Framing Complex Decisions

A632.3.3.RB

Describe the 3 different methodologies of dealing with complex, multiple stakeholders, and environmental decision processes in your organization. Reflect on the process you would apply to ensure the most successful process possible. Describe each element in detail and make clear the available options and consequences.

With the increase globalization and technological advances that make information and knowledge widely available, organizational leaders are facing more dynamic and complex situations than ever before. Within this fluid environment, decision makers are finding that in order to make the best decisions possible, they must make sense of fragmented information and trends by using methods such as a Decision Support System (DSS) and unifying decision making models.

These conditions were ever present during my time in the U.S. Army. As a military police organization, leaders at all levels were required to make important timely decisions, many times with incomplete information. Within this context, decision makers used significant activity (SIGACTs) reports (data mining) to evaluate and analyze possible insider and external threats. According the Wharton (2005) text, “Managers are using tools such as data mining and data warehousing to harness this avalanche of data in their business decisions” (Kleindorfer, p. 121). Moreover, with the responsibility of safety and security measures potentially affecting different areas of the larger organization, there were cases where system complexity was increased due to the involvement of multiple entities. According to Kleindorfer (2005), “In former times, these system interactions were simply ignored, but as businesses (and decisions) have come to depend more upon networks, these interactions can no longer be ignored” (p. 122).

Indeed, crossing system boundaries required a new challenge for processing and using such networks collaboratively. Doing so, presents a means to develop more options and resources in that it allows decision makers to align their respective goals and resources to benefit the many oppose to the one; as well as increase the resources available to create alternative solutions. One such model was discussed during the previous week’s general assignment, specifically during the mission analysis portion of the military decision making process where information, data, facts, assumptions, etc. are evaluated to develop clear situational awareness and direction for decision makers. Kleindorfoer (2005) notes, “These models build on three important pillars: data, the model itself, and some means of optimizing or evaluating alternative decisions in the context of the model” (p. 122). Although the benefits for a collaborative effort for crossing system boundaries increase capabilities and resources to establish a joint strategy, the main challenge would be aligning each system’s concerns and priorities. A way for decision makers to accomplish this mutual understanding by incorporate methods offered by Schoemaker and Russo (2005), to avid framing traps, which causes the simplification of issues and frame blindness, which involves being unaware of frames that have significant risks. To ensure that these efforts remain fruitful, I believe establishing a committee with each stakeholder so that communications is on-going and where new ideas and opportunities have a place to develop.

This leads to the discussion of complexity of dealing multiple stakeholders and the environmental decision process. The complexity of having multiple stakeholder involved in a process can be daunting experience. While each stakeholder has their own goals, needs, wants, and interest in mind; it is essential to develop and align concerns, priorities. resource availability and regulatory factors. For example, one of the most important annual requirement for any military installation is its Antiterrorism (AT) exercise. As one would imagine, there are many organizations that combine efforts and resources in order to address possible threats. In fact, over the course of the past decade, such planning and exercises have gain tractions as a result of active shooters incidents and attacks on heavily populated venues. With the unification of so many stakeholders involved, the Army (along with external stakeholders) conduct seven different type of exercises to reveal planning weakness, identify gaps in resources, clarify roles and responsivities and improve coordination. They include:

1.     Discussion-Based Exercises:

a.      Seminar

b.     Workshop

c.      Table Top (small scale rehearsals)

d.     Game (war gaming)

2.     Operations-Based Exercises:

a.      Drill

b.     Functional

c.      Full-Scale (Antiterrorism Officer Advance Course Handbook, 2013, p. 7).

In many cases, the timeline and standards for this annual event takes many weeks to prepare for and conduct as there are many organizations that take part, such as: first responders (police/fire), hospital/medical, security forces, civilian local community leaders, hazardous material, and government regulators. “What these standards are depends on the outcome of an ongoing, complex social process between industry, the public and public surrogates such as regulators and lawmakers” (Kleindorfer, 2005, p. 126). Moreover, as a result of the countless hours planning and executing, there is a wealth of historical data and After Action Reports (AARs) that assist with establishing best practices and setting the conditions for future alternatives. According to Kleindorfer (2005), “When this multiparty approach is coupled with detailed knowledge of historical trends and outcomes, provided by the types of data and systems modeling described earlier, a company can integrate and communicate its market and investment strategies to all affected stakeholders in a responsible manner” (p. 127). With this level of coordinating and involvement (cross functional), framing shared issues and concerns is vital for the overall success of the exercise and each organization’s resource management. The challenge I believe mainly lies on the military side in that military personnel typically rotate in and out of positions every 2-3 years. Which means that historical data and standard operating procedures are even more important as new leaders will be forced to undergo these large-scale exercises with limited experience.

The complexity decision makers face today will continue to require the need for DSS and models to provide greater capabilities from incomplete and unprocessed information. This is important because of the large amount of information/data inputs that rarely make sense by itself have a valuable impact when properly analyzed. Moreover, complexity increases when decision makers must incorporate stakeholder and environmental factors. These complexities can be mitigated when leaders consider stakeholder’s perspectives by avoiding common decision framing traps and explore consensus-building activities as noted above. Thus, “Managers will increasingly need to prepare the groundwork and capabilities for choice and use these capabilities to confront and deal with the moving targets as they appear in real time” (Kleindorfer, 2005, p. 129).

References

Antiterrorism Officer Advance Course Handbook. (November 2013). Antiterrorism Branch. United States Army Military Police School.

Kleindorfer, P. (2005). Wharton on making decisions. (1^st edition). Kindle Edition.

Schoemaker, P. and Russo, J. (2005). Wharton on making decision. (1^st edition). Kindle Edition.