Quantitative Decisionmaking–Get a Better Deal

There are only a few people who enjoy the process of evaluating and buying a used car. One of them is the salesperson. The customers rarely have the same satisfaction—there is always this nagging doubt that there is some information missing or obscured that will lead to buying the wrong car at the wrong price. No wonder that internet sales of automobiles are growing rapidly. It is psychologically easier to be outwitted impersonally than by the person negotiating from the other side of the desk.

Buying a car is an example of a quantitative decision process. The steps are information, presentation, evaluation, and decision.

In the example of the car, the decision process requires information available about the condition and price of the vehicle, presentation of the information by the salesperson, evaluation of these facts by the buyer, and finally a clear decision on purchasing the car. There are many other examples of quantitative decisions at both home and on the job. For example, actions based on sales or marketing information, investment decisions, negotiations with contractors, property purchases all require quantitative decisions. Each example has the same steps.

The good news is that you can improve your chances of making a better decision and enjoying a more satisfying result. The four questions below can more effectively guide the decision process.

Four Guiding Questions:

Is ALL of the relevant information available?

The information presentation is fully shaped by someone else. Consequently, there may be either conscious or unconscious bias. It is possible that information has been selectively chosen. There may be good reasons to exclude it, but you, as the evaluator, must assert the opportunity to have access to it.

Does the information presented support the conclusions?

In other words, is there a cause and effect relationship between the information and product? In the case of a used car, an independent mechanics evaluation may be linked to the condition of the automobile. A salesman’s assertion that the car is in good condition may not necessarily be linked to the car’s condition. A mechanics log has a stronger relationship to the condition of the engine than the overall mileage.

When you examine the relationship between the information and the conclusion, it is surprising the amount of information that has no bearing on the decision. Disregard this superfluous information from the decision process.

What do you really need to know?

The best approach is to formulate your own answers to this question even before the meeting. Then, you have an idea of the type of information you consider essential and can compare it with the facts given at the meeting. This exercise gives far more control to the person making the decision. You have a basis to both evaluate the information and ask specific follow-up questions that really help to evaluate and supplement the presented information.

Are you riding the flow of the presentation rather than the content?

The quality of the presentation may be completely different from the quality of the content. However, the style or charisma of the presenter may be intoxicating so that the content evaluation does not happen. (Obviously many politicians and others can make a good living from this skill.) Your responsibility is different.

Find a way to put distance from the presentation itself—either by clearing your mind, leaving the physical space (this is particularly clear in the example of being in the small car sales office), or removing the time pressure element for an immediate decision. This distance separates the style from the content.

That’s it. 4 questions to keep in mind. Try them and see if you can improve your chances of a good outcome the next time a quantitative decision comes along.

The Boat Story

An open-ended story is an invitation to see your own situation from a fresh perspective. Unlike conventional stories, there is no specific point or moral or lesson to take away. It can be enjoyed for itself, or converted figuratively to help interpret an actual situation in a new way. In this sense, it is not an intellectual exercise, rather just an opportunity to see if any of the ideas from the story resonate with the reader.

You may interpret it in your own way. Further, as time and conditions change, an individual may see a different aspect from one reading to the next. And if this type of thing doesn’t interest you or nothing resonates, just pass on by.

The Boat Story

There was a man in a small canoe out in the bay. The man was quite proud of his boat, which he had just refinished. The day began clear and bright, but rather unexpectedly, clouds quickly gathered and a dense fog rolled in. The man brought the canoe about and headed for shore. As he headed home, he could just make out the profile of another boat in the fog obscured distance. He kept that outline of a boat within his view and noticed that it was moving in his direction. This observation caused him some concern and when the boat was within earshot, he called out “Keep your distance so that we have plenty of room to pass.” However, the other boat continued to move closer and was now on a direct collision course. He called out again louder, “Keep your distance!” He was quite skilled with the oar, knew a number of strokes, and could maneuver the canoe quite adroitly. He changed course and paddled away from the other boat. However, as he changed direction, he was upset to see the other boat also change direction and again move directly toward him. The man could also see that it was a significantly larger than his canoe. He called out again “Watch out. Don’t hit my boat, it has been repainted.” None of this shouting had any effect. The larger boat continued to bear down on him. “Stay out of my way!” But it was of no use. Whenever he tried to change direction, the maneuver was matched by the on-coming boat. The boat dead reckoned at him until there was a loud crack from the crash. The man saw his new boat damaged by this senseless behavior of the other boat. His rage knew no bounds. “You idiot, look what you did to my boat!” He continued his rampage, screaming and getting quite worked up. Suddenly, the fog lifted. The man could see the larger boat clearly now. There was no one in it. The boat was a long abandoned shell.

Here are a couple of points to chew on:

Where did the man’s anger come from?

Where did it go?

Where is the responsibility for the accident?

Are there comparable situations at work or at home?

Slacking off without consequences—Practical Risk Management

Just don’t do the task. Or more precisely, first consider not doing it. Then decide. Does anybody care? Does anybody even notice? Is there any value to the effort? Is there a time limit that affects others? The difficulties begin when people unilaterally ignore a task simply because it is unpleasant. That type of slacking off may have significant negative consequences, particularly at work. However, a few minutes of consideration may convince you that the benefits of ignoring a task really outweigh the consequences.

An example for today: At work, there are always reports to be written. Some seem to have value, but there are any number that seem to go nowhere. People recognize this and periodically have collaborative meetings to redefine the reports etc. But the reports creep back in, particularly when an insecure, micromanaging supervisor appears who seems to value having all the information available at the expense of delegation and setting direction. When such a supervisor moves on, the reports continue with a life of their own. The elimination of this type of work can be efficiently accomplished by application of the principles of Practical Risk Management.

Risk management is really a systematic way of looking at an operation, its uncertainties, the consequences of these uncertainties, and evaluating actions that can be taken to minimize the negative consequences. There have been elaborate methods worked out to apply these principles to complex systems in order to have them perform reliably. Consider for example, a commercial airplane. Components such as the engines and propulsion systems, fuel delivery, communications, pilot performance, and ground support systems must function as intended and interface with the others. Risk management techniques have been used during the design and testing to increase the reliably of the aircraft to the point where it is safer to take an airplane trip than an automobile.

The important point is that the same principles that have been used to increase the reliability of complex systems can be simplified and applied to allow you to slack off without consequences.

The risk management procedure at its simplest takes only a few minutes of thought and has only four steps:

1. Understand the facts of the task under consideration—these are the people, information, schedules etc. as well as the process to reach the stated outcome.

2.Make up ideas or scenarios of different actions that you could pursue that differ from the normal course. These scenario changes introduce uncertainty into the process and are called “risk events”

3. Logically follow out the likely consequences each idea. Remember that this is a mental exercise based on your perceptions. However, if you are dealing with a familiar situation and you have reasonable judgment, your assessment of the potential consequences will likely be in the ball park.

4. Select the most appropriate course of action. However, the actual consequence may be different from your analysis. These differences are generally not a big deal. Pay attention and monitor the actual results. Change your selected action as appropriate.

Let’s go back to the example of these reports that apparently go nowhere:

1. Fact:

Reports take resources, do not appear to have value.

2. Possible Actions

Ignore writing the report

Reduce the report substantially

Continue the status quo

Change the system

3. Briefly consider the likely consequences for each action

• Ignore it individually—If no one really cares, there will be no consequences. If someone does care, how will it be brought to your attention? If it is likely to be a friendly reminder, you have paid a small price to learn this. If it is the loss of your job, well it just is not worth it.

• Reduce it substantially—Gradually reduce the effort and content until someone notices, then make the adjustment permanent.

• Continue the status quo—Potential consequence is that you will lose the edge on your initiative and skills

• Change the system—Some people like to do this. Mostly they are bureaucrats. It’s a longer term approach.

4. Take the most appropriate action, monitor and modify if necessary based on the observed result.

So, there can be tasks not done and no consequences. The risk management principles can help you to decide which ones to let go. The evaluation takes only a few minutes to use. This method can be applied to a wide variety of tasks. I’ll pick this up at another time.

Actually, it’s really not slacking off, it’s just using you time and energy where it has better value.

Finding Things–like your flash drive

This drill has happened too many times. The family is lined up ready to leave for work and school, when the plaintive cry goes up “I can’t find the keys.” The whole operation shuts down. People scurry all over the place looking for them. The pressure of the delayed leaving builds and even when the keys are found, the residual tension takes a while to wear off. The equivalent situation at work is when the boss asks immediately for information and you can neither put your hand on the hard copy or the file. The worst, of course, is when you put your hand in your pocket to get your flash drive and it isn’t there.

The time for keeping track of things is past. It’s also too early for recrimination. The focus of the moment is to get your hands on the flash drive. Although we say it’s lost, it’s almost always misplaced. A big difference. The trick is to get it back in hand without aggravation.

The worst action is to search a location and overlook the item. If the item is overlooked once, it will be a while until you get back there because there are so many other places to look. Aggravation. This error happens frequently during the initial frantic moments of the search when stuff is just moved around. Even at the beginning, when you look in a location, search thoroughly so the chances of missing it are a minimum.

The next action, if the item does not turn up in the first two or three obvious places, is just to sit down for a minute or two. Take the time to recollect the time and conditions when you saw it. Don’t force for an answer and let the mind be intuitive and open. Something may come to mind such as a slight variation from your normal routine, leading to new ideas. Then get up and look in those places. Repeat as necessary.

 

Elephants, Blind Men, and the Vision of a Manager–Story

The story below, or one of its many variations, is told at many management meetings:

All of the men of the region that were born blind were gathered in one place and an elephant was brought out. Each man felt a different part of the elephant—the head, the feet, the ears, the trunk etc. When they were asked, what sort a thing is an elephant, each had his own response; the tail–a brush; the leg–a pillar, the ear– a winnowing basket and so on. An argument developed within the group and no agreement could be reached.

The management lesson that is often emphasized is that no one individual has a grasp of the entire picture. Each person has a piece that must be brought together to have an accurate understanding of the situation. The point that is stressed is the importance of working as a group and communicating effectively. The lesson is interesting and effective the first time. However, the repetition of message becomes a cliché and the interest is lost.

I recently came across this story again in a Buddhist Commentary. The original story and the commentary took the lesson in a different direction than the management consultants:

This story often appears in the Buddhist canon as a parable told by the Buddha. It was told in response to a question concerning scholars arguing about the nature of man and religion. The story follows the same scenario, and has a verse with these two lines describing the blind men:

For quarreling, each to his view they cling.
Such folks see only one side of a thing.

Two lines from the Commentary indicate a direction:

“If you want to do right, just avoid groping over the elephant: do not say perceptive awareness is it, yet do not say that it is not it.”

The blindness is one of obstructed perception. All of the folks are making the same error, even if their specific reports are different. Bringing all of the people together to fit the elephant together in simply leads to a composite, agreed by consensus, but that picture still contains the errors and distortions inherent in the faulty perception. Although, there may be agreement, it cannot reflect the actual situation if the perceptions are incorrect. Communication and working together are not the central issue. An appropriate, clear experience or understanding of the situation is the essential point.

A manager is often asked to put the pieces of a situation together, based on skill and experience. Managers can become adroit at figuring out the big picture. In fact, looking throughout the organization, it is obvious that individuals can succeed on this skill quite well. Yet, the picture is likely to incorporate errors of perception of groping the situation, favoring a known view and seeing, as the verse states, only one side of a thing. Based on this original intent of the parable, the responsibility of the manager is to bring the insight to the situation so that it is addressed fully and appropriately. The power of the parable is the challenge to the individual find a way to develop that level of understanding.

Is a clear understanding necessary to function in the management position. Absolutely not. Some organizations essentially built on deception can continue in that mode for some time, and clarity may not be welcomed. Thus, the challenge is directly to each individual to accept or decline as time and conditions dictate.

Chasing the Ball into the Street

There is no feeling so helpless, as seeing from a distance, a child chasing a ball that is headed for the street. Will that child remember to stop? It’s an acute fear of anyone who has children, and the fear never goes away, even when one’s own children have long grown up. We prepare for the situation, hoping that it is never tested

In this preparation with the child, there is an important point that is often overlooked. People react faster to instructions that tell them what to do compared to those which direct them what not to do. The mental processes to execute the two types of instructions are not the same. People are more likely to be able to execute the positive instruction successfully.

So the instruction: “Stop at the curb” is more effective than the more often used “Do not run into the street.” Training should emphasize this direction.

Emphasizing the instructions about what should be done, rather than what should be avoided is a more effective strategy to get the desired result in many activities. It is worth the effort to give some thought to ensure that the instructions are phrased in the most appropriate manner.

One other point about the ball. The immediate safe response is the most important aspect, but the longer term considerations can also be addressed. A child may believe that if the ball is crushed in the street, he will be without it. Reduce the long term consequences of this perspective. Make it clear that if the ball does go in the street and is crushed by a car, the adults will put aside the important things they are doing and immediately go to the store to replace it. Then do it. If the time comes and the ball has to be replaced, it is a very satisfying trip. There are plenty of other opportunities, with much less at stake, to teach about the consequences of their actions.

 

To send this post to a parent with a small child, copy and send the link:

http://workingwithinsight.wordpress.com/2006/07/23/chasing-the-ball-into-the-street/

Another Lousy Presentation at Work

What is it that makes intelligent people sabotage their work by organizing and delivering presentations that are well below their native ability? I’m not even thinking about the quality of the PowerPoint slides; we’ll leave that for another time. Things like rushing around in front of the audience at the last minute because the copier didn’t work or the projector did not interface with the computer. Sometimes it’s not giving the audience enough perspective or spending too much time on the background. Or apologizing for busy slides, instead of fixing them. Then, there is running over the scheduled time so that those in the audience lose their interest as well as any good will toward the speaker. After having suffered through a few too many of such presentations, I’ve put together this list of a few straightforward things to keep in mind.
Show up Early
You know when the meeting begins. Be prepared and test the equipment. This preparation gives a better impression than rushing in at the last minute because you need to be seen as “busy”.

Practice at least once.
The most needed revisions quickly become obvious.

Know and respect your audience.
Think about what the audience needs to learn from the presentation, what they are likely to know, and what presentation style is the most appropriate. If you believe what you are telling them, make sure the audience knows it.

Use the first rule of rhetoric: “Render the audience docile.”
Docile, in its formal definitions, means “easily taught” or “ready to learn”. Using first rule of rhetoric is to give the provide evidence or reasons for the audience to listen and take you seriously. The reason will be specific to the talk. As examples, the evidence may be to establish your credentials or show the significance of the topic.

Don’t apologize for the slides and handouts.
Fix it if you can. If you can’t, no need to call attention to the deficiencies.

Finish early.
It is appreciated by the audience and makes the presentation more favorably remembered.

This article dealt with performance of the individual. A related post Presenting Quantitative Information Well–Lessons from Playwrights focuses on the methods to sharpen the presentation of the content

Deciding to let a child travel alone

No one is ever old enough to ride on the New York City alone for the first time. Visitors often feel this way. I was 25 when I came to the city for the first time and remember that first ride, who knew where the train would end up and let me off?

For kids growing up in New York, it is often different. They are ready to go off on the train. How do you decide whether they are ready. It has to happen sooner or later. This example is from the subways, but the decision process is similar for other situations where a child is on their own.

Decision time for the subways is often triggered by a change in schools. Since a child can select public middle schools (6^th grade) anywhere in his district, it may be more than a walking distance from home. Sure, there may an equivalent school just around the corner, but preferences are valid. So the decision is to let the child go to the school of their choice and take the subway or restrict the options.

The first reaction to a child on the subways is the physical danger. There is always the possibility of encountering an out of control person. It can happen. Actually it can happen anywhere—on the sidewalk, at the mall, another driver. The cold statistics show that it is relatively rare. Most children have been instructed about these possibilities. Both children and adults are on the lookout for it and can take evasive action. Actually, there is not much difference for the child alone in this case since there are so many other adults present. On a subway for a daytime school commute, this scenario may not be the most significant.

Far more common is that it the subway line goes out of service due to a mechanical break down, power failure, or some other random act of nature. Alternatively, a train or bus may be rerouted from a local to express and make different stops. In these scenarios, which are likely to happen sooner or later over the course of a year, the child may be relatively far from home, disrupted from the normal travel pattern and by himself. The question then is: Does our child have the presence of mind, information, and maturity to work through the situation?

 It is not enough to ask for an opinion or general question, but to formulate more specific examples and have the child demonstrate competence.

In the case of the subway or bus, a series of probing questions can be formulated based on adult experience: What happens if: the subway breaks down; you lose your metro card and have not money; the train is rerouted; which buses can match the route; who can you contact for information; your cellphone batteries are dead; you get lost. These questions define for the parent the level at which the child must be able to function.

 Next test the child’s maturity and knowledge against the specific questions. Look for answers that have enough specific detail to actually solve the problem. For example, it is not enough to say “Take another train” They must be able to specify the alternate routes, including transfers and destination stops. Of course, not every scenario can be tested. The real evaluation by the parent is to determine if the child has information, realistic assessment and ability to actually work through the problem. Then, its time for a field assessment. The next step is to let them set the routes for actual trips the family may take prior to the school year. No hints. If the wrong directions is selected, everyone goes along for the ride. These trips gives the sense of responsibility needed for their own confident travel.

 Then, they are off. Not quite finished though. The first few trips are likely uneventful. Some close questioning about the initial experiences to verify the information and maturity are really there both parent and child are confident when the inevitable new situation arises.

 The process can be applied to giving other responsibility in general. Not just children, but delegating responsibility to employees as well.

A follow-up post is:  Intuitive Decisions–Allowing a child more responsibility or can be located in the parenting category.

Summary of steps:

Understand the Skill Requirements

Explicitly review the project from a skill perspective.

Evaluate Competence within the Project

Formulate specific probes so that the responses demonstrate skills rather than describe them.

Determine the Overlap of Requirements and Competence

Use Experience and intuitive judgment tested against specific questions

 Delegate Responsibility

Focused oversight in areas in which project requirements exceed demonstrated competence.

Monitor

Verify that the person is functioning effectively after there has been an opportunity to progress the project.

The steps in this process are described in more detail in the “Delegating Responsibility” paper in the Papers section.

Stuck at the Airport

There was a severe thunderstorm in New York late in the evening last week. It was so severe that JFK was closed for a while. This is the worst time for a connecting passengers, since by the time it reopened, the last flights out to the west coast had been canceled and next flights out were in the morning.

The airport was a zoo with people going in all directions. Some families were wasting time and energy standing in long lines for a cab. Some were crowded around the hotel information board to use the courtesy phone to locate a hotel room, apparently unaware that a swift comparison of the number of stranded people to the number of available hotel rooms would indicate that their prospects were bleak. Others were going to different airline counters looking for alternate routes. People were acting on the first idea that came into their heads.

Our friend J called from the airport close to midnight. She had been traveling with her family and elderly mother from Rochester to Seattle and was one of the many stuck. The next flight out to Seattle was about 9 in the morning. It was hard not to get caught up in the chaos of the airport and think about the best action among the unpleasant alternatives. Still, with a few minutes of thought, we accomplished what the masses standing in line for cabs had not—we carefully considered the options and chose the one we knew to be the best, sparing her hours of fruitless cab-waiting or hotel room-searching. What we did seems simple, but in an airport in the middle of the night, it can really do a lot for your blood pressure and peace of mind.

We started the conversation by casting a net to consider the possibilities. After a few minutes, there were 3 choices: (i) Find a hotel, (ii) Stay at our place in Manhattan or (iii) Spend the night at the airport.

The priority of the key considerations was to ensure that J’s elderly mother did not overextend herself and that they make the morning flight.

Using Orbitz and information from the airport, it only took a few minutes to determine that all of the hotels that had a shuttle to the airport were booked. Several other hotels were identified that were reasonably close, but did not have an airport shuttle. Before booking, J took a look at the line for taxis. It stretched beyond belief, at least 1-2 hours, and likely longer as the early morning wore on and fewer cabs entered the airport. Hotels were not going to work.

Staying at our place involves taking the Airtrain to the subway or commuter train and then coming into the City. In most cases, this would be the best action since it is an easy hour for a young person, with some walking. However, this is too much energy for the elderly late at night. A modification would be to take the Airtrain to a station outside of the airport and take a cab the rest of the way. Normally this would work, but the lateness of the hour added some risk that a taxi may be difficult to get. Under no circumstances should there be exposure to the scenario of getting stranded in an unfamiliar place.

So the most appropriate action under these circumstances was to return to the lounge of the airport and be as comfortable as possible. Since the alternatives had been explored in 15 minutes, the family did not have to spend more anxious energy and could wait it out. The confusion and false starts continued for many others.

In retrospect, it may be applied common sense. The trick is to be able to apply it to new situations in the heat of the moment. Considering the generalizations can help to do that.

Generalizations to Other Problems:

1. Cast a wide mental net for all the alternatives before acting on any. List in order of preference for the outcome.

Initial thinking is more efficient that acting

2. State clearly the priorities of significant limitations.

An early understanding of these priorities keeps the problem solving on track.

3. Explore the feasibility of the options in order of preference, considering the limitations.

Reference Paper

The paper “When Things go wrong, Initial Responses” in the papers section discusses these and other points in more detail. Of particular relevance is the first section about evaluating the actual situation.

Welcome!

Please check out the “About” page to see how this thing is going to fit together. Basically, I’m going to be posting about using different thinking and organizational tools to get better results from whatever it is you want to do! First, there will be an example of an actual problem, followed by analysis, and then, a principle and its application. The principle will be further described in a longer post so that it can be used on your own problem. My hope is that you will be able to use these methods I post to get better results with less time and effort.

Reference Paper–When Things Go Wrong–Initial Responses

 

Introduction

There is nothing so challenging as reacting to the occurrence of an incident that has the potential to result in significant negative consequences. These situations often announce themselves in a way that puts people off balance. The initial reports of the situation are sketchy, presumed accurate, and accompanied by scenarios of dire consequences if corrective action is not immediately taken. In the shadow of this chaotic background, an orderly guide is required for the first response.

In fact, these types of problems often do require a decision to be made and executed under severe time pressures. It is a highly leveraged time period since, if an appropriate response can be made, the issue is settled almost without notice. On the other hand, an inappropriate response can reverberate throughout the organization.

The correct decisions during the initial evaluation have the greatest leverage in bringing adverse situations under control. In the absence of an initial plan, there is a much greater possibility that the investigation will drift, inappropriate actions taken, and the problems will be compounded.

This section provides guidance for the initial actions to be taken when an incident occurs. Although such incidents may be referred to as “crises”, they are not true cataclysmic events. Time sensitive adverse situations can normally be expected to arise during the course of the project. However the event does put the project on a crossroad in that the outcome can range from full resolution to more severe problems. The objective of the framework outlined here is to increase the probability for a good outcome. The intent is to provide sufficient structure to establish an appropriate initial direction without rigid details. The techniques for technical resolution of the situation itself are addressed in other sections.

Examples of adverse events considered here:

Equipment malfunction

Schedule changes mandated by customers

Customer complaints

Change in management focus

Key Personnel Changes

Consequences of decision errors

Personal issues

These examples have common elements in that they are significant, but not life or safety issues. There is a short list of immediate concern that go beyond the typical events that comprise the majority of work situations. These events must be immediately escalated to trained personnel:

Safety issues

Personal injury

Property damage

Imminent danger of personal or property damage

The guide here also serves to provide a brake against the belief that the issues cannot be resolved correctly because actions have to be taken immediately. It is crucial to counteract the strong pressures to react to the situation even as the understanding of it changes on a moment-to-moment basis. If these pressures are not successfully neutralized, they increase in strength and can ultimately cause the troubleshooting activities to lose focus and essentially drift, compounding the issues and leading to a general deterioration of the situation. On the other hand, when the initial steps of the investigation are completed and priorities evaluated, the problem can be addressed with more confidence. The positive energy of confidence contributes further to maintain the problem resolution activity on track.

3 Anchoring Points

Three points are described that can be used as a foundation framework during the early stages of the investigative process.

1. Get a realistic view of the relation between time, risk, and consequences.

2. Identify the real driver.

3. Emphasize appropriate assistance.

Reference to these markers can provide sufficient grounding of the activities to develop and maintain the focus of the effort on the critical points. During the initial stages, it is difficult to resist the forces to act immediately in the direction most visible at the moment. The pressure to act is intensified by both the frustrations encountered in seeking accurate information and also by the psychological stress induced by the confusion. Reference to these 3 anchoring points are an effective way to keep the initial evaluation on track.

1. Develop a realistic view of the relation between time, risk, and consequences.

The first report of a time sensitive problem is usually only an indication of the actual situation. Obtaining a realistic view takes some effort, but plans and actions cannot be taken until the most accurate information that can be available is brought to the surface.

Severity

The initial reports tend to be biased toward overestimating severity. These initial reports also carry more psychological weight over time. An example of their psychological weight is that the first descriptions tend not to be discounted even as more accurate and relevant information becomes available.

As another perspective, it is noted that the bias to overestimate severity for incidents with time pressure does not apply to chronic problems. Chronic problems are generally reported with a more optimistic bias. In the chronic cases, there is an implied expectation that there is sufficient time to intervene and correct the issues before the negative consequences are fully manifested. This difference can be at least taken into consideration when information is evaluated.

Obtaining Available Information

The individuals who require the information and are responsible for corrective action must be the most organized and systematic. Eliciting the maximum quantity of available information is a skill activity of formulating and asking appropriate questions.

Internal Planning

The strong tendency to immediately begin asking questions of others involved in the incident is not the most effective approach. Only several minutes are required to explicitly formulate an overall strategy to obtain information. Using a strategy can make a significant improvement in the quality of information obtained. Many people can formulate the strategy as an intuitive skill. However, it can be a learned skill and an approach is outlined below:

The driving internal question for yourself is:

What I really need to know is _______?

This formulation consistently applied can guide the data gathering to the most effective level.

The answers to the above question serve to provide a foundation upon which to evaluate the information.

Who may have this information?

What can be done with this information?

This internal planning exercise, completed in several minutes, is a reference to ensure that the external investigation remains on track.

External Questions

After the outline of an internal information strategy has been developed, the activity of gathering the available information can begin. The objective is to ensure that information is brought to the surface for evaluation. This surfacing of information is a skill driven activity. The probes and questions may be seeking specific facts or explore the possibilities. The section: Formulating Appropriate Questions reviews the different types of questions that can be helpful in obtaining information.

Examples

Skilled: “What was the first indication that ….. .. . .. happened?”

There is specificity, but is still open-ended with opportunities for follow-up.

Unskilled: “What do you know about . . . ?”

Trolling for information with this type of question will lead to responses with omissions and exclusions.

Due to the ambiguity of the situation, and normal discrepancies in observation and interpretation, the information and data will become available in an unfiltered way. While all the information must be gathered objectively, the raw information can be roughly sorted into several heaps:

Essential

Irrelevant

Significance initially unclear

Not Available

The sorting process itself is both informal and fluid. The significance of any piece of information can change as a more complete picture emerges. Consequently, it is a common occurrence to upgrade or downgrade information in much the way that stocks trade up or down based on financial news. The sorting process itself adds value since, as a background activity, it continually re-enforces the focus on the information that is most relevant to the priorities.

The process also serves as an internal reminder that, at the early stage of the investigation, the analysis process must be open and agile rather than concentrate on fitting the facts into a preconceived framework. As described in the next section, the information is first used to understand the priorities in terms of time and risk. After time and risk are assessed, the details of the problem itself are addressed.

 

2. Identify the critical priorities in terms of time and consequences

The first use of the available data is to qualitatively determine a realistic relationship between time and potential downside consequences. The risk management techniques (Section xx) can be used with the available facts to develop the risk scenarios. This exercise is informal and rapid. The objective is to use a process to identify the boundaries of downside consequences as a function of time. The results of the exercise allows everyone in the organization to understand the actual dimensions of the incident. A succinct statement of the actual problem, based on the best available information, can displace the initial, more diffuse initial reports. This problem statement, more than anything, can settle the situation down in a direct and rapid way. It is a step required before the underlying problem can be rationally addressed. Again it is stressed, that it is the exercise as much as the result that has value. The downside risk is determined by one or several key individuals in an informal manner, and does not require an elaborate procedure.

Note that there is a significant difference between using the available information to define the parameters of the problem and using the information to solve the problem directly. The intent at this stage is to use the information to define the acceptable boundaries for time and risk. This objective can be met without an in depth probe. This is an important distinction since initially available information is usually not sufficient to actually resolve the problem. A more detailed technical analysis is usually needed to actually determine the best course of action to resolve the consequences of the incident.

In some cases, the pressure source is obvious and the time frame and first course of action are clear. An example, are hazards that require immediate attention. However as noted earlier, the majority of time pressure decisions fall into a more ambiguous category

Examples of driving priorities may include:

Revenue loss

Schedule Commitments

Production Downtime

Quality

Organization Goals

Personal Goals

Viewed in terms of the possibilities of the different priorities, it is clear that the critical ones must be identified early in the evaluation. Failure to make this identification can lead to addressing a secondary issue with an inefficient and costly use of time and resources.

More specifically, an awareness of the options also serves as a break to the direct implementation of the first underdeveloped ideas and the beginning of the compound error scenario.

Priority of Action

The key question to reframe and focus the activity:

“What do we want to happen?”

The follow-up question addresses the effort:

“Are the current activities consistent with the goals ?”

or rephrased as:

“Is priority where the effort is directed?”

If the desired result is known and kept in the forefront of attention, information, advice, and activities can be evaluated against a reference. Although this direct focus appears to be a straightforward approach, in the confusion induced by the incident, it is often difficult to maintain a clear relation between the goals and the activities. There are many diversions. Experience has demonstrated that, without guidance, effort will go to the easiest task that may give the appearance of progress or follow the most vociferous opinion. These two questions serve as landmarks to gauge the priority of the activities.

Examples of diversions that can frequently arise:

Minor considerations get disproportionate attention.

Easiest task that may give the appearance of progress.

Vociferous opinion demands more attention.

Repetitive communication

(Communication is an important activity, but it is not the goal.)

Reopening issues with no additional information.

3. Emphasize Appropriate Assistance

There is one straightforward guide:

Find and use the best people who can contribute to understanding the situation.

This guide is not as easy to follow as it appears. Everyone wants to help. Not everyone can. This distinction between appropriate and inappropriate assistance must be kept in mind during the activities seeking to understand the information and devise a path forward. The most useful people to consult to get the process moving in the right direction should be identified explicitly. Generally, one key to recognizing the situation is the level of accountability, either for the cause of the incident or for its resolution

There is difficulty in maintaining the distinction of inappropriate assistance. There are cadres of people who are eager to contribute, but do not add to the resolution process. For example, people who happen to be in the vicinity seem to be especially influential regardless of their expertise or accountability

On the other hand, there are ubiquitous anecdotal examples of the winning direction being contributed by someone outside of the project. There is always the possibility of overlooking a relevant contribution from an unlikely source. This possibility is mitigated by listening to these contributions, but adjusting the weight based on the source. In this way, all contributions are gathered, but action and direction are not buffeted by low credibility information.

The focus has to be on the first line of information holders and advisors. This approach increases the likelihood of a successful resolution.

Summary Comments:

• Unplanned incidents will occasionally occur in all projects
• These situations are accompanied by significant time pressures that can impede judgment
• Take the short time required to understand the problem before moving toward a solution. It is more efficient to initially think than act.
• Use three anchoring points to guide this evaluation.

1. Get a realistic view of the relation between time, risk, and consequences.

2. Identify the real driver.

3. Emphasize appropriate assistance.

• The evaluation is rapid and informal

• After the initial evaluation, address the resolution of the major issues

The key point is to take the short time required to understand the problem before moving toward a resolution.