CATWOE Stakeholder Model of Soft Systems Management

THE SOFT SYSTEMS APPROACH
ROOT DEFINITION and CATWOE MODEL
By
VIKRAM KARVE


The first step in Soft Systems Methodology ( SSM ) is to formulate the Root Definition of the System you are studying, analysing, designing, evaluating or even quality assuring, inspecting or certifying.

ROOT DEFINITION

A Root Definition is a structured description of a system. It is a clear statement of activities which take place (or might take place) in the organisation being studied.
 
A properly structured root definition comprises three elements [what, how, why] and is of the form: 

A System to do X, by (means of) Y, in order to achieve Z.

X – What the System does
Y – How it does it
Z – Why it is being done

The 'what' is the immediate aim of the system,
The 'how' is the means of achieving that aim,
The 'why' is the longer term aim of the purposeful activity.

CATWOE analysis helps in proper formulation of a Root Definition.

CATWOE is a mnemonic which helps identify and categorize all stakeholders [people, processes, environment, entities] of the System being analysed for formulating the Root Definition.

CATWOE MODEL 

C = CUSTOMERS OR CLIENTS
A = ACTORS OR AGENTS
T = TRANSFORMATION PROCESS
W =WELTANSCHAUUNG or WORLD VIEW
O = OWNERS
E = ENVIRONMENT

To elaborate a bit:

C: The ‘customers of the system’ , clients or System Beneficiaries. In this context ‘customers’ means those who are on the receiving end of whatever it is that the system does. Is it clear from your definition of “C” as to who are the beneficiaries of the system?

A: The ‘actors’, meaning those who would actually carry out the activities envisaged in the notional system being defined. Actors transform inputs into outputs.

T: The ‘transformation process’. What does the system do to the inputs to convert them into the outputs?

W: Weltanschauung - The ‘world view’ that lies behind the Root Definition; the perspective from which the Root Definition if formulated. Putting the system into its wider context can highlight the consequences of the overall system. For example the system may be in place to assist in making the world environmentally safer, and the consequences of system failure could be significant pollution.

O: The ‘owner(s)’ – The person(s) who has commissioned the system and who has sufficient formal power over the system to stop it existing if they so wished (though they won’t usually want to do this).

E: The ‘environmental constraints’. These include things such as ethical limits, regulations, financial constraints, resource limitations, limits set by terms of reference, and so on.


CATWOE Analysis yields a more elaborate all encompassing Root Definition of the form:

A System owned by O to do W by A by means of T given the constraints of E in order to achieve X for C.

A briefer version of Root Definition is:  a T system in which A do W for C 


Illustrative Example of application of CATWOE Model 


EDUCATION SYSTEM CHARACTERIZATION
 
Here is a CATWOE Model of a hypothetical Higher Education System [a University or College]:

C – Students
A – Teachers
T – School Pass Outs are transformed into Graduates [Degree Holders]
W – Graduation [a Degree] is a means of assurance to potential employers that the Graduate [Degree Holder] possesses a specified standard of proficiency and skills in the domain of qualification.
O – The University or College Governing Body or Top Management
E – The Prescribed Educational, Academic Quality, Assessment and Accreditation Standards and Requirements.

Now this CATWOE Analysis may yield a Root Definition that this particular Higher Education Institution is a university owned system to award degrees to students (X) who successfully qualify assessment (Y) in accordance with prescribed standards in order to certify assurance (Z) to potential employers that the students possess the requisite proficiency, capabilities and skills. 
 
Is this Root Definition okay or is there something amiss...?

Suppose we define Potential Employers [or Industry] as CUSTOMERS [C] and include students as ACTORS [A] along with teachers – won’t we then get a more apt Root Definition and consequently realise a better Educational System in keeping with current needs and ground reality...?

It is vital to accord apt attention to optimizing the System Root Definition for the System under consideration for best results and in this the CATWOE Model is very helpful.

FOOD FOR THOUGHT

At a recent alumni meet of a prestigious Engineering College I asked a few recently passed out alumni [who were working for a leading IT company for just over a year] as to how much of what was taught in his four year Engineering Degree Course in his college was useful in his work.

They said: “Less than 5% (five percent)” – which means that his employer had to invest heavily [almost 95%] in his training and the rest he had to learn on the job. 
 
Maybe the educational institution needs to introspect and have a relook at its CATWOE Model and reformulate its ROOT DEFINITION and restructure its curriculum and revitalize its pedagogic methodology to meet the challenges of current needs and envisage seamless integration of fresh BE and B. Tech. Engineering Graduates into the industry.

A Systems Approach to higher education incorporating increased partnership and congruence between the industry and universities is the sine qua non of optimal human resource development in science and technology.


The disconnect between the industry and the educational system must be bridged. The Soft Systems Approach incorporating the CATWOE Model is ideally suited for analysing and optimising education systems since all education systems are Human Activity System (HAS) and not Hard Systems.


THE SOFT SYSTEMS APPROACH
ROOT DEFINITION and CATWOE MODEL 
By 
VIKRAM KARVE

This article written by me in 1991 and posted online by me a number of times including at url: http://karvediat.blogspot.in/2011/08/system-analysis-soft-approach.html

Copyright © Vikram Karve 1991
Vikram Karve has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 to be identified as the author of this work.
© vikram karve., all rights reserved.

DIFFERENT VIEWS - Perceptual Positions

HOW TO GET A HOLISTIC VIEW or SEE THE BIG PICTURE 

THE CONCEPT OF PERCEPTUAL POSITIONS

A Concept from NLP for Analyzing Problems and Interpreting Behaviour 

By

VIKRAM KARVE

In order to get a holistic view of a situation, or see the “big picture”, sometimes, there is a need to view things from a distance . 

They say that you cannot solve a problem if you are a part of the problem - so you must “step out” of the problem and view the situation from outside in a detached dispassionate way which may help you in analyzing the problem properly and help you in arriving at a solution. 

In your personal life too it may be of great advantage if you develop the ability to watch your own life from a distance - in fact, the ability to see things from a distance is the sine qua non for self improvement and personal development. 

Think about it. If you are in the middle of trees you may not be able to see the whole forest - likewise being in the middle of a situation may prevent you from seeing the “bigger picture”.

Tell me, in the personal and professional domains of your life, haven't you encountered situations where it would have been best to adopt a “detached” stance and view the situation from multiple perspectives, because as I said earlier, you cannot solve a problem if you are a part of the problem, especially an ethical dilemma.

I am sure you have heard people saying, “If I were in your position” or “I can see your point of view”.

 

Have you ever put yourself in someone else’s shoes and had the experience of seeing the world or situation through the eyes of someone else?

 

Have you ever tried to be an observer, detached and rational, looking at a situation as if you are not a part of it?

 

Understanding and empathizing with other points of view is the sine qua non of effective communication.

 

Also, it is said, that to solve a problem you should not be a part of the problem or inside the problem, but view the problem from a distance.

 

The NLP concept of Perceptual Positions can help you see a situation, a problem, from different points of view, in new ways, dispassionately from a “distance” with emotional detachment. 

It will help you get the “bigger picture” maybe even the “the holistic picture”. 

You will be able to visualize and analyse a situation, especially an ethical dilemma, form the viewpoints of all stakeholders.

 

Yes, the first step towards solving a problem is to properly analyse the problem, get to the root cause, and this technique of perceptual positions will help you do formulate the root definition of the problem or ethical situation and facilitate implementation of Soft System Methodology, especially in the formulation of the CATWOE and SIPOC models, which is the next step in solving the problem.

 

The Five Perceptual Positions

FIRST POSITION

My Perspective or the Self Perspective: 

 

Seeing the situation or world completely through one’s own eyes. 

The first position enables you to be clear about what is important to you and discover your own personal values and beliefs. 

If one is in the first position one is very much within one’s own body and subject to strong emotional feelings. 

In NLP parlance the experience of being in the first position is called being “associated”.

The disadvantages of being associated are that it may be difficult to critically review one’s own feelings and sometimes get swayed by emotions. 

The advantage of being associated is that one feels involved in the situation.

SECOND POSITION

Your Perspective or the “Other” Perspective:  

 

Seeing the situation or world from through the eyes of and from the point of view of someone else. 

This perceptual position will help you get into the other person’s shoes and get a sense of their perspective and how they see the situation. 

In common parlance, this is called empathy.  

In NLP parlance the experience of being in the second position is called being “dissociated” as here, in contrast to the first position one is able to be detached and able to observe oneself from a different perspective. 

The disadvantage of being in a dissociated state is that it can de-sensitize emotional responses and give the impression of being cold and distant.

THIRD POSITION

The Observer Position: 

 

Looking at a situation as an external impartial observer dissociated and emotionally detached from the situation. 

This perceptual position will enable you to have a balanced approach, especially in emotionally charged situations. 

This entails both the individual and with whom she is interacting being observed at the same time from a distant position, outside all persons in the interaction - you may step back and “watch yourself watch yourself” – it is like seeing the situation on a movie screen.

FOURTH POSITION

The System Viewpoint or the Bird’s Eye View: 

 

Adopting a “systems approach” and looking at a situation from the perspective of the whole system, integrating perspectives of all stakeholders in the system using soft systems methodology in order to visualise the overall “system perspective”.

FIFTH POSITION

The Universal Perspective or the World View (Weltanschauung): 

 

Seeing the “whole picture” by analyzing multiple perceptual positions. This is a most vital soft skill you must develop using various soft system models like CATWOE, Archetypes etc.

HOW TO ADOPT PERCEPTUAL POSITIONS

Close your eyes and think of various recent situations, especially situations of conflict, and the try to visualise the situations from different perceptual positions. 

 

You can consciously develop the ability to visualize and adopt different perceptual positions – not only will this help you improve your conflict management and decision making abilities but this will greatly enhance your communication skills.

You must be flexible and try to move between perceptual positions in a dynamic manner to achieve optimal results.

Spending too much time in the first perceptual position may lead you to be excessively emotional, self-centered and lacking in empathy.

Always trying to be in the second perceptual position may result in you falling a victim to the “disease to please” leading to overemphasis in helping others to the detriment of your own interests and personal well-being.

Spending too much time in the third perceptual position may make you cold, hard-hearted, uncaring and insensitive towards others, so you must always try and develop the flexibility and agility to see different points of view from various perceptual positions.

Therefore, it is best to adopt a Triple Description which entails considering the situation from the three basic perceptual positions – the first, the second and the third – and combining the experience. 

 

In the words of Robert Dilts:

“Excellence is a passionate commitment to something from the self position.

Wisdom is the ability to consciously move back and forth between self, other, and observer positions.”

As you consciously practice the concept of perceptual positions you will develop the ability of creative visualisation to shift between perceptual positions at will and this will enhance your resourceful thinking process and enhance your ability to deal effectively and positively with a variety of people and situations.

On a lighter note, this concept will help you in personal life situations too, especially as you grow older. 

For those of you “old fogies” - you must have observed that, as you grow older, slowly but surely, you are made to feel redundant, your views are not sought and you are relegated to a position of an observer. Adopting perceptual positions will make you enjoy various situations. And this will certainly help you in ascertaining divergent ethical perspectives of various stakeholders for ethical analysis in an ethical situation.

 

Let me paraphrase one of my favourite quotes:

If you want to be seen, stand up.

If you want to be heard, speak up.

If you want to be appreciated, shut up 

and appreciate the situation using the technique of perceptual positions.

Try out this NLP concept of Perceptual Positions in your real day to day life. You will be amazed by the results.

Have a Happy Wednesday.

VIKRAM KARVE

Copyright © Vikram Karve 2012

Vikram Karve has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 to be identified as the author of this work. 

© vikram karve., all rights reserved.

Did you like this blog post?

I am sure you will like the 27 short stories from my recently published anthology of Short Fiction COCKTAIL
To order your COCKTAIL please click any of the links below:
http://www.flipkart.com/cocktail-vikram-karve-short-stories-book-8191091844?affid=nme
http://www.indiaplaza.in/cocktail-vikram-karve/books/9788191091847.htm
http://www.apkpublishers.com/books/short-stories/cocktail-by-vikram-karve.html

COCKTAIL ebook

If you prefer reading ebooks on Kindle or your ebook reader, please order Cocktail E-book by clicking the links below:
AMAZON
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B005MGERZ6
SMASHWORDS
http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/87925

Foodie Book:  Appetite for a Stroll
If your are a Foodie you will like my book of Food Adventures APPETITE FOR A STROLL. Do order a copy from FLIPKART:
http://www.flipkart.com/appetite-stroll-vikram-karve/8190690094-gw23f9mr2o

About Vikram Karve

A creative person with a zest for life, Vikram Karve is a retired Naval Officer turned full time writer. Educated at IIT Delhi, ITBHU Varanasi, The Lawrence School Lovedale and Bishops School Pune, Vikram has published two books: COCKTAIL a collection of fiction short stories about relationships (2011) and APPETITE FOR A STROLL a book of Foodie Adventures (2008) and is currently working on his novel and a book of vignettes and short fiction. An avid blogger, he has written a number of fiction short stories, creative non-fiction articles on a variety of topics including food, travel, philosophy, academics, technology, management, health, pet parenting, teaching stories and self help in magazines and published a large number of professional research papers in journals and edited in-house journals for many years, before the advent of blogging. Vikram has taught at a University as a Professor for almost 15 years and now teaches as a visiting faculty and devotes most of his time to creative writing. Vikram lives in Pune India with his family and muse - his pet dog Sherry with whom he takes long walks thinking creative thoughts.

Vikram Karve Academic and Creative Writing Journal: http://karvediat.blogspot.com
Professional Profile Vikram Karve: http://www.linkedin.com/in/karve
Vikram Karve Facebook Page:  https://www.facebook.com/vikramkarve
Vikram Karve Creative Writing Blog: http://vikramkarve.sulekha.com/blog/posts.htm
Email: vikramkarve@sify.com      

© vikram karve., all rights reserved.

 

SYSTEM

WHAT IS A SYSTEM

A Glance through my Ancient Notebook

By

VIKRAM KARVE


Whilst browsing through my bookshelves I came across an “ancient” notebook and found something interesting on “The Necessary Conditions for an Entity [S] to be conceived as a System”.

1. S is Teleological – This means that every system has a purpose.
2. S has a Measure of Performance [MOP]
3. There exists a client [or customer] whose interests are served by S in such a manner that the higher the MOP the better the interests are served.
4. S has teleological components which co-produce the MOP of S. This means that a System may have sub-systems.
5. S has an environment which also co-produces the MOP of S.
6. There exists a decision maker who via his resources can produce changes in Measures of Performance of the components of S [sub-systems] and hence changes in MOP of S.
7. There exists a designer who conceptualises the nature of S in such a manner that the designer’s concepts potentially produce actions in the decision maker and hence changes in the Measures of Performance of the S’s components [sub-systems] and hence changes in the MOP of S.
8. The designer’s intention is to change S so as to maximise S’s value to the client of the customer.
9. S is stable with respect to the designer in the sense that there is a built-in guarantee that the designer’s intention is ultimately realisable.

This leads us to the Sufficient Conditions or the System Trinity: DESIGNER, DECISION-MAKER and CLIENT [USER or CUSTOMER]

If an entity is to be considered a System:

1. It has a User [Client or Customer] who is interested in the performance of the entity.
2. It has a Decision-maker who affects the performance of the entity by controlling its resources.
3. It has a Designer whose preferences conform and are in harmony with the user’s preferences and who designs the system so that it can be operated by the Decision-maker.
4. The Designer wishes to maximise the benefits to the User.
5. The System is capable of executing the Designer’s plans.

Now after reading all this gobbledegook (or is it gobbledygook?) please don’t ask me what is a System.

Well I will put it simply – in a System 1+1 equals more than 2, say, 1+1 = 11 or even more.

That’s the concept of Synergy or Synergism so aptly expressed by Aristotle: “The whole is greater than the sum of its parts”.

Now I’ll ask you a question – Is Marriage a System?


VIKRAM KARVE

http://vikramkarve.sulekha.com

http://www.linkedin.com/in/karve

vikramkarve@sify.com

SOFT SYSTEMS METHODOLOGY [ SSM ] - A Few of my Writings

PAPERS AND ARTICLES ON SOFT SYSTEMS METHODOLOGY [SSM]

By

VIKRAM WAMAN KARVE


Here are a few papers and articles written by me and my students in the late 1990's and 2000 when we studied, explored, researched and carried out post graduate dissertation work in the fascinating subjects of Soft Systems Methodology, System Dynamics Approach [ SSM SD ] and their applications in Systems Engineering and and various aspects of Management and Technology. Almost a decade has passed and, maybe, a lot of work has since been done in SSM - SD. We hope to renew our interest in this promising area of SSM - SD.

1. Design of futuristic electromagnetic conflict (EC) systems using soft systems modelling-system dynamics (SSM-SD) methodology.
Debnath, R. and Karve, V.W.
International Conference on Electromagnetic Interference and Compatibility 1999 New Delhi, India, 6-8 December, [INCEMIC 1999], pp 143 – 148.

Abstract:

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?isnumber=18881&arnumber=871616&count=107&index=30

Full Paper:

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=00871616

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=871616&isnumber=18881


2. A Soft Systems Methodology – System Dynamics (SSM-SD) Based Approach to Re-Engineering EMI / EMC Regulations and Standards.
Debnath, R and Karve, V.W.
15th International Wroclaw Symposium and Exhibition on Electromagnetic Compatibility, June 27 – 30, 2000, EMC 2000, pp 466 – 475.


3. A Decision Support System Design Incorporating Soft Systems Approach.
Murali, D. K. and Karve, V. W.
IT for the New Generation, Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Convention of the Computer Society of India, September 16-20, 1998, New Delhi, India, pp 229 - 237.

4. Ethics, Values and Technology,
Karve, V. W.
Invited Paper, Plenary Session, International Conference on Cognitive Systems [ICCS 1998], Dec 13th – 15th, New Delhi, India, pp cii - cix.

5. Systems Cybernetic Re-Engineering for Empowering Human Performance: A Soft System Dynamics Approach. Sriram, S and Karve, V.W. International Conference on Cognitive Systems [ICCS 1998].

7. Reengineering the Human Resource - A Soft Systems Approach.
Karve, V. W. and Sriram. S,
Seminar on HR Strategies for Naval Repair-Yards, Naval Dockyard, Mumbai , 06 Nov 1998.

8. Soft Systems Paradigm for Modelling a Production Enterprise, Karve, V. W. and Sriram, S.
All India Seminar on Design of Production Systems – New Concepts, Bhubaneshwar, Orissa, 26th July 1998.
[Also delivered the keynote address on “Soft Systems Paradigms in Engineering Management” at this All India Seminar]

9. Coping with Cupid: A Soft Systems Approach,
Karve, V. W. and Debnath, R.
Journal of Defence Management, Vol. 26, No. 2, Nov 1999 – Apr 2000, pp 1 - 15.

10. Soft Systems Approach to Ethical Management – Putting Ethics before Business
Karve, V.W.
Indian Management Journal, Vol. 36, No. 10, Oct 1997, pp 51 – 53.

11. Soft Systems Methodology - System Dynamics Approach to Total Quality Management.
Karve, V. W. and Debnath, R.
National Conference on Quality Engineering on Aerospace Technologies, (QUEST 99), Bangalore, 20-21 August 1999.

12. A Soft Systems Approach to restructuring higher technical education in India.
Debnath, R. and Karve, V. W.
Fifth International Conference on Cognitive Systems (ICCS 99), New Delhi, 15-18 December 1999.

13. Ethical Quality Standards,
Karve, V. W.
Journal of Marine Engineering, Vol. 39 No. 1, June 1999.

14. A System Dynamics Approach to Quality Management in the Naval Scenario Incorporating the Soft Systems Methodology Perspective.
Karve, V.W. and Debnath, R.
Journal of Marine Engineering, Vol. 39 No. 1, June 1999.

15. A Systems Dynamics Approach to Quality Planning and Management in Shipbuilding industry incorporating Soft Systems Methodology perspective.
Karve, V. W. and. Debnath, R
International Maritime Conference, [INMEX 99], 7-8 October 1999, Goa.



[Copies of all the above papers have been compiled by the DIAT Deemed University Pune Library in the Annual Compendium of Published Papers IAT Spectrum 1999 and 2000]


VIKRAM KARVE

http://www.linkedin.com/in/karve

vikramkarve@sify.com

Force Field Analysis in Implementation

FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS

AN EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION MANAGEMENT TOOL

By

VIKRAM KARVE



Implementation is the phase between a decision and its realization.

Implementation may be placed in a continuum in which interaction takes place between those who seek objective and those on whom action depends.

The importance of implementation is undeniable because it is a struggle over the realization of ideas.

Effective implementation overcomes the gaps between intention and promise, aspirations, achievement and performance, and prescription and reality. Implementation comprises the ability to achieve specified ends by chosen means.

The time factor is critical in the implementation phase of a project.

Contingencies characterize implementation in several ways hence interactive and dynamic elements are vital to implementation management in order to forge links in the causal chain connecting actions to objectives with a view to minimizing the discrepancy between what actually occurs and what was envisaged.

Implementation is not self-executing.

It is not a process that follows automatically once a program has been formulated.

Implementation requires the presence of an action-forcing mechanism.

Implementation is a control task; it needs to be dynamic, flexible and adaptable to changing situations.

Breakdowns of implementation represent fundamental failures to translate meaningful ideas into effective action.

Despite taking initiatives and using rational methods, on many occasions implementation is swamped by constant pressures of unpredictable problems and crises.

It is important to distinguish between non-implementation and unsuccessful implementation.

In the case of non-implementation, the program is not put into effect as intended.

Unsuccessful implementation, on the other hand, occurs when a program is carried out, but fails to produce the desired results.

Implementation seems vulnerable to the domino effect in that when the initial phase is troubled the implementation failure tends to transmit itself to later phases.

Once implementation dynamics are set in motion, they become vulnerable to adverse or diversionary forces which pull them away from their original design.

Hence, a cogent implementation schedule and specific techniques are necessary to move from the realm of intention to the ambit of reality.

Force Field Analysis, a technique developed by Lewin, is useful in designing and executing the implementation process.

Force Field Analysis is a technique for systematically reviewing the elements working for and against a proposed course of action. It assumes that in any situation there are both driving forces and restraining forces that influence implementation.


Driving Forces are those forces that facilitate implementation.

Restraining Forces impede the implementation process – they tend to restrain, dissipate, decrease or negate the Driving Forces. For successful implementation it is essential to push on and overpower or immobilize the restraining forces, or try to transform the restraining forces into driving forces.

From the Human Resource (HR) perspective the Driving Forces include Participants [people who recognize their responsibility in the success of implementation], Movers [people who remove obstacles to implementation when they encounter them] and Shakers [people who recognize an opportunity and will make implementation happen] and the Restraining Forces may comprise Spectators [people not interested in implementation], Protectors [of Status Quo], Doubters [of the way the implementation is being done], Worriers [who are afraid of failure] and Switchers [people who abdicate and “delegate” their implementation responsibility].

Before embarking on implementation you must determine the driving forces and restraining forces and formulate a strategy to tackle them; if you rush into implementation without proper analysis, you may get frustrated and not know why.



VIKRAM KARVE

Copyright © Vikram Karve 2008
Vikram Karve has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 to be identified as the author of this work.


http://vikramkarve.sulekha.com/

vikramkarve@sify.com

http://www.linkedin.com/in/karve

The SHOR Paradigm

The SHOR Paradigm

[Decision-making in Uncertainty]

By

VIKRAM KARVE



“The man who insists upon seeing with perfect clearness before he decides, never decides” …Frederic Amiel



Decision-making is so pervasive that everyone, professionally or personally, is involved with making a variety of decisions.

In today’s fast-moving world, the timing of a decision is of paramount importance in many decision-making situations. In real life even the “perfect” decision may not be optimal if it is made too late.

Information is a vital resource in decision-making. One of the most important characteristics of successful managers is the ability to make the correct decision when confronted with imperfect or insufficient information (i.e.) Decision-making under conditions of uncertainty.

In the context of decision-processing, two realms or domains of uncertainty are:

1. Information Input Uncertainty which creates the need for hypothesis generation and evaluation;

2. Consequence-of-Action Uncertainty which creates the need for option generation and evaluation.


THE SHOR PARADIGM


A decision taxonomy: The Stimulus – Hypothesis – Options – Response (SHOR) paradigm, formulated by Wohl, is useful in such decision situations. The SHOR paradigm represents a qualitative, descriptive, model as distinct from a quantitative, predictive model, and comprises three primary decision-making task elements:
S: Stimulus Input Data Processing
H: Hypothesis Generation, Hypothesis Evaluation, Information Processing [What is?]
O: Option Generation, Option Evaluation, Decision-Making [What if?]
R: Response Output Action

The SHOR paradigm is basically an extension of the classical Stimulus – Response (SR) Paradigm of behaviourist psychology. The SHOR paradigm provides explicitly for the necessity to deal with information input uncertainty and consequence-of-action uncertainty, and helps us understand some of the peculiar human factors that affect the quality of the decision-making and answering questions such as:
What makes some decision-makers perform better than others, especially in placing high-value assets at risk, in business?
What are the sources and dimensions of “poor” performance?


HUMAN ERRORS IN DECISION-MAKING


Based on the SHOR Model, human errors in decision-making appear to lie in four domains:

(S) Stimulus: “I didn’t know…”
(H) Hypothesis: “I didn’t understand…”
(O) Options: “I didn’t consider…”
(R) Response: “I didn’t act…”

Stimulus based errors of the type “I didn’t know…” result from lack or inadequacy of information, the true inability to obtain information.

“I didn’t understand…” is the fundamental result of information input uncertainty, while “I didn’t consider…” is the product of consequence-of-action uncertainty.

It is possible to have accessed all significant information, to have developed the correct hypothesis and to have selected the best option and yet fail to take appropriate action. The two possible reasons for the “I didn’t act…” type of response error are:

1. Paralysis: This is a complete failure to act, the pathological ‘observation of an inevitable course’ without intervention. It is caused by an over-riding emotional struggle in which some internal factor is being placed in conflict with the course of action selected by the decision-maker. The final scene in the evergreen classic film The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957) exemplifies such a situation.

2. Misjudgement: The decision-maker correctly decides what to do but errs in either or both of the two dimensions – how [the specifics of the action] or when [the timing of the action].

Prediction of the critical consequences of inaction may be of some help in dealing with paralysis whilst the ability to perform sensitivity analyses may assist in alleviating misjudgement.

Any Decision-Maker [and designers of decision aids] must address the four cardinal types of errors epitomized by the SHOR paradigm: “I didn’t know…”, “I didn’t understand…”, “I didn’t consider…” and “I didn’t act…”



DECISION-MAKING IN UNCERTAINTY


In the context of decision-making in uncertainty, the conflict theory paradigm developed by Janis and Mann may be apt. This paradigm postulates five patterns of coping behaviour which tends to occur in such situations:

1. Unconflicted Adherence in which the uncertain, or risk, information is ignored and the decision-maker complacently decides to continue whatever he has been doing.

2. Unconflicted Change to a new course of action, where the decision-maker uncritically adopts whichever new course of action is most salient, obvious or strongly recommended.

3. Defensive Avoidance in which the decision-maker evades conflict by procrastinating, shifting responsibility to someone else, or constructing wishful rationalisations and remaining selectively inattentive to corrective information.

4. Hypervigilance wherein the decision-maker searches frantically for a way out of the dilemma and impulsively seizes upon a hastily contrived solution that seems to promise immediate relief, overlooking the full range of consequences of his choice because of emotional excitement, repetitive thinking and cognitive constriction. In its most extreme form hypervigilance is referred to as “panic”.

5. Concerned Vigilance in which the decision-maker optimally processes pertinent information, generates and evaluates hypotheses and options before selecting a response as characterised by the SHOR paradigm.


In many real-life situations a decision-maker cannot always keep waiting until the entire information-input and consequence-of-action conditions are known a priori with certainty. In most cases there is no such thing as “perfect” certainty.

If a single most important characteristic is crucial to a decision-maker in any field, it is the ability to make optimal decisions in conditions of uncertainty. Qualitative descriptive models like the SHOR paradigm may prove useful in such situations.

To quote Frederic Amiel once again: “The man who insists upon seeing with perfect clearness before he decides, never decides”.


VIKRAM KARVE

Copyright © Vikram Karve 2008
Vikram Karve has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 to be identified as the author of this work.


vikramkarve@sify.com

vikramkarve@hotmail.com

http://www.linkedin.com/in/karve

http://vikramkarve.sulekha.com

http://www.ryze.com/go/karve