ART OF LIVING
A Story
By
VIKRAM KARVE
Spirituality, Meditation and Art of Living had become the “in thing”.
Courses on the Art of Living were proliferating all over and every one was rushing to attain instant happiness, inner peace, nirvana and bliss.
A wise old man, a teacher, living in the neighbourhood announced that he would teach instant Art of Living free of cost.
On the first day he drew a huge crowd.
“What do you all want to achieve?” the teacher asked the audience.
“Inner peace, tranquillity and true happiness,” everyone shouted in unison.
“For that you have to attain enlightenment.” the teacher said.
"How?" the audience asked.
“By practicing the Art of Living,” the teacher said.
“How do you practice the Art of Living? Please teach us,” the audience asked the teacher eagerly.
“It is simple – just eat and sleep,” the teacher said, “you can practise the art of living by eating and by sleeping.”
“What nonsense!” the astounded audience exclaimed.
“Yes,” said the teacher nonchalantly, “When Hungry, Eat; and When Tired, Sleep – that is the Art of Living”.
“Everybody does that!” shouted the audience.
“No. Everybody does not Eat when they Eat and Everybody does not Sleep when they Sleep”, the teacher said calmly, “but when I eat, I only eat and when I sleep I only sleep. That is the Art of Living I practice – I live in the present moment fully focussed on whatever I am doing with full awareness.”
Dear Reader, do you agree?
VIKRAM KARVE
http://vikramkarve.sulekha.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/karve
vikramkarve@sify.com
Thursday, September 17, 2009
POINT OF VIEW
PERSPECTIVE
A Story
By
VIKRAM KARVE
This morning, while explaining the salient aspects of Soft Systems to my students, I wanted to highlight the importance of taking cognisance of differing PERSPECTIVES of various stakeholders while modelling a system. So I told my students this teaching story:
Late at night, a drunkard was lurching, his body swaying and staggering, as he walked unsteadily on a deserted road when a vicious looking dog started barking menacingly at him.
The drunkard bent down to pick up a stone fixed as a road divider to throw at the animal. He could not lift it as the road divider stone was firmly cemented to the earth.
“What a strange place this is,” the drunkard cried in bewilderment, “They tie up the stones and let the dogs go free."
It all depends on how you look at things, your point of view, your perspective, isn’t it?
VIKRAM KARVE
Copyright © Vikram Karve 2009
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
http://www.linkedin.com/in/karve
vikramkarve@sify.com
A Story
By
VIKRAM KARVE
This morning, while explaining the salient aspects of Soft Systems to my students, I wanted to highlight the importance of taking cognisance of differing PERSPECTIVES of various stakeholders while modelling a system. So I told my students this teaching story:
Late at night, a drunkard was lurching, his body swaying and staggering, as he walked unsteadily on a deserted road when a vicious looking dog started barking menacingly at him.
The drunkard bent down to pick up a stone fixed as a road divider to throw at the animal. He could not lift it as the road divider stone was firmly cemented to the earth.
“What a strange place this is,” the drunkard cried in bewilderment, “They tie up the stones and let the dogs go free."
It all depends on how you look at things, your point of view, your perspective, isn’t it?
VIKRAM KARVE
Copyright © Vikram Karve 2009
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
http://www.linkedin.com/in/karve
vikramkarve@sify.com
NLP CONCEPT - The Map is not the Territory
MIND OVER MATTER
THE MAP IS NOT THE TERRITORY
By
VIKRAM KARVE
[A Philosophical Piece]
“The map is not the territory!”
What does this mean?
Liehtse’s famous parable of The Old Man at the Fort is perhaps apt to illustrate this concept:-
An Old Man was living with his Son at an abandoned fort on the top of a hill, and one day he lost a horse.
The neighbours came to express their sympathy for this misfortune, but the Old Man asked, “How do you know this bad luck? The fact is that one horse is missing and there is one horse less in the stables. That is the fact. Whether it is good luck or bad luck – well that is a matter of judgment.”
A few days afterwards, his horse returned with a number of wild horses, and his neighbours came again to congratulate him on this stroke of fortune, and the Old Man replied, “How do you know this is good luck? The fact is that there are more horses in my stable than before. Whether it is good luck or bad luck – well that is a matter of opinion.”
With so many horses around, his son began to take to riding, and one day while riding a wild horse he was thrown off and broke his leg. Again the neighbours came around to express their sympathy, and the Old Man replied, “How do you know this is bad luck?”
A few days later a war broke out and all the able bodied men were forcibly conscripted into the army, sent to the warfront to fight and most of them were killed or wounded.
Because the Old Man’s son had a broken leg he did not have to go to the war front and his life was saved. And everyone envied the old man.
This parable drives home the lesson that there are no such things like good luck and bad luck.
What disturbs you are not events but your attitude towards them.
You must learn to distinguish between facts and your attitude or judgment towards those facts.
It’s all in the mind.
Facts are like territory – ground reality.
But the way you interpret or judge those facts, your attitude towards them, depends on your mental map.
This mental map is formed due to your values, beliefs and experiences and you tend to view the actual facts or events (territory) through mental filters based on your values, beliefs, biases, prejudices and experiences which form your mental map.
Remember, just like the actual physical geographical territory exists on the ground and its map is drawn on paper, actual facts and events happen in reality and each one of us interprets these facts depending on the different mental maps governing our minds.
An Event, by itself, may not hurt you.
It is your attitude towards that event and your response (mental map) that disturbs you and gives you trouble.
It then becomes your paramount duty to introspect and continuously redesign your mental maps to develop the correct attitude and responses towards external events.
When some event or occurence happens the only thing in your power is your attitude towards it.
We cannot choose our external circumstances, but we can always choose how we respond to them.
The secret of inner calm lies within you, in developing the proper mental “maps” and the correct attitude in your mind, so that you are not disturbed by the vicissitudes of external events which are akin to the outside “territory”.
Remember - “THE MAP IS NOT THE TERRITORY”.
Dear Reader: Please do comment and give us your views on this philosophy of life.
VIKRAM KARVE
Copyright © Vikram Karve 2009
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
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Cognition and Information
HUMAN INFORMATION PROCESSING – A SOFT SYSTEM
Cognition and Information
By
VIKRAM KARVE
Part I – Cognitive Biases
The term cognition refers to a faculty for the processing of information. It is the process of perceiving, thinking, reasoning, analyzing and remembering.
Information is value or quality of a message or communication between a sender and a receiver. Data is observation of facts and information is a collection of data from which conclusions may be drawn, decisions taken and knowledge acquired.
Understanding Human Behaviour is sine qua non for the successful design and implementation of Soft Systems [Human Activity Systems], Management Information Systems and, indeed, all Information Processing Systems.
Human behaviour plays an important role in human information processing. It must be remembered that Information Systems are not installed in a vacuum; they are implanted into a living body, an organisation, a Human Activity Systems.
Human beings are being continuously exposed to an enormous number of stimuli. Cognition of all the stimuli is not possible and most stimuli are eliminated by a complex cognitive process. Even those perceived may be subject to cognitive biases.
A better understanding of human information processing enhances the usefulness of information technology and systems.
COGNITIVE BIASES
Here are a few salient cognitive biases which affect information formulation, acquisition, analysis and interpretation:
Adjustment and Anchoring – In situations of information overload there is a tendency to resort to the anchoring and adjustment heuristic and to rely too heavily, or “anchor” on a past reference or on one trait or piece of information when making decisions. For example, you may emphasize too much on the first piece of information you encounter.
Selective Perception – You accept / absorb only that information that is in consonance with, or confirms, your views, beliefs and values.
Wishful Thinking – You interpret information according to what might be pleasing to imagine [as you would like things to be] rather than according to actual evidence or rational logical reality.
Self-fulfilling Prophecy – is the tendency to engage in behaviors that elicit results which will (consciously or not) confirm our beliefs. You seek, acquire and analyze only that information that confirms or lends credibility to your views and values and ignore any information that contradicts your views or values. This is a “Confirmation bias” exemplified by an irrational tendency to search for, interpret or remember information in a way that confirms your preconceptions.
Ease of Recall – Information which can easily be recalled or accessed affects your perception of the likelihood of similar events occurring again. You rely too much on information that is easy to recall from memory.
Conservation – You reach premature conclusions on the basis of too small a sample of information.
Order Effects – The order in which information is presented to you affects information retention in your memory. Typically, the first piece of information presented [primacy effect] and the last piece of information presented [recency effect] assume undue importance in your mind.
Overconfidence – The greater the amount of data the more confident you are about the accuracy of the data.
Availability – you only rely on and use easily available information and ignore significant information that may not be so easily sourced.
Bandwagon Effect – you develop a tendency to believe information because many other people believe the same information. This may be a manifestation of Groupthink and you tend to “jump on the bandwagon”.
Hindsight – you are unable to think objectively if you receive information that a certain outcome has occurred and then told to ignore this information. With hindsight, outcomes that have occurred seem to have been inevitable; sometimes this is called the “I-knew-it-all-along” effect, the inclination to see past events as being predictable. You see relationships more easily in hindsight than in foresight.
Habit – You choose some information because it was previously accepted for a perceived similar purpose [precedence syndrome] or because of superstition.
Illusion of Control – You develop a tendency for to believe you can control or at least influence outcomes that you clearly cannot and hence you will seek, interpret, process and use information accordingly in an irrational manner.
Gambler’s Fallacy – You falsely assume that an unexpected occurrence of a “run” of some events enhances the probability of occurrence of an event that has not occurred. You develop a tendency to think that future probabilities are altered by past events (when in reality it is not so) and process information accordingly.
Déformation professionnelle – you tend to process information according to the conventions of your own profession, forgetting any broader point of view. You fall victim to the Law of the Hammer – “When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail” – this may happen owing to overspecialization or too straitjacketed professional training which hampers a liberal broad perspective.
[To be continued…]
VIKRAM KARVE
http://www.linkedin.com/in/karve
http://vikramkarve.sulekha.com
vikramkarve@sify.com
Cognition and Information
By
VIKRAM KARVE
Part I – Cognitive Biases
The term cognition refers to a faculty for the processing of information. It is the process of perceiving, thinking, reasoning, analyzing and remembering.
Information is value or quality of a message or communication between a sender and a receiver. Data is observation of facts and information is a collection of data from which conclusions may be drawn, decisions taken and knowledge acquired.
Understanding Human Behaviour is sine qua non for the successful design and implementation of Soft Systems [Human Activity Systems], Management Information Systems and, indeed, all Information Processing Systems.
Human behaviour plays an important role in human information processing. It must be remembered that Information Systems are not installed in a vacuum; they are implanted into a living body, an organisation, a Human Activity Systems.
Human beings are being continuously exposed to an enormous number of stimuli. Cognition of all the stimuli is not possible and most stimuli are eliminated by a complex cognitive process. Even those perceived may be subject to cognitive biases.
A better understanding of human information processing enhances the usefulness of information technology and systems.
COGNITIVE BIASES
Here are a few salient cognitive biases which affect information formulation, acquisition, analysis and interpretation:
Adjustment and Anchoring – In situations of information overload there is a tendency to resort to the anchoring and adjustment heuristic and to rely too heavily, or “anchor” on a past reference or on one trait or piece of information when making decisions. For example, you may emphasize too much on the first piece of information you encounter.
Selective Perception – You accept / absorb only that information that is in consonance with, or confirms, your views, beliefs and values.
Wishful Thinking – You interpret information according to what might be pleasing to imagine [as you would like things to be] rather than according to actual evidence or rational logical reality.
Self-fulfilling Prophecy – is the tendency to engage in behaviors that elicit results which will (consciously or not) confirm our beliefs. You seek, acquire and analyze only that information that confirms or lends credibility to your views and values and ignore any information that contradicts your views or values. This is a “Confirmation bias” exemplified by an irrational tendency to search for, interpret or remember information in a way that confirms your preconceptions.
Ease of Recall – Information which can easily be recalled or accessed affects your perception of the likelihood of similar events occurring again. You rely too much on information that is easy to recall from memory.
Conservation – You reach premature conclusions on the basis of too small a sample of information.
Order Effects – The order in which information is presented to you affects information retention in your memory. Typically, the first piece of information presented [primacy effect] and the last piece of information presented [recency effect] assume undue importance in your mind.
Overconfidence – The greater the amount of data the more confident you are about the accuracy of the data.
Availability – you only rely on and use easily available information and ignore significant information that may not be so easily sourced.
Bandwagon Effect – you develop a tendency to believe information because many other people believe the same information. This may be a manifestation of Groupthink and you tend to “jump on the bandwagon”.
Hindsight – you are unable to think objectively if you receive information that a certain outcome has occurred and then told to ignore this information. With hindsight, outcomes that have occurred seem to have been inevitable; sometimes this is called the “I-knew-it-all-along” effect, the inclination to see past events as being predictable. You see relationships more easily in hindsight than in foresight.
Habit – You choose some information because it was previously accepted for a perceived similar purpose [precedence syndrome] or because of superstition.
Illusion of Control – You develop a tendency for to believe you can control or at least influence outcomes that you clearly cannot and hence you will seek, interpret, process and use information accordingly in an irrational manner.
Gambler’s Fallacy – You falsely assume that an unexpected occurrence of a “run” of some events enhances the probability of occurrence of an event that has not occurred. You develop a tendency to think that future probabilities are altered by past events (when in reality it is not so) and process information accordingly.
Déformation professionnelle – you tend to process information according to the conventions of your own profession, forgetting any broader point of view. You fall victim to the Law of the Hammer – “When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail” – this may happen owing to overspecialization or too straitjacketed professional training which hampers a liberal broad perspective.
[To be continued…]
VIKRAM KARVE
http://www.linkedin.com/in/karve
http://vikramkarve.sulekha.com
vikramkarve@sify.com
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
HRD - HUMAN RESOURCE DESTRUCTION
YESTERDAY’S DESIRES BECOME TODAY’S APPETITE
THE MYTHS OF MOTIVATION and JOB SATISFACTION
By
VIKRAM KARVE
Musings on Human Resource Management
In today’s world, it is naive to assume that people work primarily to achieve professional fulfilment and job satisfaction.
As a matter of fact, they seem to work because what they get "on the job" enables them to achieve whatever they want to accomplish "off the job".
On the job, they have to “produce” - there is no time for any enjoyment.
Both Competition and Compensation levels are higher than ever before and the chief casualties are traditional so-called motivators like “job satisfaction”.
Today’s typical professional may no longer have an undivided loyalty and commitment towards his job.
Therefore, it is incorrect to believe that an employee’s work life is spent entirely in the pursuit of job satisfaction.
Perhaps, he or she is not actively seeking job satisfaction as much as aspiring towards other important needs and considerations like own career progression, standard of living, quality of life, material gain and personal gratification
For most people their job is a means to achieving their desired ends.
One of the typical propositions held by most people connected with HR is that job satisfaction is positively associated with job performance.
Does a “satisfied” employee always “produce” more?
It may be wrong to presume and take for granted a fictitious linkage between job satisfaction and employee productivity in all cases.
In some cases, one may be shocked to find that while the so-called “satisfaction” was increasing, the productivity of the individual was declining.
The reason behind this is the mistaken concept that a satisfied employee will devote his dedicated attention to his work.
A “satisfied” or “happy” employee may begin to develop an approach of self-complacency, and an overall sense of well-being, and consequently, his temperament may become one of ignorant submission and passivity rather than one of positive action and active involvement.
As a result, it is not too uncommon to see that the productivity of the employee does not always closely follow his upward satisfaction curve.
Another important aspect of this situation is the rate of constructive conflict.
If properly used and suggestively applied in the organizational context, the managerial implantation of a limited degree of constructive conflict does indeed shake these smug people and “satisfied” employees out of their lethargy and enables them to achieve a certain individuality of action.
Viewed from the perspective of the organization the key issue is not having satisfied, happy employees but maximizing productivity, the bottom line being profit and achieving organisational goals.
With changing value systems, it may be wrong to believe that increased satisfaction means increased motivation as propounded by various conventional theories of motivation ( Maslow’s Need Hierarchy, for example).
Here it is vital to understand that “need” comprises two components:
“Appetite” and “Desire”.
Appetite corresponds to that part of each hierarchical level of need, the non-satisfaction of which can be expected to normally inhibit or deter progress up the hierarchy of needs.
Desire corresponds with the greedy, relatively unjustified part of each hierarchical level of need, the satisfaction of which should not be viewed as necessary prerequisite.
With changing values, and by habit and custom, yesterday’s desires become today’s appetite. The effect of extrinsic “motivational techniques” like job satisfaction will eventually be to increase need satisfaction threshold limits and draw more energies towards the satisfaction of desires.The myth of job satisfaction exerts severe pressures upon both the employer and the employee.
The employer convinces himself that he must provide satisfaction on the job and the employee rationalizes his behaviour and anticipates satisfaction.
In this two-faceted pressure approach, the entire organization suffers from unwanted conflicts, unfulfilled expectations, and unkept promises.
VIKRAM KARVE
Copyright © Vikram Karve 2009
Vikram Karve has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 to be identified as the author of this work.
http://www.linkedin.com/in/karve
http://vikramkarve.sulekha.com
vikramkarve@sify.com
THE MYTHS OF MOTIVATION and JOB SATISFACTION
By
VIKRAM KARVE
Musings on Human Resource Management
In today’s world, it is naive to assume that people work primarily to achieve professional fulfilment and job satisfaction.
As a matter of fact, they seem to work because what they get "on the job" enables them to achieve whatever they want to accomplish "off the job".
On the job, they have to “produce” - there is no time for any enjoyment.
Both Competition and Compensation levels are higher than ever before and the chief casualties are traditional so-called motivators like “job satisfaction”.
Today’s typical professional may no longer have an undivided loyalty and commitment towards his job.
Therefore, it is incorrect to believe that an employee’s work life is spent entirely in the pursuit of job satisfaction.
Perhaps, he or she is not actively seeking job satisfaction as much as aspiring towards other important needs and considerations like own career progression, standard of living, quality of life, material gain and personal gratification
For most people their job is a means to achieving their desired ends.
One of the typical propositions held by most people connected with HR is that job satisfaction is positively associated with job performance.
Does a “satisfied” employee always “produce” more?
It may be wrong to presume and take for granted a fictitious linkage between job satisfaction and employee productivity in all cases.
In some cases, one may be shocked to find that while the so-called “satisfaction” was increasing, the productivity of the individual was declining.
The reason behind this is the mistaken concept that a satisfied employee will devote his dedicated attention to his work.
A “satisfied” or “happy” employee may begin to develop an approach of self-complacency, and an overall sense of well-being, and consequently, his temperament may become one of ignorant submission and passivity rather than one of positive action and active involvement.
As a result, it is not too uncommon to see that the productivity of the employee does not always closely follow his upward satisfaction curve.
Another important aspect of this situation is the rate of constructive conflict.
If properly used and suggestively applied in the organizational context, the managerial implantation of a limited degree of constructive conflict does indeed shake these smug people and “satisfied” employees out of their lethargy and enables them to achieve a certain individuality of action.
Viewed from the perspective of the organization the key issue is not having satisfied, happy employees but maximizing productivity, the bottom line being profit and achieving organisational goals.
With changing value systems, it may be wrong to believe that increased satisfaction means increased motivation as propounded by various conventional theories of motivation ( Maslow’s Need Hierarchy, for example).
Here it is vital to understand that “need” comprises two components:
“Appetite” and “Desire”.
Appetite corresponds to that part of each hierarchical level of need, the non-satisfaction of which can be expected to normally inhibit or deter progress up the hierarchy of needs.
Desire corresponds with the greedy, relatively unjustified part of each hierarchical level of need, the satisfaction of which should not be viewed as necessary prerequisite.
With changing values, and by habit and custom, yesterday’s desires become today’s appetite. The effect of extrinsic “motivational techniques” like job satisfaction will eventually be to increase need satisfaction threshold limits and draw more energies towards the satisfaction of desires.The myth of job satisfaction exerts severe pressures upon both the employer and the employee.
The employer convinces himself that he must provide satisfaction on the job and the employee rationalizes his behaviour and anticipates satisfaction.
In this two-faceted pressure approach, the entire organization suffers from unwanted conflicts, unfulfilled expectations, and unkept promises.
VIKRAM KARVE
Copyright © Vikram Karve 2009
Vikram Karve has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 to be identified as the author of this work.
http://www.linkedin.com/in/karve
http://vikramkarve.sulekha.com
vikramkarve@sify.com
Saturday, September 5, 2009
TEACHERS DAY LECTURE - A Systems Approach
Teachers’ Day Lecture
The Systems Approach
By
VIKRAM KARVE
The Systems approach is primarily a philosophy [called Synergism] that coordinates in an efficient and optimal manner the activities and operations pertaining to any entity which qualifies to be designated a “System”. Now the entity may be tangible or intangible, animate or inanimate, human or mechanical.
This synergistic systemic effect is epitomized in Aristotle’s classic and immortal statement: “The whole is greater than the sum of its parts”.
A System is a set of interdependent components [sub-entities] that create a whole Entity.
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 [user or 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, like in the CATWOE Model]
If an entity is to be considered a System it must meet the following sufficient conditions:
1. The entity has a User [Client or Customer] who is interested in the performance of the entity.
2. The entity has a Decision-Maker who affects the performance of the entity by controlling its resources.
3. The entity has a Designer whose preferences are in conformance and in harmony with the client’s [user’s] preferences and the designer designs the system so that it can be operated by the Decision-maker.
4. The Designer wishes to maximise the benefits to the Client [User].
5. The System is capable of executing the Designer’s plans.
Now after reading 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”.
You can now examine any entity and see whether it is a system, and if not, how to transform and dovetail it into a system, so that you can apply the systemic approach and system concepts to the entity.
Look around you and observe various entities, tangible and intangible – your workplace organisation, your school, college or university, your car, your bank, your house, your family, your relationships, and see whether they satisfy the necessary and sufficient conditions for an entity to be considered a system.
Now I’ll ask you a question – Do you think “Marriage” is a System?
Confused?
Not to worry – just see whether your concept of Marriage satisfies the necessary and sufficient conditions for an entity to be considered a system.
Let’s start with the first necessary condition – Does marriage have a purpose?
Any comments?
Think about it as “homework”!
So here I end my “lecture” – HAPPY TEACHERS’ DAY!
VIKRAM KARVE
http://vikramkarve.sulekha.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/karve
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Electro Vastu Shastra
A Comprehensive Reference Book for Information Technology, Computer Science, Electronic, Communication and Electrical Engineering Professionals
Title: EMC for Product Designers
Author: Tim Williams
Elsevier [Fourth Edition, 2007] 498 pages
ISBN – 13: 978-0-75-068170-4
ISBN – 10: 0-750-68170-5
Most of us consider a number of factors, exoteric and esoteric, while designing [or selecting] our homes and in the configuration of the numerous modern technological devices and domestic appliances, most of them electrical and electronic, therein.
Recently I saw a programme on TV where a Vastu Shastra expert was advising viewers not only regarding the various aspects of designing and building living environments that are in harmony with the physical and metaphysical forces but also specifying optimal locations and layouts for various electrical and electronic appliances and devices in both residential homes and workplaces.
I listened with intriguing interest as he gave precise directions and specified exact locations for positioning of Televisions, Computers, Communication Devices, Microwave Ovens, Music systems and other appliances, and fascinated by the congruence between principles and aspects of Vastu and Electromagnetic Compatibility [EMC] and wondered whether the expert in reality was actually an EMC Design Engineer in addition to being a Vastu Shastra Specialist.
When you design or select or configure your house or office I am sure you consider various aesthetic, architectural, financial, utilitarian, geographical, interior and exterior design and other practical aspects, maybe even incorporate the principles of Vastu Shastra and Feng Shui, but do you give even a fleeting thought to EMC?
In today’s world with the increasing use of electrical, communication, electronic and information technologies we are under continual exposure to Electromagnetic Field [ EMF ], both inside and outside our homes, in our workplaces and even in the open wherever we go, radiating from radiating from electricity power lines, household wiring, microwave ovens, computers, monitors, televisions, communication devices, cellular phones, electrical, electronic and IT appliances.
“Electro-pollution” is an increasingly serious form of Environment Pollution and merits serious consideration, as much as, if not more than, other well-known forms of pollution.
Electro-pollution seems to be omnipresent. Apart from hazards to our health, Electromagnetic Interference [ EMI ] is detrimental to the proper functioning of most electrical, electronic, IT, ITES, ICT, communication and technology-based systems and may cause malfunctions and even potentially disastrous and fatal accidents.
The book being reviewed – EMC for Product Designers by Tim Williams – is one of the most comprehensive reference books I have read on the subject of the Design Management aspects of Electromagnetic Interference and Electromagnetic Compatibility [ EMI / EMC ].
The book comprises sixteen chapters arranged in three parts:
Legislation and Standards,
Testing, and
Design
The author lucidly covers most micro and macro aspects of EMC Management in meticulous detail.
The logical sequence of topics, clear diagrams, tables and illustrations facilitate easy understanding of this complicated subject.
The Design Checklist, interesting Case Studies and useful mathematical formulae in the appendices and the extensive bibliography add value to this reference book.
Whilst the earlier chapters provide an excellent understanding of the EMC Standards and the basic theoretical principles of EMI / EMC, the “meat” of the book lies in the chapters on Systems EMC and EMC Management which encapsulate all relevant facets of EMC in a holistic manner.
I wish the author had included a detailed chapter on Electromagnetic Health Hazards and mitigation techniques. This most vital topic concerning all of us humans seems to have not been accorded the due importance it deserves and I hope the author presents a more holistic and systemic view of EMC and includes a comprehensive chapter on pertinent aspects of Bio-electromagnetics, Thermal and Athermal EMR Hazards and their mitigation in the next edition.
I commend this book – it is an excellent reference book for Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunication and IT Engineers and Managers, Designers, Students, practising professionals in the field and a useful addition for all engineering and technical libraries.
[Book Review by VIKRAM KARVE]
http://www.linkedin.com/in/karve
http://vikramkarve.sulekha.com/
vikramkarve@sify.com
vikramkarve@hotmail.com
Title: EMC for Product Designers
Author: Tim Williams
Elsevier [Fourth Edition, 2007] 498 pages
ISBN – 13: 978-0-75-068170-4
ISBN – 10: 0-750-68170-5
Most of us consider a number of factors, exoteric and esoteric, while designing [or selecting] our homes and in the configuration of the numerous modern technological devices and domestic appliances, most of them electrical and electronic, therein.
Recently I saw a programme on TV where a Vastu Shastra expert was advising viewers not only regarding the various aspects of designing and building living environments that are in harmony with the physical and metaphysical forces but also specifying optimal locations and layouts for various electrical and electronic appliances and devices in both residential homes and workplaces.
I listened with intriguing interest as he gave precise directions and specified exact locations for positioning of Televisions, Computers, Communication Devices, Microwave Ovens, Music systems and other appliances, and fascinated by the congruence between principles and aspects of Vastu and Electromagnetic Compatibility [EMC] and wondered whether the expert in reality was actually an EMC Design Engineer in addition to being a Vastu Shastra Specialist.
When you design or select or configure your house or office I am sure you consider various aesthetic, architectural, financial, utilitarian, geographical, interior and exterior design and other practical aspects, maybe even incorporate the principles of Vastu Shastra and Feng Shui, but do you give even a fleeting thought to EMC?
In today’s world with the increasing use of electrical, communication, electronic and information technologies we are under continual exposure to Electromagnetic Field [ EMF ], both inside and outside our homes, in our workplaces and even in the open wherever we go, radiating from radiating from electricity power lines, household wiring, microwave ovens, computers, monitors, televisions, communication devices, cellular phones, electrical, electronic and IT appliances.
“Electro-pollution” is an increasingly serious form of Environment Pollution and merits serious consideration, as much as, if not more than, other well-known forms of pollution.
Electro-pollution seems to be omnipresent. Apart from hazards to our health, Electromagnetic Interference [ EMI ] is detrimental to the proper functioning of most electrical, electronic, IT, ITES, ICT, communication and technology-based systems and may cause malfunctions and even potentially disastrous and fatal accidents.
The book being reviewed – EMC for Product Designers by Tim Williams – is one of the most comprehensive reference books I have read on the subject of the Design Management aspects of Electromagnetic Interference and Electromagnetic Compatibility [ EMI / EMC ].
The book comprises sixteen chapters arranged in three parts:
Legislation and Standards,
Testing, and
Design
The author lucidly covers most micro and macro aspects of EMC Management in meticulous detail.
The logical sequence of topics, clear diagrams, tables and illustrations facilitate easy understanding of this complicated subject.
The Design Checklist, interesting Case Studies and useful mathematical formulae in the appendices and the extensive bibliography add value to this reference book.
Whilst the earlier chapters provide an excellent understanding of the EMC Standards and the basic theoretical principles of EMI / EMC, the “meat” of the book lies in the chapters on Systems EMC and EMC Management which encapsulate all relevant facets of EMC in a holistic manner.
I wish the author had included a detailed chapter on Electromagnetic Health Hazards and mitigation techniques. This most vital topic concerning all of us humans seems to have not been accorded the due importance it deserves and I hope the author presents a more holistic and systemic view of EMC and includes a comprehensive chapter on pertinent aspects of Bio-electromagnetics, Thermal and Athermal EMR Hazards and their mitigation in the next edition.
I commend this book – it is an excellent reference book for Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunication and IT Engineers and Managers, Designers, Students, practising professionals in the field and a useful addition for all engineering and technical libraries.
[Book Review by VIKRAM KARVE]
http://www.linkedin.com/in/karve
http://vikramkarve.sulekha.com/
vikramkarve@sify.com
vikramkarve@hotmail.com
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
SOFT SYSTEMS METHODOLOGY
ROOT DEFINITION & 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].
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.
Illustrative Example: EDUCATION SYSTEM CHARACTERISATION
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 – a T system in which A do W for C]
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 Systemic Approach to 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 educational system must be bridged.
VIKRAM KARVE
http://www.linkedin.com/in/karve
http://vikramkarve.sulekha.com
vikramkarve@sify.com
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].
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.
Illustrative Example: EDUCATION SYSTEM CHARACTERISATION
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 – a T system in which A do W for C]
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 Systemic Approach to 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 educational system must be bridged.
VIKRAM KARVE
http://www.linkedin.com/in/karve
http://vikramkarve.sulekha.com
vikramkarve@sify.com
Human Errors in Decision Making
DECISION MAKING IN UNCERTAINTY
[A DECISION MAKING MODEL - The SHOR Paradigm]
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 the following 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 ?
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 errors in decision-making epitomized by the SHOR paradigm:
“I didn’t know…”
“I didn’t understand…”
“I didn’t consider…”
“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 and 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 2009
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
[A DECISION MAKING MODEL - The SHOR Paradigm]
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 the following 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 ?
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 errors in decision-making epitomized by the SHOR paradigm:
“I didn’t know…”
“I didn’t understand…”
“I didn’t consider…”
“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 and 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 2009
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)