Communicate these decision rights to the organization, and then, fully empower and support decision makers so they can make rapid progress. When choosing decision makers, empower them to make enterprise-wide decisions. Pick a preferred decision rights framework-for example, a DARE (decision makers, advisers, recommenders, executors) framework-and quickly clarify which individuals actually get to make what decisions and who they have to consult for advice. Comprehensively clarify decision rights, then empower decision owners with the authority to execute.Our experience working with government agencies on effective decision making has highlighted the following five steps that can help government leaders make significant progress on the decision velocity in their organizations: In uncertain times, when citizens need government services more than ever, leaders can’t afford to delay decisions. While the climb may be steep, government leaders must tackle the challenges of enabling more agile and effective decision making. Would you like to learn more about our Public & Social Sector Practice? As a result, organizations critically shrink their risk frontier-stifling risk taking in favor of an “ultimate compromise” solution. Third, leaders’ potential options are often heavily scrutinized prior to a decision and, thus, reduced in breadth and scope. Increasing oversight often doesn’t lead to lower risk instead it can create more risk because no layer takes ownership and all control ends up resting with the top. Counterintuitively, increasing oversight often doesn’t lead to more control or lower risk instead, it can easily create more risk because no layer takes ownership and all control ends up resting with the top-an impossible burden (for example, the secretary of an organization is tasked with catching mistakes and redoing simple work). Second, the tendency to minimize risk can also lead to the development of layers of oversight and bureaucracy in an attempt to “grade homework” and bring risk to zero. This not only increases the time spent on and cycles required for the decision-making process but also leads to the proliferation of multiple large all-purpose forums with unclear decision rights for example, in one US federal agency, efforts toward consensus building led to the development of more than 70 governance bodies and a “governance tax”-or burden of time and resources devoted to meetings and decision-making churn-of more than 40,000 person-years annually. First, when there is an unambiguous “bottom line” to measure and rally around, the rational approach to governance tends to lean toward building consensus and limiting opposition and dissent. We work to ensure a future in which the Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches extends to digital property and your data is your own.Most public-sector organizations face similar challenges in terms of how they make decisions. We are working to secure a warrant requirement for law enforcement access to electronic information, to chip away at the government’s excessive secrecy surrounding its surveillance practices, to promote the proliferation of privacy-protective technologies, and more.Īmericans should not have to choose between using new technologies and protecting their civil liberties. The ACLU Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project fights in the courts, lobbies on Capitol Hill, and works with technology companies to ensure that civil liberties are protected as technology advances. Free speech, security, and equality suffer as well. When the government has easy access to this information, we lose more than just privacy and control over our information. This includes our communications, whereabouts, online searches, purchases, and even our bodies. This digital footprint is constantly growing, containing more and more data about the most intimate aspects of our lives. As a result, our digital footprint can be tracked by the government and corporations in ways that were once unthinkable. Technological innovation has outpaced our privacy protections. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts in Riley v. “The fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such information in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection for which the Founders fought.”
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |