Fluent Essays

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. starr_design_thinking_2_2016_fall.pdf starr_problem_solving_1.pdf starr_design_thinking_2_2016_fall.pdf the_stages_of_idealized_design.pdf wicked_problems.pdf Unformatted Attachment Preview 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 anaup, 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