The report must analyse realistic responses to the issue, explain how they could be implemented, evaluate practicality and likely impact, and justify one preferred option.
Learning Objectives
By The End Of This Lesson, You Should Be Able To
- Distinguish a broad aspiration from a specific course of action.
- Develop at least two relevant and realistic actions.
- Explain implementation, responsible actors, resources and timescale.
- Evaluate practicality and possible impact using clear criteria.
- Select and justify a preferred action using the earlier analysis of the issue.
What Is A Course Of Action?
A course of action is a specific response that an identified actor could implement. “Raise awareness” is too vague unless the report explains who will act, which audience will be targeted, what information will be communicated, through which method, at what cost and how success will be measured. “Governments should solve poverty” is an aim, not an implementable action.
Specific Action
Instead of “reduce food waste,” propose that municipal authorities introduce separate household food-waste collection, contract local composting facilities, provide standard bins, run targeted instructions and publish annual collection and contamination data.
Generate More Than One Option
High-level evaluation requires comparison. Develop at least two relevant actions that address different causes or operate through different actors. One might use regulation, another incentives, education, infrastructure, technology, community organisation or international cooperation. The alternatives should be serious possibilities rather than one strong option and one obviously weak option.
The actions should emerge from the analysis. If the main cause is lack of infrastructure, an awareness campaign alone is unlikely to be sufficient. If the issue is driven by incentives, information alone may have limited effect.
Explain Implementation
Implementation Questions
- Who has the authority and capacity to act?
- What steps would be taken and in what order?
- Which resources, skills, laws or partnerships are required?
- Who would pay, and what opportunity costs could arise?
- What is a realistic timescale?
- How would affected groups participate?
- What barriers or unintended effects might occur?
- How would progress and impact be measured?
Evaluate Practicality
Practicality concerns whether the action can realistically be carried out. Consider cost, political support, administrative capacity, technology, public acceptance, enforcement, cultural fit and time. Practicality differs by context. An action that works in a wealthy city with strong institutions may be unsuitable in a rural region with limited funding or infrastructure.
Avoid using cost as the only criterion. A costly action may still be practical if funding exists and benefits are large. A low-cost action may be impractical if people do not trust it or if no institution can enforce it.
Evaluate Possible Impact
Impact concerns how far the action is likely to change the issue. Consider scale, speed, durability, fairness, reach and unintended consequences. Ask whether the action treats symptoms or underlying causes. Evidence from previous policies, pilot projects or comparable settings can strengthen the evaluation, but differences between contexts should be acknowledged.
Use cautious language when evidence is uncertain: may, is likely to, depends on, could be more effective where. Evaluation is stronger when conditions for success are stated.
Comparing Actions Systematically
A comparison matrix can use criteria such as likely impact, cost, feasibility, speed, fairness, sustainability and stakeholder acceptance. The criteria should be chosen according to the issue. Weighting may be unequal: for an emergency, speed may matter more; for long-term environmental policy, durability and sustainability may be central.
Mini Comparison
Action A, a legal ban, may create rapid nationwide change but requires enforcement and may impose higher costs on small businesses.
Action B, a producer fee, may encourage redesign and generate funding, but its effect depends on the fee level and whether costs are passed to consumers.
A justified choice would explain which criteria matter most and why one action better addresses the causes identified earlier.
Selecting A Preferred Course Of Action
The preferred action should be selected with direct reference to the report’s analysis. The writer might choose an action because it addresses the strongest cause, protects the most affected group, has the best evidence of impact, or offers the most realistic balance between effectiveness and feasibility. A combination can be proposed, but the report should still identify the central course of action and explain how supporting measures fit around it.
A good judgement also recognises limitations. “This is the best option” is less convincing than “This option is most appropriate because it addresses the main infrastructure cause and can use existing municipal systems, although phased funding and public consultation would be required.”
Common Mistakes To Avoid
- Listing solutions without explaining implementation.
- Evaluating only advantages and ignoring barriers or unintended effects.
- Choosing an action that does not address the causes analysed earlier.
- Assuming a policy successful in one country will work identically elsewhere.
- Using vague actions such as educate people, make stricter laws or use technology.
- Selecting the preferred action before comparing alternatives.
- Judging practicality only by personal preference.
Quick Practice
Action Planning Task
Develop two courses of action for your issue. For each, identify actor, steps, resources, barriers, likely impact and evidence. Compare them using three criteria and write a justified preference.
