagementDelft University of TechnologyBX DelftNetherlands
  2. 2.JH LeiderdorpNetherlands

Personalised recommendations