Garbage Can Model

The Garbage Can model of organizational theory was developed in 1972 by Michael D.
Cohen, James G. March and Johan P. Olsen.
It was developed in reference to "ambiguous behaviors", i.e. explanations/interpretations
of behaviors which at least appear to contradict classical theory. The Garbage Can Model
was greatly influenced by the realization that extreme cases of aggregate uncertainty in
decision environments would trigger behavioral responses which, at least from a distance,
appear "irrational" or at least not in compliance with the total/global rationality of
"economic man" (e.g. "act first, think later"). The Garbage Can Model was originally
formulated in the context of the operation of universities and their many interdepartmental communications problems.
The Garbage Can Model tried to expand organizational decision theory into the then
uncharted field of organizational anarchy which is characterized by "problematic
preferences", "unclear technology" and "fluid participation". "The theoretical
breakthrough of the Garbage Can Model is that it disconnects problems, solutions and
decision makers from each other, unlike traditional decision theory. Specific decisions do
not follow an orderly process from problem to solution, but are outcomes of several
relatively independent stream of events within the organization." (Richard L. Daft, 1982,
p.139).
The model was based on a computer simulation coded in FORTRAN. The coding was
included as an appendix in the original 1972 article , which was the first time a coding
sequence appeared in a social science article.[citation needed]

[edit] Streams of events within the Garbage Can Model

Four of those streams were identified in Cohen, March & Olsen's original
conceptualization:

[edit] Problems
Problems require attention, they are the result of performance gaps or the inability to
predict the future. Thus, problems may originate inside or outside the organization.
Traditionally, it has been assumed that problems trigger decision processes; if they are

sufficiently grave, this may happen. Usually, however, organization man goes through the
"garbage" and looks for a suitable fix, called a "solution".

[edit] Solutions
They have a life of their own. They are distinct from problems which they might be
called on to solve. Solutions are answers (more or less actively) looking for a question.
Participants may have ideas for solutions; they may be attracted to specific solutions and
volunteer to play the advocate. Only trivial solutions do not require advocacy and
preparations. Significant solutions have to be prepared without knowledge of the
problems they might have to solve.

[edit] Choice opportunities

There are occasions when organizations are expected (or think they are expected) to
produce behavior that can be called a decision (or an "initiative"). Just like politicians
cherish "photo opportunities", organization man needs occasional "decision
opportunities" for reasons unrelated to the decision itself.

[edit] Participants
They come and go; participation varies between problems and solutions. Participation
may vary depending on the other time demands of participants (independent from the
particular "decision" situation under study). Participants may have favorite problems or
favorite solutions which they carry around with them. They may carry these around until
they are able to share them with others and either get assistance in resolving the problem
or providing a solution to a problem.

[edit] Why "garbage cans"?

It was suggested that organizations tend to produce many "solutions" which are discarded
due to a lack of appropriate problems. However problems may eventually arise for which
a search of the garbage might yield fitting solutions.
Probably the most extreme view (namely that of organizational anarchy) of the Carnegie
School. Organizations operate on the basis of inconsistent and ill-defined preferences;
their own processes are not understood by their members; they operate by trial and error;
their boundaries are uncertain and changing; decision-makers for any particular choice
change capriciously. To understand organizational processes, one can view choice
opportunities as garbage cans into which various kinds of problems and solutions are
dumped. The mix of garbage depends on the mix of labeled cans available, on what
garbage is currently produced and the speed with which garbage and garbage cans are
removed.

[edit] Critiques of the Garbage Can

The Garbage Can model was criticized by Bendor, Moe, and Shotts in their 2001
American Political Science Review article, "Recycling the Garbage Can: An Assessment
of the Research Program." In addition to a number of substantive critiques, the paper
notes that the informal theory and the computer model are dramatically inconsistent with
one another.

[edit] References

Bendor, Jonathan, Terry M. Moe, Kenneth W. Shotts "Recycling the Garbage Can:
An Assessment of the Research Program" American Political Science Review,
Vol. 95, No. 1. (Mar., 2001), pp. 169-190.
Cohen, Michael D., James G. March, Johan P. Olsen A Garbage Can Model of
Organizational Choice Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 17, No. 1. (Mar.,
1972), pp. 1-25.[particularly pp.1-3 & 9-13]
Das TK, Teng BS, Cognitive biases and strategic decision processes: An
integrative perspective, JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES, 36(6) 757-778
NOV 1999
Kilduff M, Angelmar R, Mehra A, Top management-team diversity and firm
performance: Examining the role of cognitions, ORGANIZATION SCIENCE, 11:
(1) 21-34 JAN-FEB 2000
Ryan K. Lahti Group Decision Making within the Organization: Can Models
Help?
March, James G. and Johan P. Olsen. Ambiguity and Choice in Organizations, 2nd
edition, Bergen: Universitetsforlaget, 1979. [LB2806.M353.1979]
Schmid, H., Dodd, P. & Tropman, J. E. (1987). Board decision making in human
service organizations, Human Systems Management, 7(2) 155-161