A GOAL-ORIENTED 

 DECISION MODEL 



It has been seen that rational decision- 

 making requires clear specification of the 

 goals to be achieved. The preceding discussion 

 has reviewed the legislative background and 

 the evolution of the Forest Service mandate. 

 Some critics claim that all past legislation sim- 

 ply adds up to confusion and the agency is 

 left to "fly by the seat of its pants." I believe, 

 however, that a stipulated goal and an implied 

 decision model can be discerned in the legisla- 

 tion. This section puts forward a simple, gen- 

 eralized model that seeks to express the goal 

 contained in the legislation in a symbolically 

 descriptive format. 



The decision model presented here is not 

 intended as a comprehensive planning tool. 

 Rather, it is an attempt to supply a base 

 against which to evaluate charges that the 

 Forest Service pursues no goals. If there has 

 been a failure on the part of the agency, this 

 consists, I believe, in its apparent inability to 

 clarify its goals in the framework of a decision 

 model. Further, a clear plan of execution is 

 lacking — one that is in harmony with a stated 

 goal. Once a goal is stated, investigators may 

 legitimately criticize either the goal itself, or 

 the actions taken by the Forest Service to 

 achieve it. 



Failure to identify a goal is subject to criti- 

 cism in itself, but too often critics take a dif- 

 ferent approach. Unable to find evidence of 

 an internally held goal, they tend to assume 

 some goal that in their view ought to guide 

 the Forest Service, and then discuss agency 

 action or inaction in relation to it. The ques- 

 tion is not in what ways does the agency fail 

 to live up to your goal or mine, but rather, is 

 the agency actively and efficiently pursuing 

 the goal specified to it by the people through 

 Congress? 



It is of course a proper function of investi- 

 gators to question .the suitability of this or 

 that goal specified in the legislation. It is per- 

 fectly justifiable to suggest changes in that 

 goal to improve management of the National 

 Forests or more closely reflect the "needs of 

 the American people," which legislation aims 

 to serve. In this context, criticism of current 

 agency practice may be reasonable. Change is 

 needed, for example, when it is apparent that 

 existing goals inadequately reflect social wel- 

 fare considerations and public desires, or when 

 the mandated goals are impossible or extreme- 

 ly difficult to achieve. 



The model presented here is a "bare 

 bones" description of the goal of the agency 

 with respect to National Forest administra- 

 tion. It is necessarily simplified to accommo- 

 date a wide audience. Some readers may find 

 the presentation woefully abbreviated; others 

 may find it overly detailed. The aim has been 

 to steer a middle course. 



The model is not intended as a final or per- 

 fect interpretation of the legislation, although 

 every effort has been exerted to make it an 

 accurate appraisal. It is presented primarily to 

 fill a void in current decisionmaking practices. 

 Many ongoing agency projects are, in part at 

 least, also aimed at filling this void, and this 

 study will perhaps be helpful in such studies. 

 The model glosses over some important con- 

 siderations in order to be broadly useful. Fu- 

 ture agency action may correct this defi- 

 ciency; the creation of a more complex model 

 as a planning tool lies within the agency re- 

 sponsibility. 



You, the reader, especially if you are a pro- 

 fessional forester within the agency, should 

 relate to the model in a very special way. 

 First, ask yourself if what follows adequately 



36 



