Informing humanitarians worldwide 24/7 — a service provided by UN OCHA

World

Making operational decisions in humanitarian response: A literature review

Attachments

Section 1: Introduction

1.1 The purpose of the literature review

Decision-making lies at the heart of effective humanitarian action. During a response, humanitarian staff are required to make a stream of decisions: whether, when and how to intervene; how to address technical, logistical, political and security constraints; and when and how to cease operations.

It is no exaggeration to say that lives depend on these decisions. It is unsurprising, then, that the importance of good decision-making has emerged as a theme in ALNAP’s previous work on humanitarian leadership (Knox Clarke, 2014) and coordination (Knox Clarke, 2016; Knox Clarke and Campbell, 2015).
It is more surprising – and concerning – that humanitarian evaluations suggest that there is significant room to improve in this area. Decisionmaking is often slow (Darcy, 2016a; Adams et al., 2015; Agulhas Applied Knowledge, 2015; Murray et al., 2015; Quasami, 2015; Sanderson et al., 2015; UNICEF, 2015); disassociated from strategy (Hayles, 2010); opaque (Ambroso et al., 2016; Murray et al., 2015); and unaccountable (Darcy, 2016b; Agulhas Applied Knowledge, 2015; Clarke et al., 2015).
Overall, humanitarian decision-making has been characterised as ‘informal, emergent, ad-hoc and reactive’ (Comes, 2016: 2; see also Maxwell et al., 2013).

Despite these reported failures, relatively little academic attention has been given to decision-making in humanitarian response. Much of the work that does exist points to gaps in our understanding: lack of knowledge about what decisions are made, by whom and how (D’Onofrio, 2016; Maxwell et al., 2013; Hayles, 2010); the conditions in which decisions are made and what influence these have on the decision-making process (Heyse, 2013); and the extent to which decision-making evolves throughout a response (Comes, 2016; Hobbs et al., 2012).

Far more consideration, however, has been given to decision-making in other emergency contexts, particularly in fire services, emergency management, and response to emergencies in hazardous environments such as oil rigs.

Given the importance of decision-making for humanitarian response, the recognised gaps in existing understanding, and the relative wealth of knowledge on this topic outside the humanitarian response literature, this literature review attempts to gather existing knowledge, further clarify gaps in understanding and identify potential areas for further research.

1.2 What is decision-making? What is a decision?

There is some disagreement about what constitutes a decision. Many authors see a decision as a choice made between a number of options (Hobbs et al., 2012; Aldunate et al., 2005; Kowalski-Trakofler and Vaught, 2003), which commits one ‘to a certain course of action’ (Lipshitz et al., 2001:331). Decision-making thus involves identifying the differences between these courses of action and a process of evaluating and choosing an option (Kalra et al., 2014). Others regard decision-making more broadly, as a way of thinking which leads to certain actions, but do not agree that this way of thinking necessarily involves choosing between different options (Patel et al., 2002). At its broadest, decision-making can be seen as ‘synonymous with thinking’ (ibid.: 5).

Different approaches to decision-making have tended to understand decisions in different ways. The classical/analytical approach (see Section 7.1), for example, tends to see a decision as a one-off event which occurs in an individual’s mind, where the aim is to identify the course of action that will create the most value (Danielsson and Ohlsson, 1999). As such, it concentrates on the ‘choosing between options’ process: establishing a set of structured options and choosing between them. Information is gathered, options analysed, and a decision is made according to which choice best meets the objective.

Others see decisions as more of a process of problem-solving (Gralla et al., 2016; Ortuño et al., 2013; Mendonca et al., 2001), taking place within specific contexts. Critically, they dismiss the idea that decision-makers weigh up a number of different options to make decisions, suggesting instead a process whereby a single action emerges as the decision-maker perceives and understands the situation. These approaches – which broadly include naturalistic decision-making (NDM) (see Section 7.3) and sensemaking (see Section 7.4) – tend to situate each process in the social, political and temporal environment in which it takes place. As Patel et al. (2002: 22) put it: ‘decision makers are not solitary thinkers, but live in a social world thick with artefacts and populated by other agents who jointly determine the decision processes and outcomes’. This ‘process’ orientation to decisionmaking tends to be based on descriptive research, which outlines what decision-makers actually do. The classical/analytical approach, in contrast, tends to be more prescriptive, outlining what decision-makers ought to do in order to achieve the best outcome.

These approaches to decision-making, and to decisions, are so different that it can be tempting to ask whether they are actually looking at the same phenomenon at all (Patel et al., 2002). In writing this review, we decided not to use a predetermined definition of ‘decision’, as this would have seriously limited the enquiry. Rather, we considered a number of sources that concerned themselves with decisions and decision-making in emergency contexts, recognising that this opened the review to a variety of definitions.