Decision theory suggests two general ways to study decisions: t e process y lich the decision was made or the attributes of the decision itself. Within the process branch, Allison (1971) and Allen (1979) analyzed a single ~cision using the Rational model, the Organizational Process model, and the Jreaucratic Politics model, each of which contributed to explaining the decision. Llison and Allen also argued for how their findings could be applied more enerally. Aharoni (1966) and Heclo and Wildavsky (1974) used a second approach t :udy pieces of many decisions. The emphasis was on understanding the whole proces ather than on explaining any particular decision. This approach is largely free f decision models and describes important factors within the process. One set of attributes comes from Cooke and Slack (1984) who suggested that !cisions can be analyzed by three related pairs of variables: Operational - :rategic, Independent - Dependent, and Structured - Unstructured. To these, the esearcher added Relative Importance and Innovation. This paper uses both the process and attribute approaches to analyze eleven cas ~udies of local capital allocation decisions in two health districts in northern ngland. Some of the cases were chosen to allow direct comparison between rganizations, circumstances, and individuals. Like Allison or Allen, each decisio as examined through each model (Hypothesis 1: Each decision model helps explain ach decision). Following Aharoni or Heclo and Wildavsky. the examination of many ecisions allows delineation of important factors within the process (Hypothesis 2 here are specific factors which are important to explain the process). Finally, ach decision is also classified using Cooke and Slack's decision attributes Hypothesis 3: Decisions can be explained using the various decision attributes). Information was gathered through interviews with participants and examination 0 elevant documents. Some of the decisions were concurrent with the researcher's tay and could be watched as they happened. However, most events occurred before his involvement. Part way into the study, it became clear that each district had an rganizational process for the kinds of decisions in the study. This process was ased on three elements: the rules and regulations within the NHS which prescribe hat is acceptable and how it is to be done; past events and personalities within he health district itself which influenced current processes; and events outside he NHS which established the climate within which all of this took place. etailing this process became the basis for Part II. Because an organizational process describes the overall approach, the Organizaional Process model should also best explain the case study decisions (Hypothesis ). This alternative to Hypothesis 1 was tested in Part III, where each case stud S described and analyzed. However, the results show that the Bureaucratic Politic ~del is also important in explaining the decisions, with the Rational model less ,aeful. Thus, neither Hypothesis 1 nor Hypothesis 4 is totally supported. As expected in Hypothesis 2, many factors affected decisions (see Part IV), som pecific to the setting and some with broader applicability. The more interesting nes are Staff and Patient Welfare, the Availability of Money, and the Threshhold :ffect. Also in Part IV, the results from Part III are combined in a matrix, with eciaion models on one axis and decision attributes on the other, to analyze how :he two approaches are related. The results show some of the expected relationship letween models and attributes on a broad basis but not on a detailed basis. Significance: This study broadens decision theory by taking a first step in :ombining the attribute and process approaches. It also illuminates the need for :urther study by showing how incompatible the results of the twosaPDrQaches are. ee "Notes on reverse

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--California Institute of Technology, 2003. Thesis (Ph. D.). PQ #3093487. / Includes bibliographical references. Also available via the World Wide Web. http://www.fluff.info/klemens

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Texas at Austin, 2002. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references. Available also from UMI Company.

Not available / text

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Oregon State University, 1999. / Typescript (photocopy). Includes bibliographical references (leaves 71-73). Also available on the World Wide Web.

Thesis (M.S.)--George Mason University, 2007. / Vita: p. 192. Thesis director: Kathryn Blackmond Laskey. Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Systems Engineering. Title from PDF t.p. (viewed Aug. 13, 2008). Additional zip folders contain software, thesis defense powerpoint and analysis documents. Includes bibliographical references (p. 190-191). Also issued in print.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Melbourne, Dept. of Mathematics and Statistics & School of Botany, 2009. / Typescript. Includes bibliographical references (p. 173-185)