See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/315014371

ACTORS AND ROLES IN DECISION-MAKING PROCESS

Technical Report · July 2016

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.27790.77124

CITATIONS READS
2 17,074

1 author:

Faith Okoro
Politecnico di Torino
10 PUBLICATIONS   4 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Oil and Gas Pipeline Design View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Faith Okoro on 14 March 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ASP 12TH CYCLE

MAPPING THE TRANSFORMATION FOR THE COMPETITIVENESS OF A

TERRITORIAL SYSTEM

COORDINATORS – PROF. ALESSANDRO ARMANDO, PROF. LUIGI

BUZZACCHI
AND PROF. MARZIA MORENA

ACTORS AND ROLES IN DECISION-MAKING

PROCESS

OKORO FAITH EFEREMO

POLITECNICO DI TORINO – M.Sc. PETROLEUM ENGINEERING

SUMMER SCHOOL, JULY 18TH-22TH, 2016.

 ABSTRACT
Decisions are in everyday business and they are dependent on the output of the different actors in every
phase of life. Lack of support of the key actors, and failure in attending the interests and information from
them could lead to a failure in the decision making process. Thus, this paper examined the crucial actors
and their role in the decision process. This paper drew experiences from a manufacturing plant in Mexico,
and the role of some actors in decision making process, as its case study. The role of actors in decision
making process is of utmost importance to my current ASP project on Bosch Mobility Scope Italy (BMSI),
as it highlight the role of various field of engineers, in achieving the decision making process and thus, this
shows the strength of different actors in the decision making process.
Key Words: Actors, Decision-making, Resources, Development, Network
1.0 INTRODUCTION
A decision may be defined as "a course of action which is consciously chosen from among a set of
alternatives to achieve a desired result."[7] Decision-making is regarded as the process resulting in the
selection of a course of action among several alternative possibilities. Every decision-making process
produces a final choice; which follows the process of identifying and choosing alternatives based on the
values and preferences of the decision-maker, which is the Actor.

Figure1: Decision Making Process [7]

Actors’ relationship with each other is an important aspect in the decision process, in order to reduce
conflicts. Many projects, strategies or modification decisions fail due to various reasons, an important one
could be because of lack of support of the key actors involved in those plans. [8] Just as the world itself has
become a web of connections, in which most of all places are interconnected with each other, new age
development processes and strategies, are finding the existence of dependency within their multi-
disciplinary activities. Thus, cooperation between different actors has taken a new level of importance in
order to reach meaningful solutions to possible differences in perceptions, objectives, values and thinking.
The decision making process has seen a shift in the recent times, to the multi-actor approach. This method
is specific to having and relying more on networks. A network is defined as a number of actors with different
 goals and interests and different resources who depend on each other for the realization of their goals. [8]
Based on this definition, it is clear that the decision making process is indeed embedded within network
workplaces because different actors have different demands and different resources, yet they all depend on
each other a common goal. When having a network-like structure, actors are in a certain need to receive
support from other actors; in this case, actors are in need to work together to reach certain objectives, or
actors are in the need of support to facilitate approval of decisions on plans of action.

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW ON DECISION-MAKING PROCESS

2.1 BRIEF HISTORY OF THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS

Sometime in the last century, Chester Barnard, imported the term “decision making” from the
lexicon of public administration into the business world. Barnard and other theorists such as James
March, Herbert Simon, and Henry Mintzberg laid the foundation for the study of decision making.
[16] The study of decision making is a palimpsest of intellectual disciplines: philosophers ponder
what our decisions say about ourselves and about our values; historians dissect the choices leaders
make at critical junctures: research into risk and organizational behavior springs from a more
practical desire to help managers achieve better outcomes. While a good decision does not
guarantee a good outcome, such pragmatism has paid off.

Faced with the imperfectability of decision making, theorists have sought ways to achieve, if not
optimal outcomes, at least acceptable ones. Gerd Gigerenzer urges us to make a virtue of our
limited time and knowledge by mastering simple heuristics, an approach he calls “fast and frugal”
reasoning. Amitai Etzioni proposes humble decision making, an assortment of non-heroic tactics
that include tentativeness, delay, and hedging. Some practitioners have simply reverted to the old
ways. [16] Risk is an inescapable part of every decision. For most of the everyday choices people
make, the risks are small. To make good choices, companies must be able to calculate and manage
the attendant risks. Thus, in today’s world, various analysis has been implemented, in order to
reduce the risk and come up with good decisions. [16]

2.2 ACTORS AND ROLES IN DECISION-MAKING PROCESS

Who is an Actor? : The first, step to take in any decision-making process, is to identify the actors. The
actors are the ones who act is less tautological than it might appear. The actors are only those who actually
act. It’s important not to confuse a stakeholder with the actor. The stakeholders, are those that would be
ultimately affected by a new decision which could be positive or negative [14], while actors are those that
carry responsibility for the process. Actors, generally are affected by various policies in any decision
making process. A set of policies are principles, rules, and guidelines formulated or adopted by an
organization to reach its long-term goals. [1]

The Goal of an Actor: Actors of decisional processes are rational. Their aim is geared towards a certain
goal. The goal of an actor is based on two considerations namely preferences of a subject (which defines
the goals based on the actors interest) and consideration to the macro and micro level. [2] There are two
types of goals namely; Content related goals which is due to preferences that are generated in the
interactions of a decisional process and Process related goal, which shows the capacity to meet the need,
the demand or the opportunity at the basis of the decisional process.
The Actors’ Resources: This shows the ability of an actor to shape the results of a decisional process and
the actors influence on other actors [3]. There are four types of resources which are common in decision
processes: political resources, economic resources, legal resources and cognitive resources. Resources, can
also be classified into three group, which are data and information, theories and models and knowledge
about the process.

Rationality of Action and Types of Actors

There are so many complexities involved in the decision making process. [5] Actors are saddled with the
responsibility of making the right decisions and so many details must be considered in order to get the right
output initially envisaged. [4]

Types of Actors
Actors can be divided into five categories namely: political actors, bureaucratic actors, special interests,
general interests and experts
 Political Actors: These are the elected representatives that need to have access to the decisional
arenas.
 Bureaucratic Actors: These are the actors in the administrative sectors and they influence the
decision making process based on specific responsibility.
 Special Interest: These actors may include individuals, organizations or people who live in a
specific area. Their involvement in the decisional processes often witness the intervention of
subjects that try to influence the outcomes in a utilitarian logic.
 General Interest: These are actors who base their claim of intervention in the decisional process
on the premise they represent subjects and/or interests that cannot defend themselves.
 Expert: They base their claim of intervention on the fact they have the necessary knowledge, thus
decisional processes must involve them as much as possible.

The Roles of Actors within the Process: The role of the actor can be defined as the function it fulfil within
the process. The recognizable roles are: promoter, director, opposer, ally, mediator, gatekeeper and filter.

 The promoter, or initiator, is the actor who raises the problem and proposes a specific solution.
The promoter, tends to be opinionated, but has perseverance and persistence. This actor, tends to
resist change and sees it as worsening of the effectiveness or the quality of the proposal. It is
possible that the promoter will resist change, with the risk of wrecking his/her own initiative. This
role, differs based on actors. For Political actor, or special interest, the promoter will be more
prepared to compromise, while bureaucrats, experts and general interests will probably be rather
inflexible.
 The Director, is one who guides the process, from the first proposal to the end. The director can
instrumentally understand the importance of a decision he/she did not personally promote, as this
actor sees it as an opportunity to increase status or visibility or to weaken his/her political and
bureaucratic opposers.
 The Opposer: The opposition is based on the goals of the decision making process. This role is
more likely in the case of political and bureaucratic actors rather than with special and general
interests, and experts.
  The Ally: The ally has goals consistent with the promoter’s and/or the director’s and brings his/her
resources to the innovative coalition by carrying out actions, or even just by declaring his/her
support.
 The Mediator: Mediator, is a kind of director that is only interested in favoring an agreement
among the actors.
 The Gatekeeper: This is the actor who can stop the decisional process. He/she has veto-power.
The gatekeeper is usually a subject who uses the resources to stop the promoter from acquiring
essential resources, not because he/she is against the proposal, but to affirm his own importance in
the interaction
 The Filter: This is the actor that enters the process representing the goals and the interests of others
and using almost only their resources.

3.0 CASE STUDY PERSPECTIVES: THE IMPACT OF ACTORS IN THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS
BIC is a multinational company which has many plants but the plant of interest is located in Ramos Arizpe,
Mexico. This plant is in charge of packaging shaving razor products and then exporting them to the US.
Decision making in this plant involves several actors which are the Production, Planning, Quality,
Maintenance and Warehouse departments. If the decision making processes did not fully recognize a multi-
actor analysis approach the production process suffered due to this.
The Production Department had to meet production rates and, in order to do this, machinery had to be in
good state. However, the production department did not allow the maintenance department to schedule for
preventive maintenance of the equipment because it takes time off from the production process.
Maintenance’s interest of securing optimal machinery state was in direct conflict with Production’s interest
of achieving a certain production rate. The results at first were high production rates given no stoppage on
the production process. However, due to lack of maintenance, there was the need to have corrective
maintenance which takes longer time than preventive maintenance. This meant that the production rates
went considerably low due to failure of machinery. It is clear the importance of considering different actors’
needs, interests and perceptions. If Maintenance Department had expressed their concerns about the
machinery state and its consequences, Production Department would have stated the need of reaching
certain production rate, Quality Department’s push to respect the standards, and Planning Department’s
voice on planning targets, a trade-off perhaps could have been achieved by taking into account the influence
of various actors in the decision process.

4.0 APPLICATION OF THE ROLE OF ACTORS IN DECISION MAKING PROCESS TO MY ASP

PROJECT: BOSCH MOBILITY SCOPE ITALY(BMSI)
The dynamic role of actors has been applied in my multidisciplinary ASP project which is Bosch Mobility
Scope Italy. The goal of this project is for Bosch Company to break into Italy, specifically Torino Market.
In order to achieve this, the company needs to develop a product or services with a competitive advantage,
which meet the users demand based on a viable business model. This project, is made up of eight actors,
from different fields of Knowledge, thus the main reason for the Multi-Actor Approach. A multi-actor
analysis approach was employed because the activities within this network suggests dependency and
cooperative needs. It was also due to the complexity that arises from the diversity in problem perceptions
among we the actors involved. It was based not only perceptions, but differences in interests, objectives,
resources, and targets and therefore, there was a need to manage complexity arising from these differences
which can lead to conflict and deadlock situations. The tutor, played the role as a mediator and the director.
 The group leader was the promoter and other group members were either allies or opposers. Bosch
Company were the Expect and thus a good understanding of the important of each actor in the decision
making process and their vital role was tantamount to the ability of my group to move ahead and come up
with a dynamic proposed service based on every actor’s contribution. This gave a wider perspective and a
different view of the challenge based on each actor’s field.

PHASES OF THE PROJECT AND THE ACTORS INVOLED

FIRST PHASE SECOND PHASE THIRD PHASE FOURTH PHASE

RESEARCH ANALYSIS PHASE CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT
PHASE •Problems GENERATION PHASE
•Mobility Trend •Opportunities •Ideal Generation •Evaluation of concept
•Market Analysis •Needs •Alternatives based on market
•Bosch Portfolio •Business Model feasibility
•Reflecting Bosch
• All Actors Portfolio •Concept Integration •Developing of Prototype
Involved •Brainstorming •Proposal •Testing and Finalizing
• All Actors Involved • All Actors •Presentation
with Tutors Involved,with Bosch •All Actors
Involved,with Bosch
and Tutors

5.0 MY ROLE AS A MECHANICAL ENGINEER IN (BMSI) DECISION PROCESS

In the multi-disciplinary team, I was the lead engineer in the automotive aspect. My goal involved
looking for ways to give Bosch an edge in the Torino market. With the increasing production costs and
depleting margins, Bosch is looking to reduce the product development time and get an edge in the evolving
business ecosystem. As a Mechanical engineer, I played a key role in achieving these objectives. My role
has to do with developing innovative mechanical designs and products that have the competitive advantage
over other manufacturers in the Torino Market while being the best cost effective solutions offered by the
company.

6.0 STRENGTH OF DIFFERENT ACTORS IN A DECISION MAKING PROCESS

The following are the numerous benefits of different actors in decision making process. This includes:
 A Better understanding and management of multiple actor´s characteristics: A multi-actor
analysis approach will help to better understand characteristics of multiple actors in a network.
Figuring out what the problem is and what solutions might work are actually part of the problem,
and taking actors into account is a crucial aspect of problem solving. [9]. This certainly shows an
approach that incorporates distinct inputs will provide better chances of satisfactory decision
outcomes than keeping outcomes tied to the characteristics of a single actor. [10]
 Improvement in quality of decision solutions and implementations : A multi-actor analysis
approach will help in providing a better quality in potential solutions, because diverse points are
 shared, examined and evaluated and if a solution is reached, it will be done after a sound evaluation
of different angles

 More reliable and complete information: This can help to identify anomalies or deviations in
collected data by comparing the observed process with the expectations drawn from the analysis.
The use of a multi-actor analysis approach may help identify some of the factors and processes that
were previously out of loop and it enables actors to express their concerns and interests better.
[11]
 Giving each actor an important place in the process: Every actor’s interests are respected
and included in the process of decision making. The goal is to reach a decision that is
pluralistic, with sufficient support and that reflects the different perceptions of reality of
the different actors. [12]
 Smart practice: It’s called a smart practice because “it involves taking advantage of
opportunities for creating value on the cheap scale. [15] It is a smart practice because it is
generally easy to understand and is not time and resource intensive. [13]

7.0 CONCLUSION
There is an existence of a multi-actor value placed on decisions based on our everyday activities. These
activities incorporate various actors and these actors, and their functions, are dependent on each other to
reach an overall objective. This dependency feature and network-like structure promotes a sense of
cooperation among the involved actors. Therefore, the problem is that we tend to ignore the fundamental
factor in the decision making process and dismissal of their value, may be tantamount to failure of the
process itself.

The inclusion of several actors is a must in order to ensure decision support and viability. In addition to
that, it helps to offset and minimize the functional and cultural biases present across the workplace.
Furthermore it gives support for decision making due to negotiations that are needed because of strategic
behavior and scientific uncertainty that involve making trade-offs in information processing and decision-
making. Also, it can help in detecting the potential presence of strategic behavior and set common grounds
for making trade-offs in information processing and decision-making. Finally, it can help coming up with
a more complete set of information. This increase in available knowledge allows for more effective
solutions and therefore, along with the cooperation this approach yearns to obtain among actors, improves
the chances of better implementation of decisions and strategies.

REFERENCES

1) http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/policies-and-procedures.html 27 October 2016

2) Wildavsky, A.: Choosing preferences by constructing institutions: a cultural theory of preference
formation. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 81(1), 3–22 (1987)
3) Coleman, J.S.: Introduction to Mathematical Sociology. Free Press, New York (1964)
4) Barca, F.: An Agenda for a Reformed Cohesion Policy.
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/future/barca_en.htm 27 October 2016
5) http://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/npv. 27 October 2016
6) Kingdon, J.W.: Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies. Little Brown, Boston (1984)
7) http://kalyan-city.blogspot.it/2010/06/decision-making-process-in-management.html
8) De Bruijn, H., ten Heuvelhof, E., 2008. “Management in networks: on multi-actor decision
making”. Routledge p. 1.
9) Bryson, J. and Crosby, B. 1992. “Leadership for the Common Good: Tackling Public Problems
in a Shared Power World”. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
 10) Van Bueren, E., Klijn, E., Koppenjan, J., 2003. “Dealing with wicked problems in networks:
analyzing an environmental debate from a network perspective”. Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory, Vol. 13, no.2, p. 193-212
11) Hermans, L., Thissen, Will. 2009. “Actor Analysis Methods and their use for public policy
analysts”. European Journal of Operational Research, p. 808-818.
12) Bryson, J. 2004. “What to do when stakeholders matter. Stakeholder identification and Analysis
Techniques”. Routledge. Vol. 6, Issue 1. p. 21-53
13) Bardach, E. 1998. “Getting Agencies to Work Together”. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution
Press.
14) Freeman, R.E., 1984. “Strategic management. A Stakeholder Approach”. Pitman Publishing,
Marshfield, MA.
15) Nutt, P. 2002. “Why Decisions Fail: Avoiding the Blunders and Traps That Lead to Debacles”.
San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
16) https://hbr.org/2006/01/a-brief-history-of-decision-making 27 October 2016

View publication stats