The offensives fought by the Italian Army in WWI are somewhat infamous for how badly they turned out. It is my understanding that terrain itself was worse than average and gave the Austrian Army significant advantage on defense.
If Italian decision-makers felt that Italy must deploy troops in offensive operations, were there any better options from a purely military standpoint, or the ideal course of action would be offensives in roughly the same area, but better planned and executed? And was any alternative solution politically viable if we discount the perceived need to control the promised territorial concessions?
If Italian decision-makers felt that Italy must deploy troops in offensive operations, were there any better options from a purely military standpoint, or the ideal course of action would be offensives in roughly the same area, but better planned and executed?
There were no better military options.
The only alternative to attack across Isonzo eastwards towards Trieste and Pola-Fiume-Laibach (Ljubljana) was attack in the North-Western direction into Tirol.
However this was "march into nowhere". It brought Italian army into the heart of Alps with few ways out, it brought no significant economical gains save increase of the number of goats, it couldn't significantly hurt Austro-Hungarian economy.
Eastern direction was way better. First, mountains were much smaller there. Second it allowed to capture both major ports of Austro-Hungary: Trieste and Fuime, as well as main naval base in Pola. Third, victorious Italian army had a lot of options after it will capture this area: to go capture Dalmazia, to try to stir Slav irredentism on newly-captured Slovene and Croat lands, to go to Hungarian plain, etc.
This map shows the situation well: https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~297259~90068851