Just finished an interesting book called "How We Decide". One of the key insights of the book is that we have eveolved BOTH rationalmodes of decision-making, and emotional (intuitive) modes of decision making. People whose brain's lack rational components (Due to accident or illness) can't make good decisions, those whose brains lack emotional components can't make ANY decisions. Seems we need BOTH to be effective.
I think the same is true of the debate between systems theory and design inspired theory. There are cases where one or the other approach should be emphasized, but always preferring one over the other leads to trouble.
From what i have seen out working with 2 and 3 star level staffs, we have over-emphasized systems thinking and 'metrication' within the staffs, and only the Commanders (and perhaps his council of colonels) add the intuitive approach.
The methodology that reserves the balancing of system thinking with intuitive thinking at the highest levels of command creates a false sense of certainity implied by staff focus on numerics, and an unfortunate atmosphere of the staff efforts being more to create a "valid" justification for things the commander intuitively decides, rather than to be proactively engagged with the commander improving the quality of deisions...
A stereo type yes, and obviously not universal, but seems particulalry true in exercise/experiment circumstances...
The value of the design approach is not that it should replace a systems thinking approach (which has proven invaluable in appicable areas like logistics and communications) but in re-emphasizing the value of the intuitive and "non-metrical" approaches in supporting decision - making.
Design and systems analysis CAN live together!
Originally Posted by pvebber
Bookmarks