Furthermore,Allison’s organizational process model allows us to comprehend how “individualdepartments and agencies are required to adhere to a standard operatingprocess” (Abelson, 2006). Also, Alison argues in specificcircumstances they are unable to have the “flexibility to change theirbehavior” (Abelson, 2006), this is importantin international politics because we can consider limited information and misrepresentationthrough institutional limitations. for instance, the Foreign Ministry is a prime example asthey focus primarily three main functions the routine information gathering, policy-making and provision of institutionalmemory. In addition, themain idea is that typical functioning methods are practically a gathering of previousforeign policy decisions.
First, governments identify the issue and make acomparison from a problem handled from the past. Ultimately, following the sameguidelines and procedures, that potentially was successful before. Likewise,the concept of ‘default positions’ enabling governments to avoid difficultprocedures of noting targets and cost and benefits for actions. Moreover, international politics needs theorganizational process model because it enables us to understand that decisionsdo not “come from rational decisions insteadof outputs of organizational processes” (Huda, 1969). Governments, follow firm, “pre-establishedroutines that give desired output” (Huda, 1969). Then again, perhaps the model doesn’tnecessarily contribute to international politics because it has minimal focuson optimization, instead of performance. Also, choices are restricted dependingon ‘standard operating procedures and arevery reliant on budget. Not to mention the organizational model insinuates thatthere is no learning or progress visible in ‘institutionally fixed positionsand procedures’.
Regardless, the organizational model does indeed accentuateaccessible and identifiable decisions in constraining circumstances. Also,noting crucial domestic political influence.