Chapter 3: Findings and Application

The following is a summary of the key findings and deliverables that resulted from the research, which span three primary aspects:

• Foundations of Decision-Making – Key insights from the team’s exploration of the science of decision-making that were uncovered during the literature review. These findings formed the foundation for subsequent research discussions as well as the content and structure of resulting products.
• Strategies for Better Decisions – The compendium of strategies to navigate common decision challenges is the core of the research results. Strategies were developed from academic literature from cognitive science, industry resources in business and management, and direct input from experienced transportation agency executives.
• Case Studies of Decisions in Action – The case studies generated under this product served as both input to the research and a resulting final product. In-depth conversations with six executives about a notable decision situation they each encountered formed the basis for identifying the key decision challenges that required strategic advice. Once complete, they also serve as relatable stories that other executive-level decision-makers can explore to see the guide’s strategies play out in a real situation.

Foundations of Decision-Making

What Makes a “Good” Decision?

Process over Outcome

Experienced transportation leaders also emphasize the importance of having a good decision-making process over focusing on the results. This is critical not only for providing the best opportunity to make a good decision, but also to make sure it would hold up to later public, legislative, media, or employee scrutiny.

Universal Characteristics of “Good” Decisions

The specifics around what is “good” will vary significantly by decision-maker and by situation, but the research found that there are four broad categories that can apply universally to any situation:

• Factual Competence – This means the decision-maker has understood and integrated relevant data, information, and logic, and their assessment of the situation accurately reflects how the world works.
• Value Competence – A good decision aligns with the values of the decision-maker or relevant organization. Modern decision science emphasizes the importance of non-factual considerations like values to identify optimal decisions.
• Practicality – Practicality considers real-world considerations that can trip up even objectively “good” decisions, such as timing or political acceptability.
• Adaptivity – Adaptivity keeps the previous three elements of a “good” decision current and accounts for unknown future conditions.

It is challenges to these universal characteristics that derail good decisions.

How We Make Decisions

In his 2011 book “Thinking, Fast and Slow,” famed cognitive scientist Daniel Kahneman explains the way we make decisions as a process that uses two different but complementary systems:

• System 1 is fast, automatic, and intuitive – essentially, your “gut instinct.” It takes little to no cognitive effort and is how we incorporate emotion into decisions.
• System 2 is slow, deliberative, and intellectual. It enables abstract, complex thinking but also takes significant cognitive effort.

Our brains take shortcuts whenever possible by relying on System 1 methods, which make getting through each day possible by highlighting patterns and simplifying questions. But sometimes, these shortcuts can go wrong.

There are times when we over-rely on System 1 and leave out important information. This leads to bias, one of the greatest derailers of good decisions. Bias creeps in when the models we create in our minds are oversimplified or inaccurate.

Good decisions, especially for complex and high-stakes situations, must rely on a combination of both systems.

Common Steps in Decision-Making

Much guidance on decision-making focuses on a step-by-step process to follow. This research instead focused on how to overcome challenges that surface when trying to execute a step-by-step process. Below are the steps that guide users are assumed to be following when encountering the challenges addressed by the guide.

1. Clarify the Decision – What’s the decision at hand and how does it relate to other decisions? This is the time to define the problem and consider who should be involved.
2. Gather the Right People – The “right” people include people with knowledge or expertise, those who will implement, and those most affected by the decision.
3. Establish the Facts – Explicitly write out what you know and gather relevant data from a variety of sources. Check basic facts and assumptions in addition to hard data.
4. Define the Values – Be clear about whose values should be considered in the decision: your own, politicians,’ the organization’s, or key stakeholders.’ Gather input on values you do not already know. Determine how different values will be weighted and prioritized.
5. Develop Alternatives – List out the different actions or solutions on the table. Create these alternatives iteratively to refine as new information is learned or eliminate as appropriate.
6. Assess the Alternatives – Use the best available evidence and critical thinking to describe the predicted consequences of the alternatives.
7. Clarify Uncertainties – Confront uncertainty by weighing the likelihood of different outcomes and assessing their possible effects.
8. Decide – From the top alternatives, get final input from close advisors and key stakeholders. Be very clear with everyone involved when you have made a final decision.
9. Implement – Every decision requires proper care and attention to see it through to fruition. Follow up to ensure follow-on actions are taken and to navigate challenges.

Strategies for Better Decisions

Strategies to Manage Information

Strategies in this section provide advice to handle the varying volume and types of information required to make decisions that result in positive impacts.

Get the Right Information from Your Team

Getting full and unbiased input is critical, and it takes a deliberate effort to ensure the input received is not isolated to one perspective or subject to a cognitive bias. Strategies include:

• Be Ready for Staff’s Unique, but Limited, Perspective
• Demand Multiple Solutions
• Ask a Lot of Questions
• Have Staff Start with Headlines
• Create Space for Unvarnished Honesty
• Cultivate Curiosity About Your Team’s Expertise

Broaden Your Perspective

Practitioners stated it is important to create a system to ensure collaboration with the people who will be most impacted, are often ignored, and who will offer honest assessments on the topic of an impending decision. Strategies include:

• Expand the Table
• Pursue Honest Feedback
• Assemble Internal and External Advisors
• Be a Reader
• Explore Unconventional Data Sources
• Step Back to See the Big Picture

Don’t Run from Emotions

Understanding how emotions are at play in any situation can help a decision-maker benefit from the valuable information they offer without falling victim to their perilous side. Strategies include:

• Recognize Emotions as Signals
• Hit the Pause Button
• Build Emotional Intelligence
• Reframe Existing Conditions
• Balance Rational and Emotional Input

When is the Information You have “Enough”?

Agency leaders will make hundreds of decisions, the majority of which you will not have perfect information for. These strategies give them indicators that help determine when they have enough information to move forward. Strategies include:

• Define “Enough”
• Get Broad Input
• Watch for Patterns
• Make an Advance Default Decision
• Build in Flexibility Where You Can
• Don’t Let Remaining Uncertainty Hold You Back
• Be Upfront About What You Still Don’t Know

Strategies to Manage People

These strategies focus on how to deal with issues that involve the people agency leaders must often collaborate and interact with when making decisions.

Be Savvy to Politics & External Factors

Agency leaders must know how to navigate the political side of their decisions, as they are the bridge between ostensibly nonpolitical agencies and the world of big-P “Politics” embodied by governors, legislators, and local officials (and the people who can influence them).

• Recognize Political Entities as Stakeholders
• Seek Help in Navigating the Political Landscape
• Build Preemptive Coalitions of Support
• “No Surprises!” Communicate Early and Often
• Understand that Influence May Not Come with a Title
• Explain Your Context
• Reality Test the “Best” Technical Solutions
• Find Your Line in the Sand

Connect with Staff & Internal Forces

Leaders must learn to constructively handle the personalities in an organization and bring their people around to even unpopular decisions.

• Come In Humble
• Direct Without Being Directive
• Make and Manage Time to Listen to Staff
• Seek Out Influencers
• Have Staff’s Back if They Fail
• Be Ready to Put Your Foot Down

Monitor Group Dynamics

Many decisions at DOTs will involve a group of agency staff or stakeholders, and the roles and behaviors of group members can influence others’ perceptions and actions. The power (or peril) of this is often a different decision than a single member of the group would make on their own.

• Overcome Groupthink by Welcoming Dissent
• Get Everyone in the Same Room
• Know When to Kick People Out of the Room
• Deliberately Make Space for Quieter Voices
• Clarify Roles
• Become an Expert Facilitator

Balance Multiple Objectives

Public-sector organizations are charged with advancing several different broad societal goals, with no single, clear answer to the question of which objectives an agency should prioritize the most or how the diversity of stakeholder interests should be prioritized.

• Get Everyone Aligned Toward a North Star
• Encourage Staff to Value Other Work
• Give All Sides a Chance to Make Their Case
• Check the Historical Scorecard
• Map What’s Behind Stated Priorities
• Explicitly Outline What You are Using to Prioritize

Strategies to Manage Situations

This chapter provides guidance on how to reach a successful decision when confronted with a challenging or urgent scenario. Although there is no single step-by-step process that can assure good decisions for every set of circumstances, helpful strategies are outlined that can assist decision-makers in maneuvering within or around predicaments.

Manage Risk and Uncertainty

Leaders must identify what forces beyond their control could derail a decision and determine the right level of exposure that should be given to them based on the stakes, circumstances, and risk tolerance of others involved.

• Cast a Broad Net for Possible Risks
• What’s the Worst that Could Happen?
• Explore Uncertainty Support Tools
• Remember the Upside of Risks
• Understand Risk Tolerances
• Consider the Risk of Inaction
• Prepare Others for Possible Fallout
• Make the Decision in Pieces
• Track Indicators to Know if the Risk is Materializing

Suspend Protocol Strategically

As a leader, you will need to determine when it is most appropriate to suspend normal protocol to expand the options available for the decision and have strategies to minimize and manage potential fallout.

• Consider the Precedent
• Use Organizational Values as a Guide
• Expect the Unexpected
• Go Back to the Intent of the Policy
• Consider Who Set the Protocol
• Examine the Emotions and Stakes
• Don’t Use Protocol as a Crutch
• Don’t Make It a Habit
• Review Suspended Protocols

Navigate Crisis

This section outlines the kinds of situations that prevent transportation agency leaders from following the ideal decision-making process. It provides advice on both how to prepare for the unexpected to mitigate disruption and negative impacts, as well as how to navigate these situations once leaders find themselves in the thick of them.

• Verify, Verify, Verify Information
• Establish Strong, Centralized Communication
• Create a Plan and Internal Crisis Team
• Slow Down Decisions as Much as Possible
• Trust the Experts and Protect the Team
• Have Relationships Built before Crises Arise

Strategies After the Decision is Made

This section summarizes the work that must be done to ensure the decision lands well and is impactful. Provided here are recommendations on how to communicate the context and extent of the decision, organizing the logistics required to implement it, and tips on when and how to adapt the decision if necessary.

Communicate Your Decision

How a leader shares the decision after it is made and with whom they share are important to a decision’s overall reception. People’s initial reactions will be based on when they heard, when others heard relative to them, how it was delivered, the emotional tenor of the message, how involved they had been in the decision, and how far in advance they knew about potential ramifications.

• Plan Who You Tell When and How
• Announce the Decision to Your Team Together
• Explain Your Reasons
• Adjust the Context of the Conversation Appropriately
• Navigate Resistance Openly
• Take Charge of the Public Narrative
• Repeat Your Message

Implement Your Decision

Leaders must find ways to first set their decision on the right course and then follow up on the progress of implementing it with key stakeholders and staff.

• Formalize Implementation Plans and Roles
• Get Implementers What They Need
• Follow Up
• Tune into Signs of Resistance
• Point to Where Implementation IS working

Adapt Your Decision

A great decision-maker acknowledges when a decision needs to be changed and can adapt quickly to new information or circumstances.

• Be Ready to “Fail Fast” …
• … But Avoid Hair Trigger Change
• Review the Reception Among Your Team
• Workshop the Decision
• Consider the Source and Extent of Pushback
• Leave a Point of Appeal
• Mitigate When a Decision Cannot Be Changed
• Review the Process Behind Changed Decisions

Case Studies of Decisions in Action

The case studies represented six “decision dissections” that delved into the details of tough decisions that were made at different agencies. The topics for these cases varied including scenarios like megaproject maintenance of traffic battles, major infrastructure collapse, and significant changes to federal safety regulations in vehicles. These stories highlighted how some of the strategies in the guide can be effective and used practically.

Development and Impact

The case studies were drafted based on interviews conducted with former and current agency leaders across several disciplines. The six interviewees were selected based on NCRHP panel approval and represent a diverse collective of leaders individually and contextually in terms of their decisions situations. A case study pilot was completed first to allow the interview team to capture feedback in advance of the other interview discussions.

The structure of each case study included an initial overview section that described the decision situation, the type of decision, key players involved, and the stakes at play. The decision situation was then described in detail, using callout boxes to link specific examples of strategies from the guide at work within the case study stories. In parallel, throughout the guide sections, the research team also connected specific details within the case studies to relevant strategies in the guide with similar callout boxes.

Example Reference to Guide Strategies within a Case Study Narrative

Situation Assessment

The director recognized that one issue with asking the DOT to assist LPAs directly is that it doesn’t solve the underlying problem: that LPAs aren’t gaining the necessary expertise in their own organizations. In addition, Nebraska Department of Transportation (NDOT) would be taking on additional risk if local governments did not comply with federal requirements. Finally, although much of the current focus was on transportation projects, the director knew that IIJA funding included water, energy, and broadband funding as well. If NDOT became the go-to resource for IIJA transportation, there was concern that the agency would become the default resource for all infrastructure areas.

Alert: Agency Risk

Director Kramer looked ahead to possible fallout from the default decision on NDOT and its employees as well as long- term risks to local capabilities and ongoing need for support.

Learn more in Part IV: Manage Risk and Uncertainty.

Summary of Case Studies

Megaproject Delivery in Baton Rouge – Shawn Wilson

Former Secretary of Transportation for the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (LADOTD) Shawn Wilson was tasked with deciding whether a first-of-its-kind megaproject in Louisiana should try to limit traffic disruption for the years-long construction duration or significantly disrupt traffic for 1.5 years less. The stakes for the decision were high as multiple administrations had attempted to widen this stretch of Interstate only to run into roadblocks each time. Support was inconsistent across the wide range of stakeholder groups whose support was critical. As a rare major redevelopment project in an urban core, the I-10 widening megaproject was in the public spotlight and faced scrutiny from every corner of the state.

Local Grant Success in Nebraska – Vickie Kramer

Current Nebraska Department of Transportation Director (NDOT) Vicki Kramer had to determine whether to establish a new office at NDOT dedicated to supporting local public agencies (LPAs) pursue discretionary grants. As one of the least successful states in getting federal discretionary grant funds, Nebraska was leaving significant money on the table by not having a better strategy to help local governments apply for, win, and manage newly available grants.

Rural Road Funds vs. Climate Projects in California – Toks Omishakin

Current Secretary of Transportation for the California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA) Toks Omishakin had to resolve whether he should continue to delay, or cancel road widening projects in the rural, agriculture-rich Central Valley in the wake of the new governor’s climate-focused executive order. California’s climate activists wanted progress on the state’s climate goals, but when that progress appeared to come at the expense of road improvements in the state’s rural agricultural center, a backlash from industry stakeholders put CalSTA on the defensive. He had to decide whose priorities to fund in the midst of heated debate while taking the executive order into consideration.

I-85 Bridge Collapse in Atlanta, Georgia – Russell McMurry

Current Commissioner for the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) Russell McMurry was forced to resolve how to act and communicate in the aftermath of the I-85 fire and collapse in Atlanta. The collapse of the interstate was an immediate public safety issue, a short-term traffic management nightmare, and there were significant logistical challenges to repairing the facility quickly to return the network to normal.

Expanding Air Bags Amid Public Outcry – Ricardo Martinez

Former Administrator for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Ricardo Martinez contemplated how to continue expanding the use of airbags, as accounts of airbag-induced harm and deaths raised a public outcry. In 1996, NHTSA startled the world by acknowledging that airbags may contribute to killing children and frail adults in some crashes, leading to a public outcry over the potential dangers of airbags. However, airbags were also credited with saving thousands of lives. NHTSA and the auto industry needed to act quickly to both remove the real dangers that airbags posed to some passengers and prevent automakers and the public from resisting the life-saving capabilities of airbags overall.

Changing Engineering Standards in Maine – Joyce Taylor

Current Chief Engineer for the Maine Department of Transportation (Maine DOT) Joyce Taylor ruminated on how to change culvert standards to conform with US Fish & Wildlife requests. Maine DOT’s culvert projects were regularly taking months to get approval from U.S. Fish and Wildlife, but the federal agency’s demands were costly to implement and required Maine DOT to make engineering changes to the way it completed them.