A Critique Of The Science Of Muddling Through By Charles Lindblom

Whether or not the firefighters should have used their available equipment to put out the fire, despite the instructions of local policy, is best answered through the lens of the root theory as explained in the article “The Science of Muddling Through” by Charles Lindlblom. In this model the firefighters would have to rank their objectives by how much value they placed on each one and through that, make a decision. Perhaps their objectives are one, to put out fires and protect people and two, to follow local policy. Their third objective may be to respect those who have paid their fees. The value of these objectives may vary depending on the situation(Lindblom). In this particular situation I think that the firefighters should have ranked the objective to put out fires and protect people as the most valuable and therefore should have extinguished the fire despite local policy.

It appears that the city used the incrementalist approach as described in the article by Amitai Etzioni. When setting this policy the administration clearly only considered a few consequences that they considered to be important(Etzioni). If they had applied Etzioni’s mixed scanning approach they may not have missed this consequence at all and Cranick would have been able to pay at the scene of the fire for the service. This theory uses an idea of two different lenses that focus on a smaller scale and larger scale so as to miss fewer details, options, and consequences and essentially provide for a better system of decision making(Etzioni). No one can predict that their house will catch on fire, someone who pays for the service may never need it, therefore in emergencies like this, neighbors should be allowed to share the