455.Paper.Peter Qu.UC Budget Cuts.AUT08

The

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: ies
of
communication,
the
preferences
involved
are
integrative
values
held
by
all
 decision
makers.


 The
trade‐offs
between
conflicting
preferences
are
more
complicated
to
analyze.

Based
on
the
 frustrations
expressed
by
the
UC
officials,
it
is
apparent
that
decision
makers
from
the
UC
 system
viewed
that
the
overall
decision
process
has
placed
an
unfairly
high
emphasis
on
the
 preference
of
balancing
the
budget
and
did
not
gave
enough
emphasis
on
the
preferences
of
 maintain
academic
excellence
and
promote
future
growth
through
investment
into
education
 (Newfield,
2008).
 In
term
of
preferences,
this
decision
should
command
a
score
of
70%.

This
reflects
the
facts
 that
all
decision
makers
share
similar
preferences
although
they
disagree
about
the
exact
 tradeoff
between
the
conflicting
preferences.
 V. Frame:
Scope
of
the
budget
cut
decision
 The
analysis
of
the
budget
cut
decision
should
start
with
the
correct
framing
of
the
problem.

 Decisions
related
to
the
budget
cuts
are
first
categorized
into
three
levels:
policy,
strategy
and
 tactics.

The
correct
decision
making
process
should
focus
on
the
strategy
level.

Once
a
strategic
 decision
has
been
made,
detail
tactics
decision
should
be
developed
based
choice
of
strategic
 decision.

The
table
1
below
summarized
the
decisions
categorized
by
three
levels
of
decision
 hierarchy.
 Table
1.
Decisions
Hierarchy
for
the
Budget
Reduction
Related
Decisions 
 Policy
 Strategy
 Tactics
 Decisions
 1)
Additional
funding
from
federal
government
or
private
sector
 2)
Increase
rev...
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online