DECISION ON PEACE BRIDGE IS PRODUCT OF FLAWED PROCESS
[FINAL Edition]
Buffalo News
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Print Media Edition: Financial edition
Buffalo, N.Y.
Sep 4, 1999
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authors: JOSEPH STEFKO
Pagination: C2
Abstract:
A decision often is only as good as the process that produced it. At
the
heart of any successful and correct decision is process. The way in
which
we structure decision-making, identify plausible alternatives and
gather
information necessary to reach conclusions has an enormous influence on
the end result.
In 1978, economist Herbert Simon won a Nobel Prize for his
conceptualization
of the decision-making process. He was the first to identify many of
the
pitfalls likely to characterize average decision-making.
Arguably the most important of those pitfalls was something he called
"satisficing."
Satisficing represents a way of arriving at a decision without complete
information. It suggests that participants in a decision-making process
often are inclined to select the first alternative that satisfies some
minimum criteria.
Copyright Buffalo News Sep 4, 1999
Full Text:
A decision often is only as good as the process that produced it. At
the
heart of any successful and correct decision is process. The way in
which
we structure decision-making, identify plausible alternatives and
gather
information necessary to reach conclusions has an enormous influence on
the end result.
In 1978, economist Herbert Simon won a Nobel Prize for his
conceptualization
of the decision-making process. He was the first to identify many of
the
pitfalls likely to characterize average decision-making.
Arguably the most important of those pitfalls was something he called
"satisficing."
Satisficing represents a way of arriving at a decision without complete
information. It suggests that participants in a decision-making process
often are inclined to select the first alternative that satisfies some
minimum criteria.
Satisficing minimizes the time and resources spent on decision- making,
and selects the first satisfactory alternative regardless of whether
other
alternatives may exist. While satisficing may be an acceptable
cost-cutter
and time-saver in some situations, it is nonetheless an inherently
flawed
process for making decisions.
Nothing epitomizes this flawed process more than the ongoing Peace
Bridge
discussion. We are witnessing a Peace Bridge Authority refusing to
consider
additional span alternatives -- particularly the signature span option
-- precisely on this basis.
"For almost two years," the authority states in a letter distributed to
attendees at the recent public hearings in downtown Buffalo, "the Peace
Bridge Authority has listened carefully to all of the discussion about
the new bridge. We have answered every question, passed an exacting
binational
permitting process and provided seemingly endless documentation in
support
of why the companion span is the most viable option."
The two years of planning, analysis and effort that this process
required
on the part of the authority is laudable. It should not, however, be
mistaken
for effective decision-making.
The authority contends that the signature span alternative is too late,
and follows years of planning for a twin span. Whether the signature
plan
is an "eleventh hour" alternative or not, it is still viable. Why
discount
what might certainly be a better alternative precisely because it was
discovered
secondarily?
For a decision-making process to work effectively, it has to be
complete.
This is particularly the case on issues so intimately tied to our
region's
image and economic future.
Aside from process, nothing has been done for the new Peace Bridge that
prevents us from considering new alternatives. With no ground yet
broken,
the process is certainly not irreversible or incapable of turning in a
new direction.
Our community should refuse to settle for a potentially inferior
alternative
when another viable one exists, on the sole basis that one came before
the other.
In its letter, the authority says that the Public Consensus Review
Panel,
which is conducting a study of various design proposals -- including
the
twin span -- is a confusing addition to the process. The authority
stated,
"You are misleading participants and the community that your process
has
some responsibility for decisions which are solely within the purview
of
the authority."
On the contrary, I would contend that the authority has misled the
community.
It has tried to convince our region that it has the final authority on
an issue solely within our purview: charting our community's economic
future.
Who is the authority to tell a region that its own economic future is
beyond
the purview of its citizens?
It would redefine political apathy for Western New Yorkers to
collectively
surrender decision-making responsibility to an unelected public
authority.
Our collective economic future is too important to risk solely because
the authority says that it has "signed and sealed" a decision that we
should
accept.
JOSEPH STEFKO is a Ph.D. student in political science at the University
at Buffalo.