Understanding the Complexity of Decision-Making — Part 2
At the edge of Organisational Enlightenment — Principles, Guidelines and Processes
By Dr. Reg Butterfield
22-Minutes read
Image: Arek Socha via pixabay.com
Last week we discussed the current state of hierarchical decision-making used by most organisations. We demonstrated that it is an unwieldly process that slows things down unnecessarily and even then, does not guarantee a sound appropriate decision.
One of the keys to being a high performance and successful organisation is the ability to make good decisions and react to challenges and opportunities quickly. However, a major challenge for organisations today is how to ensure good decision-making practices exist throughout the entire organisation. Whilst formal hierarchical practices may provide this, we see such approaches have a cost. They are not only slowing down the decision-making process, but also tending to move the decision up the hierarchy and away from the actual situation. It assumes that the good judgement that is necessary for success can only be found in supervisors and managers and not the people doing the work, which the emerging workforce is challenging, particularly the knowledge workers that are increasingly becoming the driving force for success.
Today, we discuss an alternative approach to the hierarchical decision-making process so beloved of the industrial age approach to work. In doing so we acknowledge that there is always a need for some form of management to ensure that the decisions being made are for the benefit of the organisation and meet the demands of the organisation’s Statement of Purpose and associated objectives.
However, we do not support the current command and control system that permeates organisations. We argue that distributed decision-making is an important element of new organisational forms and management. Separating the management of the organisation from the decision-making process in this newsletter enables us to ensure that we are looking at the environment and issues around decisions as opposed to who makes them within a hierarchy or other predetermined structure. This means that we can subsequently focus on how the process of making decisions supports the work activity itself and the desired outcomes of activity, as opposed to reinforcing forms of control and associated worker compliance.
Breaking away from control is not a new phenomenon and one of the mottos used during the enlightenment era in Europe (1685–1815) when the ‘individual’ finally appeared, was “Have courage to use your own reason” (Kant I. 1785)[i]. It was to address the people who lacked the courage to stop wishing to be told what to do by something or somebody else. During the enlightenment era human beings gained their natural freedom to think for themselves. We believe it is time to regain that freedom in organisations and to cast aside the industrial age of control and compliance in organisations. Perhaps we are at the edge of organisational enlightenment, what an amazing opportunity and time to be part of.
However, the road to making good decisions is paved with many mistakes because the difficulty is choice. In organisations under the control of a hierarchy making a choice can lead to many frustrations because the person may not be able to use their own mind to understand the decision problem and the courage to act upon it. They must have the freedom and support to learn, or they will not take the steps organisations need for success.
A good decision is never an accident. It represents the wise choice of many alternatives, which results from a high intention, sincere effort, intelligent direction, and skilful execution. A good decision is the process of optimally achieving a given objective. It can therefore be argued that the decision-making process is better suited at the location of those who are delivering the objective, whether tangible or intangible, as opposed to somebody sitting far from the situation with little knowledge of the real circumstances pertaining.
Interestingly, the importance of decision-making in organisations was the subject of research published in 1986 by Huber and McDaniel. They proffered the idea of making decision-making the central element of organisational design (“The Decision-Making Paradigm of Organizational Design” in 1986 )[ii]. Their paper introduced and made the case for decision-making to be the paradigm for organisational design. In doing so, they argued that the domains of existing design paradigms were declining in scope, and that the nature of current and future organisational environments required use of a design paradigm that responded to the increasing frequency and criticality of the decision-making process. They also argued that the decision-making paradigm was applicable when the organisational environments are hostile, complex, and turbulent, which can be argued as representing much of the business environment today. In today’s world of volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity (VUCA), it is an almost seductive idea to base organisational structure and design around the processes of decision-making. If only it was that simple.
Whilst my colleague Dr Ross Wirth and I would not go so far as to recommend such an approach where the organisation is solely designed around decision-making, we do support the notion that decision-making is one of the foundations of organisational design, together with job descriptions that we discussed in our previous newsletter 4 September 2022, “Challenging the Foundation of Organisations”. https://managementminefields.substack.com/p/challenging-the-foundation-of-organisations
_________________________________________________________________
In last week’s newsletter we mentioned the work of the late Dr Elliott Jaques. One aspect of his extensive work that we raise again here in the context of decision-making and management is the need to ensure that the people making the decisions have the appropriate competence. This is one of the reasons for looking at the location and process of decision-making itself as opposed to making assumptions based on hierarchy. He also said that there is a tight fit between accountability for getting the job done and authority over the resources needed to do so. This will be an important part of the discussion around management in a future newsletter.
There is a significant number of definitions for the term decision-making amongst researchers and other business media. For ease of discussion, we use the following basic definition in this newsletter:
Decision-making, is an act of choice, wherein a person or automated system selects a particular course of action from the available alternatives in a given situation. It is done to achieve a specific objective or to solve a specific problem.
We have included the term automation in our definition to ensure that the algorithms and other forms of automated decision-making increasingly used today are also considered as part of the organisation’s strategic view of decision-making. It is also important to highlight that the responsibility for the process and outcome of the automated decision-making sits with the person(s) who authorised the automated decision process, which is the case irrespective of the management system used by an organisation.
Every organisation and its various workplaces (for profit or not) is unique and each has its own DNA in how it carries out its work. The behaviours of the workplaces can affect the decision-making both positively and negatively depending on the paradigm underlying the organisation’s approach to decision-making.
What do we mean by paradigm in this context? It is a perspective of how the decision-making is approached and as such provides a guide or principle for those who are faced with making a decision in a given context or dynamic. This is not suggesting that every decision uses the same perspective for all decisions. Some perspectives may be more beneficial than others depending on the dynamic being discussed.
The following pages set out different forms of organisational thinking and ways of approaching work, whether profit or non-profit. It is important to consider which of these alternative views is appropriate when deciding the organisation’s approach to situations and problems that require some form of decision-making. Whilst they are all based originally on conventional leader-follower leadership thinking, typically hierarchical, we suggest that they are still relevant for different and future organisational approaches to decision-making. They may need to be adapted in some cases or considered differently by organisations that elect to choose a non-traditional organisational approach to decision-making and associated responsibility and accountability. We propose that they are all inter-related and relevant and therefore not discussed in any order of merit or priority.
________________________________________________________________
Paradigms and Dynamics in Organisations
Smith T. J., (2015)[iii] discusses decision-making in the context of there being different paradigms and dynamics within an organisation. She proffers that combinations of paradigms may be needed as opposed to a one-size-fits all, albeit some may fit a particular type of organisation better than another. A key point here is that the person making a decision or even the organisation as a whole has to sense and respond to changes in the environment and respond quickly and appropriately. She uses a non-profit organisation as an example, where it will need to address decision-making issues using an ethically-based paradigm, such as the ‘local community paradigm’ which focuses decision making on what is best for the community rather than the organisation itself.
In her paper she identifies the following four dynamics and paradigms:
Responsible Leadership — a dynamic and paradigm
Decisions surrounding the dynamics of responsible leadership means being proactive in
solving issues before they arise or planning for future trends that have the potential to be of benefit to the organisation long before they are in the general focus. It also includes emotional intelligence as an important component not just for understanding things about themselves but also to address those of their teams and colleagues. This gives the organisation a better opportunity to head issues off at the pass and prepare the most suitable ways to achieve successful results.
Connectedness Paradigm — Group Dynamics
The connectedness paradigm, as explained by Shukun (2013)[iv], states that group members should focus on the reciprocated purpose connectedness principle. It highlights the common ground, such as an end goal, in which all parties can come together and promote an effective and agreed upon solution. This behaviour can also lead to finding common ground in other aspects, thereby pulling groups together to focus on a mutual goal. Once the connectedness paradigm is fostered, members of the group become reciprocal in their duties by helping one another and developing methods for complimenting one another’s skill sets and developing a working relationship that can be used again later. This is probably the most challenging element to achieve in the short term.
Local Community Paradigm — Ethics
This paradigm is surrounded with a conscious consideration from the ethics of decision-making. Wood and Hilton (2012)[v] state that with the best interests of the community and doing whatever is necessary for the greater good is placed at the forefront of a decision-making process rather than the outcomes of the company. This paradigm is more suited for non-profit organisations because the for-profit organisations operate in the best interest of the profit margin. This does not mean they are unethical, it is more a question of the priority of profitability for survival when compared to the different ethics priority of their non-profit counterparts.
Organisational Design Paradigm and the Developmental Paradigm — Risk Assessment
The organisation design and developmental paradigm centres on the idea that organisations
should focus on facilitating the company while maximising the quality of those decisions. This involves assessment of the organisation’s goals, problems, and the best possible solutions (Huber, 1986)[vi]. The Developmental Paradigm discussed by Neill (2014)[vii] highlights the need to conduct assessments and evaluations to spot issues, access risks, and produce solutions, which connects the ideas to that of a traditional organisational design paradigm (Note: this aspect needs to be understood and considered in the context of new forms of organisational thinking and acting. For example, causation risk assessment versus effectuation risk management).
_________________________________________________________________
Principles of decision-making
Just as the clarification of the Purpose of an organisation together with its stated Principles and Values are essential for its continued success, we argue that there needs to be in place a set of Principles for Decision-making (PDm) that support and reinforce those at the organisational level. Having such PDm not only ensures continuity of the Values of the organisation, but also enables decisions to be made at the most appropriate location and person, with the minimal of rigidity of processes. It is more an effectuation[viii] approach than the ‘traditional’ causation[ix] methods used by most organisations.
In the following paragraphs we explore decision-making in a non-process way in order to help identify the principles that are important for decision-makers to adhere to.
Foundations of decision-making
It is important at this stage to remember that decision-making has two distinctive foundations — a qualitative and a quantitative focus with their historical roots deeply embedded in operations research and quantitative analysis (Harrison E. F. 1999)[x]. Organisational decisions can have different characteristics, which shape how they can be understood and resolved by the decision-makers. The following are the main categories:
Structured (or normative) Decisions — the aim is clear; its purpose is unambiguous, easily defined and understood (Jennings & Wattam, 1998[xi]; Lee & Cummins, 2004)[xii].
Unstructured Decisions — for individuals and organisations, are decisions which are unclear, ambiguous, and poorly understood by those involved. In such circumstances it may be difficult to make any comparison of outcomes or relevant benefits for individuals. The value of information that is required to resolve the situation may be difficult to assess.
Programmable Decisions — are those that are structured and follow clear delineated steps and procedures; they are often repetitive and routine (Harrison E. F., 1999)[xiii].
Non-Programmed Decisions — occur where there are no existing procedures or practices in place to resolve the problem or address the opportunity. The decisions made for (frequently) recurring non-programmable decisions may in themselves develop into a pattern that can become a programmable response by default.
At the same time, organisations have different levels of decision-making which are:
Strategic decisions — sometimes known as policy decisions, typically made at the top level of an organisation, have a long-term impact, and involve subjects such as: introducing new rules and products, amendments, regulations, and programmes.
Tactical decisions — tend to be seen as short-term and made at the middle level of the organisation. They involve decisions related to finance, marketing, personnel, production and generally ensuring that tasks are done. This level is also the mediator between strategic and operational decisions.
Operational decisions — are made at the lower level of the organisation and are concerned with the day-to-day work and operations. The decisions are made to implement plans and the policies made at the higher levels, typically top level. The decisions tend to involve timing schedules, setting-up of machines and tools and, in some organisations, remuneration.
The third dimension that is necessary to mention here is how problems are dealt with in organisations, as they can have a direct relationship with how decisions are made and at what organisational level they are undertaken, if at all. We refer to Russell L. Ackoff’s[xiv] notion that there are four kinds of thing that can be done about problems — they can be absolved, resolved, solved, or dissolved.
It is important to remember that the new form of organisation that we explore in this newsletter focuses on change as part of the day-to-day business. This means that the way issues and problems are considered by the membership of an organisation has a direct relationship with how and where decisions are both framed and need to be made.
To absolve — absolution is where the thoughts of, “..if I ignore it, it will go away, or somebody else will deal with it” are uppermost in the mind. Clearly if we are going into a situation where some form of decision is necessary, it is important to know if the problem, or some aspect, is not going to be tackled. This will mean that a new way of thinking and working will be needed for the future in such an organisation and must be considered during the process of change.
To resolve — a problem is to select a course of action that yields an outcome that is good enough; it satisfies. It is a qualitative approach rooted in common sense and uses extensive use of subjective judgments. It relies on past experiences and current trial and error.
Arguably, most managers are problem resolvers. They defend this approach to problems by citing the lack of information and time required to do anything else. They also claim that this approach minimises risk and therefore maximises the likelihood of survival. In fact, it is an emotional response in most situations and as such deals with the symptoms as opposed to the real problem or issue. Where this approach is a predominant one, the organisation will need support in developing a more comprehensive data management and support system for the decision-makers, together with appropriate training. In future organisations, this approach should only be used as a temporary arrangement; remembering that solutions of yesterday often become the problems of today!
To solve — a problem is to select a course of action that is believed to provide the best possible outcome that optimises. This approach is largely based on scientific methods, techniques, and tools. This approach appeals to management scientists and technically oriented managers whose organisational objective tends to be the ‘thrival’ rather than mere ‘survival’. They are growth seekers, and this management approach will be essential for the future of organisations. When inclined towards optimisation, it is important to ensure that the process is not optimising that which does not need to be done and the decision may be very different in such circumstances.
To dissolve — the problem is to change the nature and/or environment of the entity in which it is embedded to remove the problem. Dissolvers of problems tend to idealise rather than satisfice or optimise because their objective is to change the system involved, or its environment, in such a way as to bring it closer to an ultimately desired state; one in which the problem cannot or does not arise. A minority of managers and management scientists whose principal organisational objective is development rather than growth or survival, and who know the difference, use this approach.
Reflection
Decision-making within organisations is a complex process and the subject of much historical baggage. It is an area that is seen as a mixture of power, and hierarchical control over the organisational membership. The traditional model is still based on the industrial age approach to organisational behaviour and is one of the major hurdles to improved business sustainability because of its slow outdated methods.
When considering a new form of management, we suggest that it is necessary to consider the elements of decision-making discussed above. In doing so, define a set of Principles that provide supportive governance for the way decisions are made. This will enable decisions to be made with the necessary operational flexibility and collaboration replacing the power and politics associated with hierarchical approaches currently used by most organisations.
One of the main tenants in achieving an organisation that can act purposefully and make and embed appropriate changes in a timely fashion, is to ensure that the decision-making processes are not only aligned, but also at the most relevant location. Allied to this is ensuring that the best available information is consistently available at the point of decision-making.
We are reminded by observations made by Peter Drucker[xv] in the Harvard Business Review in January 1967 and we quote, “Effective executives know when a decision has to be based on principle and when it should be made pragmatically, on the merits of the case. They know the trickiest decision is that between the right and the wrong compromise, and they have learned to tell one from the other. They know that the most time-consuming step in the process is not making the decision but putting it into effect. … Unless a decision has degenerated into work, it is not a decision; it is at best a good intention. This means that, while the effective decision itself is based on the highest level of conceptual understanding, the action commitment should be as close as possible to the capacities of the people who have to carry it out.”
Whilst definitions of conceptual understanding normally refer to an integrated and functional grasp of mathematical ideas. In this business context we suggest that it can also be interpreted as knowing more than isolated facts, but also knowing connections between those facts and having those facts well organised.
This organisation of facts as knowledge into a coherent whole enables learning of new ideas by connecting those ideas to what they already know. Conceptual understanding also supports retention. Because facts and methods learned with understanding are connected, they are easier to remember and use, and they can be reconstructed when forgotten.
We suggest that this view of conceptual learning is an important element of enabling the empowerment of people at all positions within an organisation. Through this process the level of complexity that such people can manage will grow as they experience new thoughts, ideas, and information; the degree of support and coaching will depend on the individuals concerned. It can be argued that this approach can be an accelerated form of the way that managers learn during different roles and experiences in their traditional career path.
_________________________________________________________________
Approaches to Decision-making
When considering the distribution of decision-making across all areas of the organisation’s operations and support systems it is important to realise that initially many decision-makers will not have the background or history of decision-making upon which to call when making a decision. They may also have insufficient understanding of the ‘bigger picture’ or the ‘whole organisational system’ that is often needed for anything other than basic operational day-to-day decisions. Does this matter? In trying to answer this question it is helpful to understand some of the current views from psychologists and other researchers.
The naturalistic perspective, also known as the ‘everyday cognition’ approach to decision-making. There is a growing body of work that demonstrates that experienced, real-world decision makers rarely use traditional resource intensive strategies to make decisions in the face of dynamic, adverse conditions and time pressure (Kaempf & Militelo, 1992[xvi]; Klein, 1989[xvii]; 1993[xviii]). Instead, experts rely on their abilities to recognise and appropriately classify situations: these (expert) abilities are based on having much experience in their area of work. Once the people know what situation they are facing they also tend to know how to deal with it based on what worked well in the past. The limited time that they have is used to evaluate the feasibility of the approach before implementing it.
This situation assessment approach contrasts with the option generation and evaluation methods used by many others and the basis of much leadership training and methodology literature. Whilst this naturalistic approach may work well with experienced people in their own domain, it may well be less successful for inexperienced people. Such people still go through the time-consuming analytical steps before deciding, which is OK for slower response category decisions.
Tactical decision-making
Whilst not exclusively the case, tactical decision-making tends to be made by people who have responsibilities beyond the day-to-day basic work activities and associated decision-making. Tactical decision-making presents a highly challenging cognitive task as it requires making inferences and deductions from incomplete and uncertain information derived from multiple sources and relating to several concurrent alternatives and or demands. Using the Stratified Systems Theory approach discussed in last week’s newsletter, this would typically sit at levels II or III for tactics around production planning, inventory control, logistics management, etc. Level IV or V applies for more complex tactics such as feeding back tactical information to the strategic plan, where one exists. Figure 1 is reproduced as a reminder of this hierarchical process.
Figure 1: The Modes of a Requisite Organisation
Situational awareness in decision-making
In general, situational awareness (SA), which is also known as situation awareness, is to know what is going on in the past, present and the future. It refers to the decision maker’s moment-by-moment ability to monitor and understand the state of the system and its environment (Adams, Tenney, & Pew, 1995).[xix]
son J. (2007)[xx] explains that SA is a central concept for complex systems with human(s) in the loop, partly due to its positive correlation to performance. To maintain an accurate SA the decision maker should take into account both information that is available and that which can be activated from memory.
With the increase of knowledge workers involved in complex systems design, operation, and management, it is important to understand the role of SA in decision-making. SA has grown in popularity in aviation and within other information-rich enterprises such as process control, intensive care, telemedicine, stock brokerage, and traffic monitoring. Increased SA is often correlated with increased performance.
SA is a subject that is the object of much discussion about its use in team decisions as well as its importance in helping to counteract how the brain focuses on specific forms of information and much more, which are beyond the scope of this newsletter. Suffice to say that it is an important area for consideration when aligning the decision-making process within a set of principles, guidelines, and processes.
Decision Support Systems
Decision support systems (DSS), which focus primarily on solution optimisation and base decision support on normative models of human decision making, are less applicable than a DSS that parallels the cognitive strategies used by domain experts in situations characterised by time constrained situations with uncertain and ambiguous data (Smith & Grossman, 1993)[xxi].
Rarely, if ever, were tactical decision aids intended as psychological models of human cognitive behaviour. Instead, these aids performed “complex and burdensome calculations, reducing the work-load on personnel, speeding up the dissemination of information, and providing more time for decision making” (Tolcott, 1991, p. 44)[xxii]. It is important to realise that as artificial intelligence (AI) and other automated systems increasingly appear in workplaces as aids to decision-making they must deliver that information in a useable form that is relational to the user and the situation, which has not always been the case. This is particularly the case when distributed decision-making includes people of different levels of cognitive ability.
Summary
In conclusion, a combination of activity-based inherent on-the-job knowledge, which is becoming more complex, and a reliable information system are at the heart of effective decision-making. The challenge that we face with developing a new form of organisation is ensuring that these are at the right location for effective, timely and appropriate decisions to be made irrespective of the hierarchical position of those involved.
For such an approach to decision-making to work, it is important for the organisation to clarify the various foci, paradigms, and activities that it wishes their decision-makers to follow or undertake. This clarity is crucial for all the workforce irrespective of roles or positions. The clarity can be made through explicit descriptions using Principles, Guidelines, and where necessary simple processes for repetitive decision-making, for example.
With the calibre of the modern workforce, together with AI and up to date IT, we argue that the highest level of conceptual understanding referred to by Drucker can, with appropriate introduction and support, apply at any level of the organisation. The outcome being an organisation that can cope with any eventuality in an appropriate timescale and a workforce that is engaged through real involvement, trust and decision-making capacity that is appropriate for that function or role. These are the very things that the people in our emerging workforces are looking for before they commit themselves to being part of your organisation.
In a future newsletter we discuss how we believe such a system can be designed and introduced.
[i] Immanual Kant, (1785) “Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals”
[ii] Huber G, & McDaniel R. R., (1986) “The Decision-making Paradigm of Organizational Design”, Management Science (1986–1998); Linthicum Vol. 32, Iss. 5: 572
[iii] Smith T. J. (2015) “Decision-Making Paradigms, Work Place Dynamics, and Their Applications” International Journal of Managerial Studies and Research (IJMSR) Volume 3, Issue 6, June, PP 1–4, ISSN 2349–03300
[iv] Shakun, M. (2013). “The connectedness decision paradigm: group decision, negotiation and leadership in world problems.” Group Decision & Negotiation, 22(4), 599–615. doi:10.1007/s10726–013–9351–9
[v] Wood, J. L., & Hilton, A. A. (2012). “Five Ethical Paradigms for Community College Leaders: Toward Constructing and Considering Alternative Courses of Action in Ethical Decision Making.” Community College Review, 40(3), 196–214.
[vi] Huber, G., & McDaniel, R. (1986). “The decision-making paradigm of organizational design.” Management Science, 32(5), 572–589.
[vii] Neill, S. (2014). “Toward a developmental paradigm.” Canadian Journal Of Action Research, 15(3), 37–47.
[viii] Effectual reasoning is a type of human problem solving that takes the future as fundamentally unpredictable, yet controllable through human action; the environment as constructible through choice; and goal as negotiated residuals of stakeholder commitments rather than as pre-existent preference orderings. (Society for Effectual Action: sourced 17/10/2020 https://www.effectuation.org/?page_id=207#:~:text=Effectuation%20is%20an%20idea%20with,markets%2C%20services%2C%20and%20ideas.)
[ix] A causation approach implies that the focus is on a predefined goal and then the aim is to find the means to reach this goal.
[x] Harrison E. F. (1999) “The Managerial Decision making Process”, 5th Edition, Houghton-Mufflin.
[xi] Jennings D., and Wattam S. (1998) ”Decision Making: An Integrated Approach”, FT Prentice Hall
[xii] Lee M. D., Cummins T. D. R., (2004) “Evidence accumulation in decision making: Unifying the ‘take the best’ and the ‘rational’ models”, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 2 pp. 343–352.
[xiii] Harrison E. F. (1999) “The Managerial Decision Making Process”, 5th Edition, Houghton-Mufflin.
[xiv] Ackoff R. L., (12 February 1919–29 October 2009) was an American organisational theorist, consultant, and Anheuser-Busch Professor Emeritus of Management Science at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania. Ackoff was a pioneer in the field of operations research, systems thinking and management science.
[xv] Peter F. Drucker (November 19, 1909 — November 11, 2005) was an Austrian-born American management consultant, educator, and author whose writings contributed to the philosophical and practical foundations of the modern business corporation. He was also a leader in the development of management education, he invented the concept known as management by objectives, and he has been described as “the founder of modern management.”
Korhonen, Janne J.; Hiekkanen, Kari; and Heiskala, Mikko, “Map to Service-Oriented Business and IT: A Stratified Approach” (2010).
AMCIS 2010 Proceedings. Paper 157.
[xvi] Kaempf, G. L. and Militelo, L. G., (1992). “Decision Making in Emergencies, First Offshore Installation Management Conference: Emergency Command Responsibilities”, Collected Papers, Aberdeen, Scotland.
[xvii] Klein, G. A. (1989). “Recognition-Primed Decisions”. In W. R. Rouse (Ed.) “Advances in Man-Machine Systems Research”, (pp. 47–92), Vol. 5. JAI Press, Inc.
[xviii] Klein, G. A. (1993). A Recognition-Primed Decision (RPD) Model of Rapid Decision Making. In G. A. Klein, J. Orasanu, R. Calderwood, & C. E. Zsambok (Eds.) Decision Making in Action: Models and Methods (pp. 138–147). Ablex Publishing Corporation, New Jersey.
[xix] Adams, M. J., Tenney, Y. J., & Pew, R. W. (1995). Situation awareness and the cognitive
management of complex systems. Human Factors, 37(1), 85–104.
[xx] Alfredson J. (2007), “Differences in Situational Awareness and How to Manage Them in Development of Complex Systems”, Linköping Studies in Science and Technology Dissertation №1132
[xxi] Smith, D. E. and Grossman, J. D. (1993). “Understanding and Aiding Decision Making in Time-Constrained and Ambiguous Situations”. Unpublished manuscript.
[xxii] Tolcott, M. A. (1991). Understanding and Aiding Military Decisions. Office of Naval Research European Office. 27th International Applied Psychology Symposium, Stockholm, Sweden, June 1991.
