490 likes | 665 Views
Planning and Decision-Making. http://www.ideachampions.com/weblogs/decision-making-processes1.jpg. How do human factors influence the CIMIC process?. My background. 1998 M.A. Political Science – Münster Social Science Center Berlin 2004 Ph.D. 2008 Federal Academy for Security Policy
E N D
Planning and Decision-Making http://www.ideachampions.com/weblogs/decision-making-processes1.jpg How do human factors influence the CIMIC process? Prof. Dr. Bresinsky
My background • 1998 M.A. Political Science – Münster • Social Science Center Berlin • 2004 Ph.D. • 2008 Federal Academy for Security Policy • 2010 Regensburg University of Applied Science • 1997 Scientific analyst for security organization • 2003 IABG HF Team Program Manager • Consultant Prof. Dr. Bresinsky
Take home messages • Human factors are relevant, crucial, and often neglected. • Planning and decision-making in CIMIC is problem solving. • CI ≠ MI - SOP business. • CIMIC needs a shared situational awareness. • CIMIC means bridging the cultural differences. Prof. Dr. Bresinsky
Way ahead • What is Human Factor? • Cognitive psychology: action organization! • Intentions, objectives, and actions?! • Situational awareness – common and shared?! • Logic of failure…and more. • Conceptual Findings – N2M2C2 • Empirical Findings – Design Groups • Conclusion Prof. Dr. Bresinsky
Human Factor is… Prof. Dr. Bresinsky
Way ahead • What is Human Factor? • Cognitive psychology: action organization! • Intentions, objectives, and actions?! • Situational awareness – common and shared?! • Logic of failure…and more. • Conceptual Findings – N2M2C2 • Empirical Findings – Design Groups • Conclusion Prof. Dr. Bresinsky
More Psychology in Political Science • Information processing “…is wide open to irrational, nonrational intuitive, and affective influences, biases, and errors, especially in environments and issue-areas like international politics where uncertainty and complexity prevail.“(1) • „Ich halte die mangelnde Aufmerksamkeit der IB für diese Theorietradition, die manchmal bis zur totalen Abwehr reicht, für einen großen Fehler.“(2) • Situation factors: • Time constraints, information constraints, ambiguity, familiarity, accountability, risk, stress, dynamic vs. static-setting, interactive setting (3) 2(Krell 2003:357) 3(Mintz&DeRouen Jr. 2010:26) 1(Vertzberger 1990:343) Prof. Dr. Bresinsky
Goal Elaboration Intentions Task / Problem Information Gathering Perception Environment Mental Modelling Prognosis Group (Protocol-)Memory Planning Frictions Competence Decision / Acting Effect Control Time Pressure Emotions (Self-)Reflection Basis of the Modeling Approach: Theory of Human Action Organization (Dörner) Internal Factors External Factors Prof. Dr. Bresinsky
Goal Elaboration Information Gathering Lagefeststellung Observe Mental Modelling Prognosis Planung Orient Planning Decide Decision / Acting Befehlsgebung Act Effect Control Kontrolle (Self-)Reflection Dörner, Boyd, and HDV Prof. Dr. Bresinsky
The Policy Cycle Policy Cycle (John 1998, Sabatier 1999, McCormick 2006, Richardson 2006, Hague & Harrop 2007) Prof. Dr. Bresinsky
Way ahead • What is Human Factor? • Cognitive psychology: action organization! • Intentions, objectives, and actions?! • Situational awareness – common and shared?! • Logic of failure…and more. • Conceptual Findings – N2M2C2 • Empirical Findings – Design Groups • Conclusion Prof. Dr. Bresinsky
Intentions, objectives, actions Safety Security Certainty Power Cohesion Prof. Dr. Bresinsky
Intentions, objectives, actions Competencies / Skills Reliability Protection Alliance / Coalition Expectations / Scenarios Safety Security Certainty Power Cohesion Prof. Dr. Bresinsky
Intentions, objectives, actions Electoral Success Economic Welfare Domestic Support Building Coalition Social Welfare Standards Infrastructure Safety Security Certainty Power Cohesion Prof. Dr. Bresinsky
Intentions, objectives, actions Electoral Success Economic Welfare Domestic Support Building Coalition Social Welfare Standards Infrastructure Safety Security Certainty Power Cohesion Past / History Start Situation Available Operators / Plan Instrumentality Goal Situation Estimated Time Remaining Time Prof. Dr. Bresinsky
Intentions, objectives, actions Electoral Success Economic Welfare Domestic Support Building Coalition Social Welfare Standards Infrastructure Safety Security Certainty Power Cohesion Urgency Importance Competence Action Tendency Past / History Start Situation Available Operators / Plan Instrumentality Goal Situation Estimated Time Remaining Time Prof. Dr. Bresinsky
Intentions, objectives, actions Economic cooperation in a specific domain Political cooperation in a specific domain Military cooperation in a specific domain Electoral Success Economic Welfare Domestic Support Building Coalition Social Welfare Standards Infrastructure Safety Security Certainty Power Cohesion Urgency Importance Competence Action Tendency Past / History Start Situation Available Operators / Plan Instrumentality Goal Situation Estimated Time Remaining Time Prof. Dr. Bresinsky
Way ahead • What is Human Factor? • Cognitive psychology: action organization! • Intentions, objectives, and actions?! • Situational awareness – common and shared?! • Logic of failure…and more. • Conceptual Findings – N2M2C2 • Empirical Findings – Design Groups • Conclusion Prof. Dr. Bresinsky
Situation Awareness - Endsley http://www.google.de/url?source=imgres&ct=img&q=http://images.wikia.com/psychology/images/6/61/Endsley-SA-model.jpg&sa=X&ei=RGvATc9Ljca0Buqy3PIO&ved=0CAQQ8wc4Aw&usg=AFQjCNEi4OkT4z0EeoC5fI3sd5oYutplGg (Endsley 2003) Prof. Dr. Bresinsky
Common understanding Expert Group1 Expert Group 2 Expert Group 3 Expert Group 5 Expert Group 4 + + + + = Prof. Dr. Bresinsky
Shared understanding Committee Committee Committee Committee Committee + + + + = Prof. Dr. Bresinsky
Common Shared + + + + + + + + + + + + = = = Prof. Dr. Bresinsky
Way ahead • What is Human Factor? • Cognitive psychology: action organization! • Intentions, objectives, and actions?! • Situational awareness – common and shared?! • Logic of failure…and more. • Conceptual Findings – N2M2C2 • Empirical Findings – Design Groups • Conclusion Prof. Dr. Bresinsky
Goal Elaboration Thematic Vagabonding Information Gathering Information Channelling Mental Modelling Reductive Hypothesis Prognosis Linear Extrapolation Planning Plan Optimism Decision / Acting Over-Dosage Effect Control Neglect (Self-)Reflection Lack of Lessons Learned Logic of Failure (Dörner, Schaub et al.) Prof. Dr. Bresinsky
Group Think • B-2 • Provocative Situational Context • High stress from external threats with low hope of a better solution than the leader’s • Low self-esteem temporarily induced by: • Recent failures that make members’ inadequacies salient. • Excessive Difficulties on current decision-making tasks that lower each member’s sense of self-efficacy • Moral dilemmas: apparent lack of feasible alternatives except ones that violate ethical standards • etc. A Decision makers Constitute a Cohesive Group • B-1 • Structural Faults of Organization • Insulation of the group • Lack of tradition of imperial leadership • Lack of norms requiring methodical procedures • Homogeneity of members social background and ideology • etc. Concurrence-Seeking • D • Symptoms of Defective • Decision-making • Gross omissions in survey of objectives • Gross omission in surevey of alternatives • Poor information search • Selective bias in processing information at hand • Failure to reconsinder originally rejected alternatives • Failure to examine some major costs and risks of preferred choice • Failure to work out detailed implementation, monitoring and contingency plans • C • Symptoms of Groupthink • Type I: Overestimating the • group • Illusion of invulnerability • Belief in inherent morality of the group • Type II: Closed-mindedness • Collective Rationalizations • Stereotypes of out groups • Type III: Pressures toward uniformity • Self-censorship • illusion of unanimanity • Direct pressure on dissenters • Self-appointed mind guards E Low Probability of Successful Outcome (Janis 1989:59) Prof. Dr. Bresinsky
Way ahead • What is Human Factor? • Cognitive psychology: action organization! • Intentions, objectives, and actions?! • Situational awareness – common and shared?! • Logic of failure…and more. • Conceptual Findings – N2M2C2 • Empirical Findings – Design Groups • Conclusion Prof. Dr. Bresinsky
NNEC (p. 64) Prof. Dr. Bresinsky
NNEC (p.66) Prof. Dr. Bresinsky
NNEC (p.70) Prof. Dr. Bresinsky
Way ahead • What is Human Factor? • Cognitive psychology: action organization! • Intentions, objectives, and actions?! • Situational awareness – common and shared?! • Logic of failure…and more. • Conceptual Findings – N2M2C2 • Empirical Findings – Design Groups • Conclusion Prof. Dr. Bresinsky
Badke-Schaub / Frankenberg Badke-Schaub, P.; Frankenberger, E. (2002): Analysing and modelling cooperative design by the critical situation method. In: Le travail humain 65 (4), S. 293. Prof. Dr. Bresinsky
Cooperative solution search Prof. Dr. Bresinsky Badke-Schaub, P.; Frankenberger, E. (2002): Analysing and modelling cooperative design by the critical situation method. In: Le travail humain 65 (4), S. 293.
Deficient goal analysis Prof. Dr. Bresinsky Badke-Schaub, P.; Frankenberger, E. (2002): Analysing and modelling cooperative design by the critical situation method. In: Le travail humain 65 (4), S. 293.
Successful solution search Prof. Dr. Bresinsky Badke-Schaub, P.; Frankenberger, E. (2002): Analysing and modelling cooperative design by the critical situation method. In: Le travail humain 65 (4), S. 293.
Successful solution decision Prof. Dr. Bresinsky Badke-Schaub, P.; Frankenberger, E. (2002): Analysing and modelling cooperative design by the critical situation method. In: Le travail humain 65 (4), S. 293.
Deficient solution decision Badke-Schaub, P.; Frankenberger, E. (2002): Analysing and modelling cooperative design by the critical situation method. In: Le travail humain 65 (4), S. 293. Prof. Dr. Bresinsky
Way ahead • What is Human Factor? • Cognitive psychology: action organization! • Intentions, objectives, and actions?! • Situational awareness – common and shared?! • Logic of failure…and more. • Conceptual Findings – N2M2C2 • Empirical Findings – Design Groups • Conclusion Prof. Dr. Bresinsky
Take home messages • Human factors are relevant, crucial, and often neglected. • Planning and decision-making in CIMIC is problem solving. • CI ≠ MI - SOP business. • CIMIC needs a shared situational awareness. • CIMIC means bridging the cultural differences. Prof. Dr. Bresinsky
Questions / Discussion http://www.guy-sports.com/fun_pictures/left_right.jpg Prof. Dr. Bresinsky
Back Up Prof. Dr. Bresinsky
CI / CS type of reaction (Thomas) • Ignorant • Universalist • Man of action • Potenzializer Prof. Dr. Bresinsky
Phases of cultural shock (Oberg 1960) • Honeymoon • Crisis • Recovery • Adjustment Prof. Dr. Bresinsky
„Intercultural competence requires an ability to move beyond sterotypes and to respond to the individual.“ (Lustig / Koester 2003, S. 154) Prof. Dr. Bresinsky
NNEC (p. 64) Prof. Dr. Bresinsky
NNEC (p.66) Prof. Dr. Bresinsky
NNEC (p.70) Prof. Dr. Bresinsky