Aggregated enterprise architecture wisdom
For years, we’ve been talking about achieving business value from IT. Now it’s time for a change in language and attitude. Instead of referring to “IT and the business,” let’s talk about “IT and other parts of the business.” Why? It boils down to three reasons: The digital economy is already here We are in […]
By Stuart Macgregor, Chief Executive, Real IRM Solutions Decision-makers in large enterprises today face a number of paradoxes when it comes to implementing a business operating model and deploying Enterprise Architecture: – How to stabilize and embed concrete systems that … Continue reading →
@antlerboy asks does anyone know theoretical underpinning of the (rather good) police decision-making model?
The National Decision Model (NDM) is a risk assessment framework, or decision making process, that is used by police forces across the UK. It replaces the former Conflict Management Model. Some sources refer to it as the National Decision-Making Model.
Looking around the Internet, I have found two kinds of description of the model – top-down and bottom-up.
The top-down (abstract) description was published by the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) sometime in 2012, and has been replicated in various items of police training material including a page on the College of Policing website. It is fairly abstract, and provides five different stages that officers can follow when making any type of decision – not just conflict management.
Some early responses from the police force regarded the NDM as an ideal model, only weakly connected to the practical reality of decision-making on the ground. See for example The NDM and decision making – what’s the reality? (Inspector Juliet Bravo, April 2012).
In contrast, the bottom-up (context-specific) description emerges when serving police officers discuss using the NDM. According to Mr Google, this discussion tends to focus on one decision in particular – to Taser or not to Taser.
“For me the Taser is a very important link in the National Decision Making Model . It bridges that gap between the baton and the normal firearm that has an almost certain risk of death when used.” (The Peel Blog, July 2012). See also Use of Force – Decision Making (Police Geek, July 2012).
ACPO itself adopts this context-specific perspective in its Questions and Answers on Taser (February 2012, updated July 2013), where it is stated that Taser may be deployed and used as one of a number of tactical options only after application of the National Decision Model (NDM).
Of course, the fact that Taser-related decisions have a high Google ranking doesn’t imply that these decisions represent the most active use of the National Decision Model. The most we can infer from this is that these are the decisions that police and others are most interested in discussing.
(Argyris and Schön introduced the distinction between Espoused Theory and Theory-In-Use. Perhaps we need a third category to refer to what people imagine to be the central or canonical examples of the theory. We might call it Theory-in-View or Theory-in-Gaze.)
In a conflict situation, a police officer often has to decide how much force to use. The officer needs to have a range of tools at his disposal and the ability to select the appropriate tool – in policing, this is known as a use-of-force continuum. More generally, it is an application of the principle of Requisite Variety.
In a particular conflict situation, the police can only use the tools they have at their disposal. The decision to use a Taser can only be taken if the police have the Taser and the training to use it properly. In which case the operational decision must follow the NDM.
More strategic decisions operate on a longer timescale – whether to equip police with certain equipment and training, what rules of engagement to apply, and so on. A truly abstract decision-making model would provide guidance for these strategic decisions as well as the operational decisions.
And that’s exactly what the top-down description of NDM asserts. “It can be applied to spontaneous incidents or planned operations by an individual or team of people, and to both operational and non-operational situations.”
Senior police officers have described the use of the NDM for non-conflict situations. For example, Adrian Lee (Chief Constable of Northants) gave a presentation on the Implications of NDM for Roads Policing (January 2012).
The NDM has also been adapted for use in other organizations. For example, Paul Macfarlane (ex Strathclyde Police) has used the NDM to produced a model aimed at Business Continuity and Risk Management. which he calls Defensive Decision-Making.
How does the NDM relate to other decision-making models? According to Adrian Lee’s presentation, the NDM is based on three earlier models:
There is considerable discussion in the USA about the relevance of the OODA loop to policing, and this again focuses on conflict management situations (the “Active Shooter”). There are two important differences between combat (the canonical use of OODA) and conflict management. Firstly, the preferred outcome is not to kill the offender but to disarm him (either physically or psychologically). This means that you sometimes need to give the offender time to calm down, orienting himself into making the right decision. So it’s not just about having a faster OODA loop than the other guy (although clearly some American cops think this is important). And secondly, there is a lot of talk about situation awareness and anticipation. For example, Dr. Mike Asken, who is a State Police psychologist, has developed a model called AAADA (Anticipating, Alerting, Assessing, Deciding and Acting). There is also a Cognitive OODA model I need to look into.
However, I interpret @antlerboy’s request for theoretical underpinning as not just a historical question (what theories of decision-making were the creators of NDM consciously following) but a methodological question (what theories of decision-making would be relevant to NDM and any other decision models). But this post is already long enough, and the sun is shining outside, so I shall return to this topic another day.
Sources
Michael J. Asken, From OODA to AAADA ― A cycle for surviving violent police encounters (Dec 2010)
Adrian Lee, Implications of NDM for Roads Policing (January 2012).
Erik P. Blasch et al, User Information Fusion Decision-Making Analysis with the C-OODA Model (Jan 2011)
National Decision Model (ACPO, 2012?)
National Decision Model (College of Policing, 2013)
SARA model (Center for Problem-Oriented Policing)
@antlerboy asks does anyone know theoretical underpinning of the (rather good) police decision-making model?
The National Decision Model (NDM) is a risk assessment framework, or decision making process, that is used by police forces across the UK. It replaces the former Conflict Management Model. Some sources refer to it as the National Decision-Making Model.
Looking around the Internet, I have found two kinds of description of the model – top-down and bottom-up.
The top-down (abstract) description was published by the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) sometime in 2012, and has been replicated in various items of police training material including a page on the College of Policing website. It is fairly abstract, and provides five different stages that officers can follow when making any type of decision – not just conflict management.
Some early responses from the police force regarded the NDM as an ideal model, only weakly connected to the practical reality of decision-making on the ground. See for example The NDM and decision making – what’s the reality? (Inspector Juliet Bravo, April 2012).
In contrast, the bottom-up (context-specific) description emerges when serving police officers discuss using the NDM. According to Mr Google, this discussion tends to focus on one decision in particular – to Taser or not to Taser.
“For me the Taser is a very important link in the National Decision Making Model . It bridges that gap between the baton and the normal firearm that has an almost certain risk of death when used.” (The Peel Blog, July 2012). See also Use of Force – Decision Making (Police Geek, July 2012).
ACPO itself adopts this context-specific perspective in its Questions and Answers on Taser (February 2012, updated July 2013), where it is stated that Taser may be deployed and used as one of a number of tactical options only after application of the National Decision Model (NDM).
Of course, the fact that Taser-related decisions have a high Google ranking doesn’t imply that these decisions represent the most active use of the National Decision Model. The most we can infer from this is that these are the decisions that police and others are most interested in discussing.
(Argyris and Schön introduced the distinction between Espoused Theory and Theory-In-Use. Perhaps we need a third category to refer to what people imagine to be the central or canonical examples of the theory. We might call it Theory-in-View or Theory-in-Gaze.)
In a conflict situation, a police officer often has to decide how much force to use. The officer needs to have a range of tools at his disposal and the ability to select the appropriate tool – in policing, this is known as a use-of-force continuum. More generally, it is an application of the principle of Requisite Variety.
In a particular conflict situation, the police can only use the tools they have at their disposal. The decision to use a Taser can only be taken if the police have the Taser and the training to use it properly. In which case the operational decision must follow the NDM.
More strategic decisions operate on a longer timescale – whether to equip police with certain equipment and training, what rules of engagement to apply, and so on. A truly abstract decision-making model would provide guidance for these strategic decisions as well as the operational decisions.
And that’s exactly what the top-down description of NDM asserts. “It can be applied to spontaneous incidents or planned operations by an individual or team of people, and to both operational and non-operational situations.”
Senior police officers have described the use of the NDM for non-conflict situations. For example, Adrian Lee (Chief Constable of Northants) gave a presentation on the Implications of NDM for Roads Policing (January 2012).
The NDM has also been adapted for use in other organizations. For example, Paul Macfarlane (ex Strathclyde Police) has used the NDM to produced a model aimed at Business Continuity and Risk Management. which he calls Defensive Decision-Making.
How does the NDM relate to other decision-making models? According to Adrian Lee’s presentation, the NDM is based on three earlier models:
There is considerable discussion in the USA about the relevance of the OODA loop to policing, and this again focuses on conflict management situations (the “Active Shooter”). There are two important differences between combat (the canonical use of OODA) and conflict management. Firstly, the preferred outcome is not to kill the offender but to disarm him (either physically or psychologically). This means that you sometimes need to give the offender time to calm down, orienting himself into making the right decision.
And the cop needs to stay calm. George “Doc” Thompson, who taught US police a de-escalation technique known as Verbal Judo, once said “We know that the most deadly weapon we carry is not the .45 or the 9mm, it is in fact the cop’s tongue … A single sentence fired off at the wrong person at the wrong time can get you fired, it can get you sued, it can get you killed.”
So it’s not just about having a faster OODA loop than the other guy (although clearly some American cops think this is important). And secondly, there is a lot of talk about situation awareness and anticipation. For example, Dr. Mike Asken, who is a State Police psychologist, has developed a model called AAADA (Anticipating, Alerting, Assessing, Deciding and Acting). There is also a Cognitive OODA model I need to look into.
However, I interpret @antlerboy’s request for theoretical underpinning as not just a historical question (what theories of decision-making were the creators of NDM consciously following) but a methodological question (what theories of decision-making would be relevant to NDM and any other decision models). But this post is already long enough, and the sun is shining outside, so I shall return to this topic another day.
Sources
Michael J. Asken, From OODA to AAADA ― A cycle for surviving violent police encounters (Dec 2010)
Erik P. Blasch et al, User Information Fusion Decision-Making Analysis with the C-OODA Model (Jan 2011)
Tom Dart, ‘Verbal judo’: the police tactic that teaches cops to talk before they shoot (Guardian 21 July 2016)
Adrian Lee, Implications of NDM for Roads Policing (January 2012).
Steve Papenfuhs, The OODA loop, reaction time, and decision making (PoliceOne, 23 February 2012)
National Decision Model (ACPO, 2012?)
National Decision Model (College of Policing, 2013)
SARA model (Center for Problem-Oriented Policing)
Related Posts
National Decision Model and Lessons Learned (Feb 2017)
According to a survey by the research arm of The Economist, businesses are slightly more likely to be using the Internet of Things for internal operations and processes than in external products or services. It’s important to draw a distinction between forward-facing IoT and what I call the Internet of Business Things (IoBT). The knowledge, skills and alliances it will take to instrument the business are different than outfitting consumer products with connected technology. The […]
If you liked this, you might also like:
I have been working on a business architecture practice dashboard to help BA leaders manage and grow their practice. The dashboard contains three basic metric types: impact, value, and activity. Each type provides valuable insight into business architecture’s performance and organizational impact. In this post, I focus on value contribution metrics. Value contribution metrics report […]
Capability modelling has become something of a de facto standard within contemporary Enterprise Architecture practice. Capability-based planning is also a proven tool when it comes to change portfolio management and the development of strategic roadmaps. […]
The post Business Function: Does it still have a place in Business Architecture? appeared first on Enterprise Architects.
I have been working on a business architecture practice dashboard to help BA leaders manage and grow their practice. It is still a work in progress but I wanted to share my thinking here to see if it resonated with others. The dashboard is made up of three types of metrics: impact, value, and activity. […]
I have written previously on this blog about leveraging Enterprise Architecture as a methodology for the Operating Model creation and management. In this blog post I will briefly outline mechanism and benefits of using industry leading Zachma…
I have written previously on this blog about leveraging Enterprise Architecture as a methodology for the Operating Model creation and management. In this blog post I will briefly outline mechanism and benefits of using industry leading Zachma…
Our last post introduced the concept of enterprise intelligence (EI), the CIOs answer to business intelligence (BI). EI is a relatively new concept in the world of strategic technology planning and the more we explore it, the more opportunity we see for its applicability beyond technology and into other parts of the C-suite.
This post takes a look at how change affects strategic business planning, and the role EI plays in mitigating risks in a climate driven by constant and rapid change.
Paul Boag said it best: “The problem is that the very nature of change is changing.”
Today chief strategy officers (CSO) and similar functions struggle with gaining the insight needed to make strategic decisions, because those decisions must happen quickly and the information needed to evaluate risk factors is often difficult to obtain or takes too long to aggregate. Strategic planners are often tasked with identifying and evaluating market expansion opportunities, M&As, divestments and the like, but it’s not as easy as pouring time into due diligence anymore. Nowadays, immediate attention and nearly quick decisions are required if a business wants to capitalize on fast moving market trends. The challenge for the CSO is to make decisions at the speed of the market while mitigating business risk. Doing that successfully means planning is no longer an annual exercise – it is now a continuous function and the corporate transparency EI delivers makes it possible.
A world of constant change demands enterprise intelligence
Whether it’s contemplating how to leverage game-changing disruptive technologies like social media, mobile, analytics, and cloud to develop a new business model or charting a new market expansion strategy, EI gives CSOs much needed line-of-sight across the enterprise. From this vantage point CSOs can understand how everything works together and impacts each other – from Goals and Strategy to Business Capabilities to Applications and Technology. This means that opportunities and risks can be evaluated in the context of the entire enterprise and decision-makers become equipped with the insights they need to make business investment decisions faster and with greater confidence. As a result, EI becomes an integral part of the strategic planning process
Changing with Change
Until now, CSOs have struggled to gain the enterprise-wide insights needed to set strategies and make key decisions at the market’s rapid pace. EI changes all that because it arms them with the decision-making information they need to have a meaningful dialogue about the business at a moments notice. The insights produced by EI tools allow CSOs to quickly and methodically maneuver the business as the market changes by delivering enterprise transparency that shows the cost, impact and benefits of change across the connected enterprise.
It’s true, change is changing. And, so are business models, technology and the competition. Doesn’t it make sense to adopt a strategic planning approach that delivers insight into the best way to anticipate and address these changes?
We think so.
Learn more about continual planning in Forrester’s white paper, Connecting The Dots: Building An Integrated Strategy And Execution Plan.
Key Takeaways include:
I’ve been arguing repeatedly that trying to get the Viable System Model from overviews, introductions and writings based on or about it, can put the curious mind in a state of confusion or simply lead to wrong interpretations. The absolute minimum is reading at least once each of the three books explaining the model. But […]