As I said in my discussion post, I think the Cynefin
framework does come in handy in decision making, especially in my career field
as a naval officer. The nice thing about
the framework is that is allows you to identify what type of situation you are
in - whether it be simple, complicated, complex, or chaos – and then react
appropriately. This framework
specifically helps you out in a couple of ways.
First off, it breaks down situations into 4 broad categories. While not sounding important, being able to
categorize something into only 4 different situations sure can make things
easier when compared with having to categorize something into 30 different ones
– 4 is just detailed enough to ensure separation between the frames. Secondly, once you have identified what frame
you are in, it provides for a common response.
Each frame has a different response that is catered to the specific
frame. There is no need to collect large
amounts of data in the chaos frame as there are few trends that can be
identified. Instead, you act first and
see how the system responds to get a feel for things. Thirdly, the different frames also provide a
quick summary of what you are going to have to do to solve the problem. Are you going to have to use a procedure or
are you going to have to think a solution out – each frame is different. From the readings, it also provides for
things a leader should and should not do for each situation. For example, complacency is a problem with
the simple frame due to the cookie-cutter approach to the solutions. As a result, a good leader should be wary of
a complacent team when identifying simple problems.
I can easily identify multiple examples of each
framework. I would compare the necessary
thinking process for basic ship driving to the complicated frame. In this frame, there are multiple right
responses for any given situation. With
ship driving, there are often many “correct” answers to get the ship safely
from one point to the next. There are
governing documents that guide how you act in general, however for the most
part you are free to choose which way you want to go (within the confines of
the Navigator’s track). Within the
submarine community, many JOs have a hard time removing themselves from the
nuclear side of the house (which is definitely a simple frame system outside of
catastrophic casualties) when they come up forward. As a result, they tend to think in a very
linear fashion like they do back aft.
What they forget is that most ship driving manuals allow the OOD the
freedom to make the decision and only recommend certain maneuvers. In fact, the manual writers did this
specifically to prevent people thinking that they have to act exactly as the
manual says. As a result, when they
think they have to turn, they do so in a very rigid fashion (for arguments sake
we’ll say the manual says turn to place the contact 50 degrees off the
bow). The new drivers will turn and
place the ship exactly 50 degrees of the bow by turning the bow through the
line of site, even if it means an almost 180 turn. I used to get in heated arguments why this shouldn’t
be done with some of them, and every time the CO backed me up. I would stress to the guys I was training
that the book only recommends and gives you the freedom to operate the ship
safely as you see it. Anyways, long
story short, driving the ship puts you in a pretty good situation to sense,
analyze, and then respond to the situation (as opposed to trying things out
first with the case of the complex frame or categorizing in the simple frame).
As I mentioned above, the nuclear side of
submarining is clearly a simple frame.
Your job as the operator is to identify trends/problems and then respond
in accordance with the procedure. Any
critical thinking outside of that is simply not desired. You are to sense the problem, categorize it, and
then respond properly.
No comments:
Post a Comment