The very similar rational decision-making model, as it is called in organizational behavior, is a process for making logically sound decisions.
[2] This multi-step model and aims to be logical and follow the orderly path from problem identification through solution.
This step includes recognizing the problem, defining an initial solution, and starting primary analysis.
Rationality is defined as “a style of behavior that is appropriate to the achievement of given goals, within the limits imposed by given conditions and constraints”.
Drake, as he states: In its purest form, the Rational Actor approach presumes that such a figure [as Constantine] has complete freedom of action to achieve goals that he or she has articulated through a careful process of rational analysis involving full and objective study of all pertinent information and alternatives.
At the same time, it presumes that this central actor is so fully in control of the apparatus of government that a decision once made is as good as implemented.
Ian Thomas describes Simon's steps as follows: In similar lines, Wiktorowicz and Deber describe through their study on ‘Regulating biotechnology: a rational-political model of policy development’ the rational approach to policy development.
According to Wiktorowicz and Deber values are introduced in the final step of the rational model, where the utility of each policy option is assessed.
Many authors have attempted to interpret the above-mentioned steps, amongst others, Patton and Sawicki [8] who summarize the model as presented in the following figure (missing): The model of rational decision-making has also proven to be very useful to several decision making processes in industries outside the public sphere.
For instance, it is a difficult model to apply in the public sector because social problems can be very complex, ill-defined and interdependent.
This latter argument can be best illustrated by the words of Thomas R. Dye, the president of the Lincoln Center for Public Service, who wrote in his book `Understanding Public Policy´ the following passage: There is no better illustration of the dilemmas of rational policy making in America than in the field of health…the first obstacle to rationalism is defining the problem.
[9] The problems faced when using the rational model arise in practice because social and environmental values can be difficult to quantify and forge consensus around.
[12] The process of identifying a suitably comprehensive decision criteria set is also vulnerable to being skewed by pressures arising at the political interface.
For example, with a cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions the net financial cost in the first five years of policy implementation is a far easier impact to conceptualise than the more diffuse and uncertain impact of a country's improved position to influence global negotiations on climate change action.
At the other extreme, the numerous goals will require the policy impacts to be expressed using a variety of metrics that are not readily comparable.
In such cases, the policy analyst may draw on the concept of utility to aggregate the various goals into a single score.
Otherwise it might be that all but a few policy alternatives are eliminated and those that remain need to be more closely examined in terms of their trade-offs so that a decision can be made.
To demonstrate the rational analysis process as described above, let’s examine the policy paper “Stimulating the use of biofuels in the European Union: Implications for climate change policy” by Lisa Ryan where the substitution of fossil fuels with biofuels has been proposed in the European Union (EU) between 2005–2010 as part of a strategy to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions from road transport, increase security of energy supply and support development of rural communities.
[14] Going further, Guy Benveniste argued that the rational model could not be implemented without taking the political context into account.