A632.3.3.RB_SiegmundWayne

Framing Complex Decisions

     In my organization, it is rare that decisions are made by any one person in a bubble on a single-dimensional problem. Often, in the military, managers, or supervisors have to contend with multi-dimensional decision-making processes that entails multiple stakeholders, and their environments. Here, the complexity of the decision-making process is inherent to the involved stakeholders, their environments, the authorities, funding, personnel, and permissions associated with each stakeholder's environment. In addition, the complexity of decision-making in my organization also takes into account other on-going events that may not be related, but may require coordination and deconfliction consideration.

     Addressing systemic complexity in my organization, a special operations command in a joint environment, would typically include the development of an operation, Key Leader Engagement, or movement, namely, the Concept of Operations (CONOPS), in a PowerPoint format where a collection of information is displayed (Hoch, Kunruether & Gunther, 2001). The CONOPS would then be assessed for fulfillment of a requirement, supported by authorities and their associated funding, permissions by the appropriate stakeholders, risk versus gain, and the approval of the Commanding General. Within these steps, further discussion is required to determine, and confirm constraints, personnel and equipment involved, how they are involved, the costs of their involvement, as well as the availability of assets and the logistics associated with contingency operations in the case something would happen to the involved personnel. In addition, decisions to act on gathered information that has been deemed actionable intelligence will also be made. These decisions alone require a vetting process to determine veracity and value prior to incorporating into the larger operational context.

     In order to validate and strengthen capabilities for such types of operations, the organization has developed annual scenarios nested within a real-life large scale exercise replicating the events in the same environments that would be anticipated if and when such a real-world operation would actually occur. Throughout the exercise, multiple computer modules will be utilized to show asset status and position, current intelligence, decision-making matrix, execution check-list schedule, and live video feed that will aid in understanding the current battlefield landscape, and decision-making processes.

     In looking at multiple stakeholders within my organization, there are those we answer to and act based on their tasks and orders, those we work with to integrate our efforts to provide a more meaningful and effective result, and those we support and work together with. The tasks and orders often come from the President of the United States, the secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Africa Command. Within each of these levels, vested stakeholders reside, as does those integrated within my organization such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Central Intelligence Agency, Joint Personnel Recovery Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency, Defense Clandestine Services, and United States Special Operations Command. The interaction and integration between all of these agencies and my own, is a challenge we are still working on to this day.

     The approach to this issue occurs on a one-to-one basis, as well as annual conferences where representatives from each respective agency is in attendance. The purpose of these conferences is to listen and understand each others capabilities, resources, what they bring to the operating environment and discuss how best to integrate said capabilities, understand their inherent constraints and determine through inter-agency integration how best to strengthen these capabilities for future use (Hoch et al., 2001).

     Environmentally, my organization operates in the geopolitical, military, inter-agency, and civilian environments. At times, decisions are being made by my organization at U.S. Embassies throughout Africa, the State Department, Department of Defense Agencies, military posts, and even Starbucks. The use of organizational email, online organizational and agency web portals, intelligence databases, as well as personnel mapping and authorizations and funding provide at-the-fingertip access as a living information base. Limiting factors across these environmental domains exist constraints that lie within a language barrier. Each of these environments have their own culture, and with that, terms and acronyms that must be explained to ensure flat communications and transparency between them all. My organization, along with their current capabilities, stakeholders and Decision Support Systems (DSS), provide a good place to strengthen those capabilities.

     In my assessment, I would logically and incrementally implement the Two-Stage Process, where stage one "focuses on enhancing knowledge of the environment, response flexibility, and the value of different options". and stage two, concerned with implementing decisions for the sake of the money (Hoch et al., 2001, p. 120). However, in the case of the military, it would be for the sake of reaching desired effects across all stakeholders and environments. As part of the process, an After Actions Report (AAR) would be produced for the sake of Lessons Learned and re-evaluation of events, and decisions made

References:

Ang, K. C. S., Killen, C. P. & Snakaran, S. (2015, June 20). Value constructs in multi-stakeholder environments that influence project portfolio decision making. Retrieved from https://opus.lib.uts.edu.au/bitstream/10453/36281/1/Euram_Paper%201637_Ang_Killen_Sankaran_Value%20constructs.pdf

Hill, J. (2004, August). Facilitating complex multi-stakeholder processes: A social learning perspective. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/research/water-initiative/pdf/iwrm_scicom/a/a3_en.pdf

Hoch, S. J., Kunreuther, H. C., & Gunther, R. E. (2001). Wharton on Making Decisions. Hoboken: NJ. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Montibeller, G., Phillips, L. & Fasolo, B. (n.d.). Revolutionising decision-making in complex multi-stakeholder contexts. Retrieved from http://www.lse.ac.uk/researchAndExpertise/researchImpact/caseStudies/montibeller-revolutionising-decision-making-in-complex-multi-stakeholder-contexts.aspx

    

A632.3.4.RB_SiegmundWayne

Reflections on Decision Making

     Avoiding framing traps would be impossible without some level of self-awareness. The deeper and longer we are self-aware, the better the opportunities to identify these traps. In becoming aware that certain framing traps exist, we can counter them with specific strategies and tools (Hoch, Kunreuther & Gunther, 2001).

     Avoiding Frame Blindness (Hoch et al., 2001), can be accomplished through increasing awareness about your own perceptions, and looking into others' frames for comparison against your own. In addition, having an open mind to allow for other ideas, can also help in breaking down mental barriers you did not know existed. In addition, an earnest search for established assumptions based on experience can also help in avoiding this blindness. For example, when I entered college, I knew I was there for the Men's Varsity Gymnastics team, but also what became equally important, was working to earn a Bachelor's degree in Physics. My perception in my academics was that it came second to my training, and therefore my focus and priority was on the gymnastics team.

     Although I always made time to get my homework completed, my time-management suffered, leaving me doing homework late at night, and sometimes the day it is due. When I discovered academic athletic awards from looking at historical university plaques, I learned that I could possibly be removed from the gymnastics team if I did not keep a certain cumulative average. In becoming aware of these athletic provisions and awards, I was able to re-prioritize my efforts and shift my frame of thinking to academics first, and gymnastics second. The perception on my gymnastics changed for the better even though my primary focus was now on academics. The risk here was that my gymnastics could possibly suffer. It turned out I stopped trying so hard in the gym, discovering new gymnastics skills came easier to me than I ever knew!

    A second way to avoid framing traps is to evaluate your biases that come from unconscious filtering of valuable information, ideas, and perceptions leading to an Illusion of Completeness (Hoch, et al., 2001). When we unconsciously overlay thoughts and ideas that we tend to favor on top of an existing, or current perception and act on making decision believing we have all the appropriate information needed, we have fallen into an ill-perceived framing trap.

In order to avoid this trap, we need to always understand that we bring positive and negative perceptions from past experience with us into new experiences. Sometimes we recognize a pattern and assign a previous frame to it, influencing our decisions. However, it is here, we need to give each recognized pattern the opportunity to offer us a unique experience. Being aware of what biases we could be possibly assigning this new pattern, can help keep us from falling into this trap. Case and point: In attempt to feel more relaxed at my first joint operations brief, I took what I knew from previous meetings and kept them in mind as I entered this new brief. As I looked around gathering others' behaviors and concerns, I came to realize that my previous experience was not going to apply. Everyone around me was considering multiple sides of a number of issues, whereas, I had only prepared to defend and support a single idea with respect to sensitive activities training with another country. In attempt to keep myself from looking foolish, I immediately dropped all biases from my thinking, leaving me with an open mind to speak from my experience. The risk here, was that I still would not be able to connect on the same page with those at the table.

     As I shared my pros and cons on the different training programs over four different countries, I had sparked a new productive discussion on authorities and permissions that allowed for multiple training types to occur in a single country, and afforded myself a new fresh, un-tethered perception of what appeared to be a familiar environment.

     A third method of avoiding framing traps would be in preventing overconfidence in one's own frame (Hoch et al., 2001). We tend to feel overconfident within our own frame while undervaluing that of others in support of our own. Even given the knowledge of another perspective, I feel the rigidity of the ego keeps one's own assumption that their own frame is still more valuable than another. For example, shortly after getting married at the age of 34, I had consistently defended a frame of thinking with respect to deciding to purchase a truck. I felt I had earned it over the years, and that it would serve the family in a practical manner for years to come. In feeling this way, I was quite sure that my perspective was more correct than my wife's. However, given some time to consider her frame, and where she was coming from, I increased the value of her frame over mine, and made a different choice. The potential risk in making this adjustment was perhaps never realizing my dream truck. I now own that truck with no regrets.

     In the case of each of these traps, I was able to identify inconsistencies, and obstacles within my own frame, and allowing enough flexibility to make a shift, or change from the current framework at the time to one that proved to be more valuable and effective. From these experiences, I am now able to enter into similar situations with a greater sense of awareness, and openness to shifting frames than I had before.

     These examples taught me that my experiences alone will not always serve me, other perspectives may be more valuable to me than the one I have for any given situation, I need to remain self-aware of assumptions, biases, and the steadfast holding of ideas from similar experiences, and to give myself the consideration of creating a Joint Fame (Hoch et al., 2001). Some tools I would have implemented had I been aware of them would be the Joint Frame, Prospective Hindsight, Assess the Mental Images, Key stakeholders, and Reference Point Analysis.

     I have learned that while I would like to believe my frame has enough value to go forward and make choices based on it alone, it is more valuable to exercise self-awareness to correct assumptions, biases, and specific perceptions I may carry. In addition, keep an open mind to receiving other frames of reference and perspectives to create a more well rounded, and flexible frame myself in hopes to make a wiser decision.

References: 

Cotter, M., Elliot, J., Harris, D., Paris, K., Thayer-Hart, N.,...Zanzig, A. (2007). Facilitator tool kit: A guide for helping groups get results. Retrieved from http://oqi.wisc.edu/resourcelibrary/uploads/resources/Facilitator%20Tool%20Kit.pdf

Courtney, H., Lovallo, D. & Clarke, C. (2013, November). Decision making: Deciding how to decide. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2013/11/deciding-how-to-decide

Hoch, S. J., Kunreuther, H. C., & Gunther, R. E. (2005). Wharton on making decisions. (1st ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Petty, A. (2011, March 9). Management excellence toolkit-3: How to frame your decisions for success. Retrieved from https://artpetty.com/2011/03/09/management-excellence-toolkit-part-3-how-to-frame-your-decisions-for-success/

A632.2.3.RB_SiegmundWayne

How To Make Choosing Easier

     For years, when confronted with more than three options, or courses of action, I often found myself taking longer than usual to work out the decision-making process that would render a choice that I would typically not regret.  I have become better at eliminating extraneous and irrelevant information, mentally organizing and weighing of the values between the remaining options, and have chosen based on experience, intuition and logic.  However, the time it takes to make these decision, at work as well as home, depends not only the impact of the second, third, fourth, etc. order of effects, but also the number of options from which I start with.

    When presented with an abundance of options from which to choose, heuristics will usually provide me a quick way to filter out what I would normally consider not an option, and quickly label those remaining in hopes of supporting a wise decision. With heuristics, pattern recognition and filtering based on experience may be skewed to the new problem set at hand. In attempt to adjust my heuristics in the future, I will work to practice cutting out the extraneous, redundant options, concretize the options in order to understand the consequences of choosing them, categorize remaining options in attempt to visually and mentally understand what I am choosing, and condition myself to deal with complex choices by working fewer, simple options first, then work to choosing more complex ones (Lyengar, 2011).

     While working to modify heuristics with new experiences, patterns and information, it is important to understand that though heuristics serve a purpose, they may lack vital information, contributing to errors in decision making (Milkman, Chugh & Bazerman, 2010).

     In my personal life, when presented with a large number of options from which to choose, my inclination is to cut out and eliminate all potential options that through some quick, but thoughtful analysis, do not apply, or are less valuable (Lyengar & Agrawal, 2010). For example, when choosing between different types of socks to purchase, I quickly look at and identify what I do not like to wear, so that they will not be part of my decision-making process when considering what to buy. With so many options from which to choose, it saves a great deal of time.

     As part of a military unit, I look to fully understand a problem set in order to more clearly see what my options are. Once my options are identified, I evaluate what impacts come from each option, if chosen, and determine if the outcome resolves the issue based on experience and intuition. When an option proves to render a satisfying result above all others, a decision is made. In this sense, it appears I utilize concretization in order to vivtize my options and understand the consequences of each if chosen.

     In conclusion, it is my intention to improve time-management for myself, so as to allow when possible, the time to apply the four principles; cut, organize, concretize, and condition, in order to develop a new, more deliberate decision-making process (Lyengar, 2011).

References

Lyengar, S (2011, November). Sheena lyengar: How to make choosing easier [TED Talks Video]. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/sheena_iyengar_choosing_what_to_choose#t-869622

Lyengar, S. & Agrwal, K. (2010, November 23). A better choosing experience. Retrieved from http://www.strategy-business.com/article/00046?gko=13ead

Milkman, K. L., Chugh, D. & Bazerman, M. H. (2008). How can decision making be improved? Retrieved from http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/08-102.pdf

    

A632.1.4.RB_SiegmundWayne

Multistage Decision Making

     In my experience, the decision-making process varies, depending on the value and complexity of the problem at hand.  If I determine getting fuel for my car now would be an inconvenience, I would quickly assess to find the next opportunity in the future and determine if that time is too far away, or not, based on the fuel I have remaining. If the time identified in the future was plausible, the impact of choosing the date in the future would be minimal, and I would simply get fuel later, making the impact to be less of an inconvenience now.

     In another scenario of deciding to wake up to my alarm, or select snooze for 10 minutes depends on the reasons as to why I have my alarm set. The value of getting up on time (initial alarm) for making breakfast is less than the value of getting up on time for work. Upon waking to the alarm, I quickly assess how I feel and determine, if tired enough, if 10 more minutes of rest will negatively impact my schedule, or if I need to make an adjustment in my morning routine.

     In both of these cases, if left at the single stage of determinacy, could prove to be a very inconvenient decision if other factors are not taken into consideration to calculate a better outcome with less potential for a negative impact. For example, if while at work, I was asked to attend a meeting on the other side of town, in the opposite direction of the nearest fuel station, I would potentially run out of fuel before ever making it to the meeting, leading to a number of new problems to contend with, besides missing the meeting. If choosing to hit the snooze button for another 10 minutes, I could possibly sleep through the next alarm, and run late for work knowing traffic gets worse the more I delay.

     In my heuristics, I often find myself thinking more on what factors I am leaving out and how they would impact the outcome of my decisions. The decision to do this comes from experiencing too often the negative impact of factors not considered during the decision-making process. However, at the same time, a parallel experience of utilizing my intuition (pattern recognition) offers a quick reference to help offset any feelings of uncertainty. If I can intuitively recognize a problem and recall experience to support the decision-making process, more time can be used to address any myopia related to multistage decision problems (Hoch, Kunreuther & Gunther, 2001).

     Being myopic in my decision-making process impacts other people in my workplace, as well as those at embassies in other countries. Recently, I was given the choice to send money with another service member to a country in Africa, or to have it sent via diplomatic courier at a small cost. I knew getting the service member to bring the money with them would be quickest, and would have it immediately available to the, the amount they could bring would be limited. The impact to having the service member take the money with them is a new request in the near future for more funds to be sent to them via diplomatic courier. I would also have to take into consideration the fact that the service member may come under some scrutiny during customs in Africa, resulting in delays and potential negative impacts associated with the United States and that country. however, if the amount transported by the service member is under $10,000.00, scrutiny in unlikely.

     The rule of thumb here has traditionally been to send the funds with the service member, so the service member can immediately make use of the funds as needed. On one hand, there is the value of being able to get to work with funding immediately, with a potential for financial scrutiny at customs, possibly impacting strategic relationships. On the other hand, there is the value of the U.S. Embassy and country team relationship utilizing a secure and accepted diplomatic courier to send the money preserving diplomatic relations, despite a two week delay in the arrival of the funds, and minimal cost for the service. In this case, the cost for the diplomatic services over time outweighs the probability of issues that can creep up at the customs office. 

     Considering future consequences of either decision, my intuition tells me to avoid sending the funds with the service member, given the option to send funds securely with a two week delay. The service member can use the two weeks to continue building rapport with the country team personnel and become familiar with their new environment and work requirements. Every six months when a new service member rotates out, and a new one rotates in, a review of these two choices, to send funds via service member, or send funds via diplomatic courier, will be made to account for any changes that may occur.

     In comparison between the current decision-making processes I use now, and the dynamic decision-making process mentioned in chapter three of our reading, that the two may be similar. The two assumptions, Accumulation of Knowledge, along with a Decision Policy, are used in my decision-making process already with respect to certain choices. In other cases, a Decision Policy may not be in place. However, I can definitely see, if applicable, the benefits in having one, and will look for opportunities to create them. However, considering dynamic programming, as appealing and attractive a formal mathematical formula is to me, it is unlikely I would replace any of my heuristics, and save the process for when time allowed, and the decision is valuable to me. Nevertheless, the dynamic programming process would most certainly improve my decision making, knowing that all the accumulated information and decisional factors are taken into account (Hoch, et al., 2001).

     The impact of the dynamic decision-making process on forward planning is the identification of the relationships between impact and decision policy over time. Applying optimal dynamic decision analysis to predict future impact of today's decisions, I would first look at myself for any assumptions and biases I may hold with respect to the problem and its components, and determine if the analysis process in fact applies, all the while paying attention to my intuition. I would also look at possible future impacts (removal of possible myopic tendencies), so as to foresee as many probable outcomes as possible during the analysis process (Hoch et al., 2001).


References:

Hoch, S. J., Kunreuther, H. C., & Gunther, R. E. (2001). Wharton on making decisions. New York: NY. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Bogacz,R. Brown, E., Moehlis, J., Holmes, P., & Cohen, J. D. (2006). The physics of optimal decision making: A formal analysis of models of performance in two-alternative forced-choice tasks. Psychological Review 113(4), 700-765. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295X.113.4.700.