Chaos and Wicked Problems Paper Please view this video and the attached document to answer the following parts: 1- Provide a short summary about the video.

Chaos and Wicked Problems Paper Please view this video and the attached document to answer the following parts: 1- Provide a short summary about the video. 2-Provide your reflection on the attached documents. Organizational Management and
Communication in Disasters
September 26, 2016
Larry M. Starr, PhD
Director, Doctorate in Strategic Leadership
215/ 951-5332
starrl@philau.edu
Strategic Leadership Thinking and Practice
Strategic Leadership
Capacity to anticipate,
envision, and maintain
flexibility, and empower
others to voluntarily
make effective decisions
and to create strategic
change as necessary.
Organizational Management and
Communication in Disasters
Explore systems and design thinking
Decision making –elements necessary for good decision making
and problem solving
A “wicked mess” – how this differs from traditional leadership and
management challenges
Frameworks / Mindsets
How We Inquire (Think) and Intervene (Solve)
___________________________________________________________
Framework
Metaphor
Method of Inquiry
Method of Intervention
Mindset
Thinking
Problem Solving
_____________________________________________________________________________
1. Authority
Stories/Narrative
Heuristic Thinking
Policy, Rules, Trusted
Books/Documents
Religious Sources,
Intimate People
2. Science/Evidence
Machine/Biology
Analytic Thinking
Research, Root Cause,
Quantitative/Some
Qualitative Methods,
Strategic Planning
3. Systems/Design
Social Systems
System/Design Thinking
Design, Qualitative and
Quantitative Methods,
Synthesis, Interactive
Planning
1. Authority Framework
Methods/Problem Solving
▪ Apply reasoning methods of ancient knowledge/wisdom found in codified books
▪ Rely on and trusted written rules / laws / policies / cultural prescriptions
▪ Use metaphors and story telling; interpretive oral histories; personal experiences;
anecdotes; literature, film/movies
▪ Follow wise leaders; trusted elders; trusted intimate friends and relatives
▪ Follow orders; on-the-job compliance training; internships; learning by doing
1. Authority Framework
Authority Thinking Problem Solving Strategic Steps
Seek and cite authoritative and trusted policies, rules and narratives
1. Define the overall problem in terms of authority, heuristics and narrative
2. Present the problem to /consult with / a trusted source for a solution
3. Receive a response then adhere to/follow the response of the trusted source
4. If the source response fails or is inadequate, and if another equal source is
available, follow the second response.
5. Accept the response as the solution.
2. Science and Evidence Framework
Assumptions/Premises
▪ For 400 + years, the “sciences” have “proven” that rigorously
controlled evidence-based research produces reliable and valid
solutions to problems.
▪ The normative method of solving any problem is to analyze, i.e.,
break down/deconstruct it into smaller parts
then identify the “core part,” which can be eliminated, replaced,
outsourced, restructured/moved around, improved or combined
with other functions or parts.
The whole problem is equal to and can be corrected from the sum
of the parts.
2. Science and Evidence Framework
Iceberg Metaphor of Analytic Problems
Causes are
defined, and
they are linear
and additive in
order to
explain the
whole problem.
2. Science and Evidence Framework
Analytic Thinking Problem Solving Strategic Steps
⃞
1–4
Decision
Making
5
Project
Management
⃞
⃞
1. Define the problem clearly/objectively/measurably
2. Establish measurable criteria (set the quantitative
objectives to be met)
3. Suggest possible options
4. Select the best option by evaluating each against the criteria
5. Consider how to implement the selected option
6. Consider the follow-up: What is success? When should
it be measured? What is Plan B?
Analytic Responses to Problems
Resolve – Start where you are then seek a choice that is a good
enough improvement or replacement of currently existing parts and
conditions
Solve – Start where you are then seek a choice that is an optimized
improvement or replacement of currently existing parts and
conditions
3. Systems and Design Framework
Assumptions/Premises
▪
The whole problem or opportunity in a system may not be
understandable, and if analyzed/deconstructed it will not be better
understood nor will this approach likely lead to a solution.
▪
The whole problem or opportunity in a system may approach
understanding by appreciating the containing system or systems
of which the apparent problem/opportunity is a sub-system.
▪
The whole problem or opportunity is not equal to the sum of the
parts. The parts in a system are non-linear and interdependent.
▪
The whole problem or opportunity is equal to the interaction of the
parts.
3. Systems and Design Framework
Systems Thinking (Synthesis) Problem Solving Strategic Steps
1. Ask “what is this problem a part of?” What is the containing system?
2. Understand the behavior of the containing whole instead of focusing
on the behavior and properties of the internal parts.
3. Understand how the problem contributes to the containing system.
Understand how the design of elements in a problem supports or
conflicts with the containing system’s design, purposes and
interests.
4. Redesign the system to align it within the containing whole.
Systems and Design Framework
Comparing Metaphors
George Washington Bridge Accident Problem
Frameworks Summary: Differing Methods
Analytical Thinking
Systems Thinking
Analysis
Synthesis
An explanation of the whole derived from
explanation of its parts.
An explanation of the whole derived from explaining the role
of the system in the larger system of which it is a part.
Reductionism
Expansionism
The belief that everything can be
reduced/simplified.
The system is always a sub-system of some lager system.
Cause and Effect
Producer–Product
Environmental free theory of explanation, a cause
needs to both necessary and sufficient in order to
have the corresponding effect.
Environmental full theory of explanation as opposed to cause
and effect where the importance of the environment is
stressed.
Determinism
Indeterminism
Fatalism.
Probabilistic, observe and discover.
Research
Design
The embodiment of the above to arrive at
instructions based on theory.
The embodiment of the above to facilitate learning. Designing
the whole systems means creating a system configuration that
is optimum.
Problem-Context Approach
What kind of problem context or opportunity
environment is confronting us?
How do we know what approach or method of
inquiry or intervention is best for a type of
problem?
How do differing contexts/environments affect
thinking and decision making?
Problem-Context Approach
IBM Cynefin Framework
Emergence
Rapid
Response
Hilberts, Berend J. “Understanding the Cynefin Framework (and Similar Thinking) in an Innovation Context.” Iconoclast @ Work. Iconoclast, 25 Jan. 2010. Web. 09 Nov. 2011.
.
Experts: Good
Practice
Best Practice
Whirlwind/Turbulent Contexts/Environments
Cynfin Competency Matrix for Differing Contexts
Simple/Obvious and Complicated
Complex and Chaotic
Management
Strategic Leadership
Predict and forecast
Anticipate
Data analysis
Pattern recognition
Simplify/Reduce – “KISS Principle”
Expand to the whole – Systems thinking
Pay attention to small details / Focus on
the parts
Pay attention to relationships
Rational thinking
Intuitive thinking
Teach a skill (Training)
Nurture cognitive development
Think algorithmically
Think heuristically and systemically
Problem solving – Analytic thinking
(based on inductive and deductive logic)
Problem dissolving – Design thinking
(based on abductive logic)
Thinking about Thinking and
Premises: Models and Metaphors
Thinking Models/Metaphors:
Where I work there’s a lot of Politics
Thinking Models/Metaphors:
I am working in a Psychic Prison.
Thinking Models/Metaphors:
Emergency responding can be
understood as a Chain
Thinking Models/Metaphors
Mechanical Model
The problem is like a machine with
parts that are mindless and which
have no independent choice or
purpose other than for what they
were designed.
Thinking Models/Metaphors
Mechanical Model
This metaphor conceptualizes a problem with
mechanical images
Mechanical Model
If there is a
mechanical
problem
Mechanical = Focus on Parts
Mechanical Organization = Parts
Thinking Models/Metaphors
Biological Model
The problem is like a living organism
trying to survive with parts that have
no independent choices or purposes
other than to serve the whole.
However, there is an executive
“brain.”
Thinking Models/Metaphors
Biological Model
This metaphor conceptualizes a problem with
biologic or organic images
Biological Model = Focus on Parts
If there is a
biological
problem,
focus on parts
Analyze/Analysis
Analysis is the process of breaking a problem, topic
or substance into smaller parts in order to gain a
better understanding of it. The technique has been
applied in the study of mathematics and logic since
before Aristotle (384–322 BCE).[1]
The original meaning of the word comes from the
Greek ἀνάλυσις (analysis, “a breaking up” from ana”up, throughout” and lysis “a loosening”).[2]
Analytic Deduction/Investigation
Car Crash Problem
In the 1970s there were
many head-on car crashes
resulting in injuries
and deaths on the
George Washington Bridge
Between New York and New
Jersey
George Washington Bridge
Head-on Car Crash Problem:
Approch: Identify and Analyze the 4 Parts
1. Port Authority Roadway
2.Police
3.EMS
4. Columbia-Presbyterian
Medical Center
Part 1 = Port Authority Roadway
Focused on the road
markings so they regularly
repainted the solid yellow
lines. They measured their
effectiveness by the degree
of visibility of the lines by
the drivers.
► But, there was little
overall improvement.
Part 2 = Police Regulatory Controls
Focused on driving
behavior so they
attentively issued fines
to drivers who crossed
the solid yellow lines or
drove over the speed
limit. They measured
their effectiveness by
the number of fines
levied.
► But, there was little
overall improvement.
Part 3 = EMS Rapid Response
Focused on responding
to emergencies so they
kept their training and
equipment at the
highest levels. They
measured their
effectiveness by
response time to the
scene, quality of care,
and response time to
the medical center.
► But, there was little
overall improvement.
Part 4 = Columbia-Presbyterian
Medical Center Advanced Care
Focused on advanced
medical care so they
improved emergency
facilities and treatment.
They measured their
effectiveness by
quality of care, feedback, and survival rate.
► But, there was little
overall improvement.
Systems Thinking
Systems Thinking
Assumptions
The whole problem in a system cannot be analyzed or deconstructed
in order to understand it or to solve it.
The whole problem can be understood by first searching outside
it – look at the containing system or systems of which it is a subsystem
The whole problem is not equal to the sum of the parts. The parts of
the problem are not linear or additive.
The whole problem is equal to the interaction of the parts. The
parts of the problem are interdependent.
Systems Thinking
Method
1. Ask “what is this problem a part of?” What is the containing
system?
To understand a bridge collision problem – begin by
examining the nature of bridges within the vehicle
transportation system.
2. Understand the behavior of the containing whole instead of focusing
on the behavior and properties of the parts.
Examine how bridges are designed, constructed and
operated and their purpose — “how” they are intended to
facilitate the transportation of vehicles.
3. Understand how this problem (head-on collisions on this bridge)
contributes to the containing system (construction and operation
of facilitating the transportation of vehicles).
How does the design of elements in this problem support or
conflict with the containing system design, purposes and
interests?
Head-on Car Crash Problem
Under what conditions would a
transportation system’s traffic flow
be an ideal design such that a headon collision on a bridge COULD NOT
occur?
In the mid 1970s the Port Authority decided to
replace the solid yellow painted lines with
contoured solid concrete barriers, a system
redesign that led to permanent improvement and
zero defects.
The effort concentrated on creating a system/redesign
where head-on accidents could not exist rather than
incrementally improving what already existed – which
had focused on finding a better way to respond to
accidents.
Gambino, Raymond. Beyond Quality Control. Lab Report, 1990, Vol. 12, No. 5.
George Washington Bridge
Linear Thinking of Survival
Non-Linear Thinking of Survival
Organizational Systems
Systems Thinking Influences
Systems Thinking Language
Simple = Easily knowable. My car tire is a simple part.
Complicated = Not simple (many parts), but still knowable because the parts
are additive. My car is complicated. A mechanic can take apart and
reassemble my car, then I can drive it as it was intended.
Complex = Not fully knowable, but approaching reasonable prediction
because the parts are interactive. Car traffic is complex. There is no way
to fully understand and know what happens around me on the road
when I drive, how other drivers operate their vehicles, and how the
people in the streets interact. But there is some degree of management.
Chaotic = Neither knowable nor predictable. When things become too
complex, they easily become chaotic. Air flight turbulence may be
chaotic. Some medical events may be chaotic. Extreme stressors are
chaotic.
Organizational Complexity
System Thinking Language
Managers are often confronted not with
[analytic] problems that are independent
of each other, but with dynamic
situations that consist of complex
systems of changing problems that
interact with each other. I call such
situations messes…Managers should not
try to solve problems. They should
learn to manage messes.[1]
Ackoff
System Thinking Approaches
Type A: Approaches for improving goal seeking and viability
–
–
–
–
Hard Systems Thinking
System Dynamics (MIT) – Forrester/Senge
Organizational Cybernetics
Complexity Theory
Type B: Approaches for exploring purposes
–
Strategic Assumptions Surfacing Testing
–
Social System Interactive Planning (PENN) – Ackoff
–
Soft Systems Methodology (Checkland)
Type C: Approaches for ensuring fairness
–
–
Critical Systems Heuristics
Team Syntegrity
Type D: Approaches for promoting diversity
–
Postmodern Systems Thinking
Organizational Management and
Communication in Disasters
September 26, 2016
Larry M. Starr, PhD
Director, Doctorate in Strategic Leadership
215/ 951-5332
starrl@philau.edu
Strategic Leadership Thinking and Practice
Strategic Leadership
Capacity to anticipate,
envision, and maintain
flexibility, and empower
others to voluntarily
make effective decisions
and to create strategic
change as necessary.
Organizational Management and
Communication in Disasters
Explore systems and design thinking
Decision making –elements necessary for good decision making
and problem solving
A “wicked mess” – how this differs from traditional leadership and
management challenges
Frameworks / Mindsets
How We Inquire (Think) and Intervene (Solve)
___________________________________________________________
Framework
Metaphor
Method of Inquiry
Method of Intervention
Mindset
Thinking
Problem Solving
_____________________________________________________________________________
1. Authority
Stories/Narrative
Heuristic Thinking
Policy, Rules, Trusted
Books/Documents
Religious Sources,
Intimate People
2. Science/Evidence
Machine/Biology
Analytic Thinking
Research, Root Cause,
Quantitative/Some
Qualitative Methods,
Strategic Planning
3. Systems/Design
Social Systems
System/Design Thinking
Design, Qualitative and
Quantitative Methods,
Synthesis, Interactive
Planning
1. Authority Framework
Methods/Problem Solving
▪ Apply reasoning methods of ancient knowledge/wisdom found in codified books
▪ Rely on and trusted written rules / laws / policies / cultural prescriptions
▪ Use metaphors and story telling; interpretive oral histories; personal experiences;
anecdotes; literature, film/movies
▪ Follow wise leaders; trusted elders; trusted intimate friends and relatives
▪ Follow orders; on-the-job compliance training; internships; learning by doing
1. Authority Framework
Authority Thinking Problem Solving Strategic Steps
Seek and cite authoritative and trusted policies, rules and narratives
1. Define the overall problem in terms of authority, heuristics and narrative
2. Present the problem to /consult with / a trusted source for a solution
3. Receive a response then adhere to/follow the response of the trusted source
4. If the source response fails or is inadequate, and if another equal source is
available, follow the second response.
5. Accept the response as the solution.
2. Science and Evidence Framework
Assumptions/Premises
▪ For 400 + years, the “sciences” have “proven” that rigorously
controlled evidence-based research produces reliable and valid
solutions to problems.
▪ The normative method of solving any problem is to analyze, i.e.,
break down/deconstruct it into smaller parts
then identify the “core part,” which can be eliminated, replaced,
outsourced, restructured/moved around, improved or combined
with other functions or parts.
The whole problem is equal to and can be corrected from the sum
of the parts.
2. Science and Evidence Framework
Iceberg Metaphor of Analytic Problems
Causes are
defined, and
they are linear
and additive in
order to
explain the
whole problem.
2. Science and Evidence Framework
Analytic Thinking Problem Solving Strategic Steps
⃞
1–4
Decision
Making
5
Project
Management
⃞
⃞
1. Define the problem clearly/objectively/measurably
2. Establish measurable criteria (set the quantitative
objectives to be met)
3. Suggest possible options
4. Select the best option by evaluating each against the criteria
5. Consider how to implement the selected option
6. Consider the follow-up: What is success? When should
it be measured? What is Plan B?
Analytic Responses to Problems
Resolve – Start where you are then seek a choice that is a good
enough improvement or replacement of currently existing parts and
conditions
Solve – Start where you are then seek a choice that is an optimized
improvement or replacement of currently existing parts and
conditions
3. Systems and Design Framework
Assumptions/Premises
▪
The whole problem or opportunity in a system may not be
understandable, and if analyzed/deconstructed it will not be better
understood nor will this approach likely lead to a solution.
▪
The whole problem or opportunity in a system may approach
understanding by appreciating the containing system or systems
of which the apparent problem/opportunity is a sub-system.
▪
The whole problem or opportunity is not equal to the sum of the
parts. The parts in a system are non-linear and interdependent.
▪
The whole problem or opportunity is equal to the interaction of the
parts.
3. Systems and Design Framework
Systems Thinking (Synthesis) Problem Solving Strategic Steps
1. Ask “what is this problem a part of?” What is the containing system?
2. Understand the behavior of the containing whole instead of focusing
on the behavior and properties of the internal parts.
3. Understand how the problem contributes to the containing system.
Understand how the design of elements in a problem supports or
conflicts with the containing system’s design, purposes and
interests.
4. Redesign the system to align it within the containing whole.
Systems and Design Framework
Comparing Metaphors
George Washington Bridge Accident Problem
Frameworks Summary: Differi…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment