An Officer and a Reflective Problem Solver: Further Development of Problem Solving and Thinking Skills in Officer Cadets at Sandhurst and Beyond

Transcription

1 Sandhurst Occasional Papers No 15 An Officer and a Reflective Problem Solver: Further Development of Problem Solving and Thinking Skills in Officer Cadets at Sandhurst and Beyond Dr Mike Rennie Central Library Royal Military Academy Sandhurst 2013

2 The Author Dr Mike Rennie is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Communications and Applied Behavioural Science at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst SANDHURST OCCASIONAL PAPER NO 15 Series Editor: Sean McKnight (Director of Studies, RMAS) No part of this publication, except for short extracts, may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form without the prior permission of the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst. ISBN: The views expressed in this paper are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect official thinking or policy of Her Majesty s Government, the Ministry of Defence or the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst. Correspondence and enquiries about the Sandhurst Occasional Paper series should be addressed to: The Senior Librarian Central Library Royal Military Academy Sandhurst Camberley Surrey GU15 4PQ [email protected] Online The Sandhurst Occasional Papers series is available online at: 2

3 Introduction In 2011 the Department of Communication and Behavioural Science at RMAS published a paper describing the approach to developing how Officer Cadets make decisions and solve problems (Sandhurst Occasional Paper no 7). Since then the models and theories that were discussed in that paper have been propagated to the wider British Army, been taught to officers around the world and is currently central to the development of the commissioning curriculum at the new Afghan National Army Officer Academy (ANAOA) at Qargha. But the paper has not only been of interest within the military setting, a number of civilian agencies have expressed an interest of the concepts discussed in the paper and applying it within their own organisation. There has been some academic interest too; it is required reading at the Sussex University Business School. However, on reflection the author felt that the model did not reflect the full process of problem solving and decision making. Where it falls short, is the fact that it stops once the possible solutions have been judged against a set of criteria, allowing for a single solution to be selected. From a theoretical viewpoint, this is acceptable, but problems solving does not happen in a vacuum and the practical application of a solution need to be considered. Inevitably, as soon as the solution is started to be implemented the situation surrounding the problem has changes, especially in complex problems and as such, the solution that has been chosen may need adaptation. In extreme examples it may be that the solution is no longer the most apt for the problem. With this in mind the author decided that further elements of the problem solving model need be considered. 3

4 The Sandhurst Problem Solving Model It may be worth revisiting the original model, which was developed between 2008 and 2009 as a teaching tool in the Communication and Applied Behavioural Science department (CABS) at RMAS. It was included in the Sandhurst Occasional Paper no 6 An Officer and Problem-Solver Developing Problem Solving and Thinking Skills in Officer Cadets at Sandhurst (RMAS,2011). Conceived as a way to make allow the cadets to meta-cognate about their problem-solving and decision making it described fours stages or spaces that individuals could use in considering the processes involved in creating solutions. These spaces reflected the cognitive space being used at any given time in the process. workbook This is how it is described in the current version of the CABS cadet Comprehension space Problem space Creative Thinking Option Generation Decision Making Space P S R O B L E M Psycho -social factors (7Qs) 7Qs Options O L U T I O N (S) Figure 1 The Sandhurst problem solving model (Crown copyright, 2013) 4

5 The Comprehension Space This is where we make sense of the problem or problems before us. We are all particularly prone to bias in our thinking at this stage and it very worthwhile questioning our comprehension of an issue before we go further to solve the problem. For example, one crucial point here is that the way that a problem is presented or framed to us will likely have a huge and often unconscious effect on our problem solving. Photographers frame, or crop, photographs and in doing so can completely alter the viewers understanding of them. The same applies to problems. For example, we know that the wording of a problem can have an effect on how we might go about solving it. A plan that will save over 60% is often viewed as preferable to one that will lose over a third even though the result is the same. As well as the wording there are other factors at play the time available, the seriousness of situation, the expectations of those around the decision maker, Group Think and so on. The human mind is a wonderful thing, but it is very prone to bias and to deception. None of which helps us solve problems effectively! The Problem Space This is the phase where we interrogate the evidence and navigate our way through the problem. This is best accomplished using a problem solving tool. The 7 Questions is an excellent aid in this regard it is designed to help the problem solver ensure that the issue has been explored rigorously. 5

6 Option Generation The step is to generate options (note that those using an intuitive method would leap immediately to this step and so fail to rigorously interrogate the evidence. If the problem solver was not expert this would almost certainly mean that some options would never be considered). In the option generation phase the solver should switch from logical, rational thinking to a more creative, innovative style the idea here is to generate a range of options that meet the objective - more on this later. The Decision Making Space At this final stage the task is to weigh up and assess the options that have generated. It is wise here to use a formal decision making tool that will allow you to identify the criteria against which the options are to be assessed and b) provide a means of auditing your decision (i.e. you will be able at a later date to explain and justify your choice of option). It was also important that the cadets could map these spaces to the estimate tools that they had been taught by the military directing staff (DS) at the academy. Hence in the original paper the consideration in the first two spaces, the military estimate tool the 7 questions [see fig.] (Army Doctrine Publication, Operations; MOD, 2010). As the Doctrine Document states The Combat Estimate is more narrowly focused and, as its name suggests, is used by commanders to focus specifically on the adversary or a specific 6

7 situation, so has more utility at the tactical and lower operational level. The 7 basic questions to be answered are: 1) What is the enemy (adversary) doing and why and/or what situation do I face and why, and what effect do they have on me? 2) What have I been told to do and why? 3) What effects do I need to have on the enemy (adversary) or situation, and what direction must I give to develop the plan? 4) Where can I best accomplish each action or effect? 5) What resources do I need to accomplish each action or effect? 6) When and where do the actions take place in relation to each other? 7) What control measures do I need to impose? It is important to note that the model does not tell the user which tools to use at any given stage of the process, and although elements of the 7Q s are mentioned in this example, it is not restrictive. Any tools that the user feels comfortable could be used. The point being that problem solver is aware of the process and this allows the recognition of any effects from possible biases. It is this self awareness that is raison d'etre of the model. The aim being to better educate future problem solvers and decision makers. Reflections on a New Model The operations doctrine for the British army suggests commanders use the Decision Action Cycle, which is sometimes referred to as the OODA loop (Observe, Orientate, Decide, Act).The focus being not to make faster decisions but to make better ones. There is no requirement for speed in the process and even under fire it is possible for commanders to take a condor moment and 7

8 give some consideration to the problem. Like the Sandurst model the OODA loop requires effective analysis of the problem and the production of a range of possible solutions of which one is selected. The doctrine also suggests that the plan be tested to refine decisions and to identify potential flaws, and although there are elements in the original model, such as the comprehension space that allows for consideration of such cognitive biases as group think, which is specifically mentioned as a potential flaw by the doctrine document, there is no space in the model that considers the application and review of the solution. In observing command planning during exercises it seemed obvious that the application of a solution to a tactical problem had an effect on the operational environment; especially when there is a complex situation were kinetic and influence activities are intertwined, such as the Current Operating Environment (COE) in Afghanistan. In turn the effect on the OE changed the problem. Commanders were constantly adjusting their plans as the situation developed. An additional issue with the original model was highlighted during the development of The Self-development Handbook for the commissioning course. During the work on the handbook, the author was reminded of the work of positive psychologists such as Martin Seligman who argue that successful practitioners of a skill use a number of proficiency building strategies. These include, but are not restricted to: getting the basics right; practicing the complexities; and importantly, reviewing ones performance. The first two in this list are inherent in the teaching of the commissioning course and the exercises that Officer Cadets undertake, and to a certain degree, Directing Staff feedback and peer review of performance is inherent in the Sandhurst environment, but not reflected in the model for the individual problem-solver. 8

9 The Revised Sandhurst Problem Solving Model In practical terms these oversights in the original Sandhurst model mentioned above are a major flaw and a review of the model was undertaken. It was apparent that a major additional step was required in the process. This led to the inclusion of tan implementation space. This was problematical since a number of cognitive steps need to be considered in an ongoing loop. The Implementation Space needed to capture the process without overcomplicating the model so that it would stop being a useful tool in teaching problem-solving and decision making. It was decided that this space should be split into two separate processes: assessment and application. These two process act in a continuous feedback loop within the Implementation Space. This loop allows for the progress of the solution to be assessed against a number of relevant criteria as set by the problem-solver. This may include external information and feedback from others. This in turn may mean that the solution is refined and in turn the refined solution being applied. This internal loop forms the Implementation Space, but this in turn is part of a larger ongoing feedback loop within the model. Any change in the solution must in turn be considered as part of a new problem, since the situation has changed due to the application of the original solution. The problem-solver has to comprehend the changes to the initial problem, which in turn may need a new solution. This comprehension may be prone to cognitive biases and psycho-social factors and need to be assessed in the Comprehension Space, the updated information processed through the Problem Space and so forth. Of course, it may be that the new solution is to continue with the original plan, but even subconsciously this feedback loop will have been undertaken. 9

10 Figure 2 The revised Sandhurst problem solving model In Fig 2 this feedback loop marked in red and is called the Hot feedback loop. The author suspects that in most cases this is a mostly subconscious process and hence could be prone to cognitive bias and process errors, especially in novice problem-solvers. By making themselves aware of this process a more rational problem solving approach is taken, which is beneficial when used by novices, or when the problem requires a more considered approach (see fig 3). 10

11 Type Characteristics Possible shortcomings Good for Naturalistic/Intuitive (a) Naive Intuition Informed by common sense, Especially sensitive to experience in other contexts psycho-social factors (cognitive biases, group pressure, etc.) (b) Educated Intuition e.g. Recognition-Primed Decision Making (cf Gary Klein,1992) Informed by specific expert strategies mental simulation, prototypical models; expectancies; cues; singular evaluation approach Satisficing i.e. settling for a good enough solution rather than striving for the best solution (Herbert Simon, 1957) Expert decision makers Rational/Effortful (cf Peer Soelberg, 1967) Informed by rational, logical Unnecessary effort; slow thinking making use of formal Problem solving tools e.g. the 7 Questions Novice decision makers Fig 3 Problem-solving strategies The Cold feedback loop (fig 2 marked in blue) addresses the issue of review. It allows for assessment of the solution and its application, and personal development of the problem-solver. By reviewing each stage of the stage of the model carefully the problem solver can evaluate their performance and consider any problems or issues that may have had an effect on the solving of the problem. It is vital though that during this review positive as well as negatives are fairly considered. There is a tendency to focus on what went wrong when reviewing personal performance; this tends to mean that lessons from what went right can often be overlooked. By undertaking this review problem-solving heuristics can be developed which will move the individual towards using expert, or educated, intuition in future (see fig 3). This will allow them to adapt the heuristics they have developed to new situations. However, they should not 11

12 fall into the trap of satisficing or creating sub-optimal solutions. In order to address this potential problem, practicing using the model as a meta-cognitive tool may be a useful approach. References CABS (2011). An Officer and a Problem Solver : Developing Problem Solving and Thinking Skills in Officer Cadets at Sandhurst. Sandhurst Occassional Paper no 6: RMAS Klein, G. P. (2003). Intuition at Work Why Developing Gut Instincts Will Make You Better At What You Do. New York, NY: Currency and Doubleday. Seligman, Martin E. P. (2002). Authentic Happiness: Using the New Positive Psychology to Realize Your Potential for Lasting Fulfillment. New York: Free Press. Simon, H. A. (1957). Models of Man: Social and Rational. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Soelberg, P.O. (1967). Unprogrammed Decision Making. Cambridge: MIT 12