The challenge of complexity has presented itself in our modern age and it can no longer be ignored. Unless specifically trained, when faced with complexity, humans generally perform poorly. Indeed, in the medical profession, Dr. Atul Gawande, author of the Checklist Manifesto, examined the complexity of modern medicine and was flabbergasted to discover that over the course of a year, the average physician’s office practice (excluding hospitals) required the evaluation of 250 different primary diseases, made more structurally complex by 900 other active conditions. Given the availability of 300 different medications and more than 100 laboratory tests, the physician’s workday has become an exercise in extreme complexity management.
The National Transportation Safety Board’s report on an airline accident at Chicago’s Midway Airport, as well as subsequent studies by experts, reveals once again the extraordinary problem of managing complexity in air carrier operations. Examination of the accident revealed that during the course of the mission in question, the flight crew was faced with nine distinct operational risk factors, a computer information system that was improperly designed, (human design error) , vital operational information that was either missing or unreliable, and finally, the unexpected onset of unstable flight conditions. That the flight crew had entered a zone of confusion during the final portion of the mission was painfully obvious. More distressing, however, was the fact that the modern crew station did not provide any meaningful help in complexity management., largely because the designers did not anticipate such a requirement.
And it gets worse. Dietrick Dorner, winner of the top science prize in Germany, along with his colleagues at the Max Planck Institute, devised a realistic simulation of “Tanaland” a region of west Africa near the Owanga River. Lanu is the town in Tanaland and is surrounded by orchards, gardens and forests. While Tanaland is not a real place, it accurately simulates real world conditions.
Twelve participants were given the task of promoting the well being of the residents of the area, utilizing all of the resources available. All of these resources were specified and the objective was how to optimize the individual and overall performance of this resource cluster so as to promote well being and satisfaction of the residence.
Many of the participants, focusing on managing individual resources and conditions, initially were able to increase food production, reduce infant mortality, and deliver more water. But then disaster struck. A famine hit the area at about year six that could not be reversed. Many died and the region was reduced to a primitive stone age culture for the survivors.
A few of the participants preformed well, and were able to install a viable economic system that achieved most of the objectives. These individuals differed with their colleagues who performed poorly in the particular patterns of thought that they employed. We will first discuss the patterns of thought for the poor performers, and then contrast these with the successful performers.
Simply put, the poor performers did not appreciate that they were involved in a complex situation which requires, above all else, the ability to manage complexity. They simply applied their everyday approach which was largely ad hoc. The most important cognitive error of this poor performing group was that they considered events and conditions and resources in isolation with one another and as such their model of reality was discrete disconnected units which required one to manage one thing at a time. This proved to be a disaster. Other performance degrading patterns of thought were that consequences of their actions were almost always never considered, assuming instead the high utility of each initiative. Also the ability to focus on that which was important was impaired, and aimless switching between competing attention items occurred. Also many assumptions were never tested.
The thought patterns of high performers were distinctly different. The biggest difference was that this group was able to manage complexity well. This was largely due to the fact that the entire system was always taken into account. Causal links between events and resources were considered. The model of reality was composed of a coherent conceptual structure instead of discrete components. Assumptions were evaluated for their accuracy, a problem definition was created and self critique occurred.
The best way to manage complex situations is to engage the critical thinking process like the high performers discussed above. Critical thinking is a defined, analytic process that provides serious and highly effective solutions to the quagmire of complexity. Critical thinking is a skill that can be learned, lends itself to practice, and when used with intent will produce exceptional results.
It is generally agreed that a situation with as little as three interacting parts is complex. This is because if one was to construct a three by three matrix, a total of nine combinations are possible. Thus the mathematical formula is the square of the individual units equals the complexity number. So for three individual units or elements, as long as they contain interacting characteristics, the number of elements explodes to nine. Since it has been established that humans can only deal with a maximum of seven units at any given time, complexity and confusion prevails.
In the example above, the flight crew was having to deal with a total of 9 interactive risk elements at the same time. Thus the complexity picture is calculated to be 9 squared, or a total of 81 potentially interacting factors. Without proper support, this number is far beyond human capability.
Critical thinking insists that we view the world as a set of systems. A system is something that has many interrelated parts. These interrelated parts interact and produce something that contains attributes of both. A system can be a semi-permanent feature of reality, like a modern aircraft, of an emergent phenomena like a complex situation. Either way, one must use critical thinking if one desires to achieve success.
So how can critical thinking help. First understand that actual situations are rarely revealed in a simple and straightforward way. Consequently, one must employ critical thinking from the very beginning and insist on spending quality time in the area of problem definition. Here we clarify the actual by creating a formal definition of the problem. This problem definition must be pure, that is devoid of any reference to a possible situation. Next we clarify the actual in a way that revealed many hidden components of the situation. Then, and only then, do we go to the solution step.
Our success, when confronted with complex situations, depends on our pattern of thought. Some patterns are useful and others are not. Thus we must be able to distinguish between the two. One critical pattern of thought that comes up time and again is that we must consider interactions and event clusters rather than individual discrete units, when attempting to intervene in a situation or problem. This means that we must consider that we are dealing with systems, not isolated occurrences.
One of the most important recent developments is the soon to be available Critical Thinking Essential Handbook. This we will begin to cover next.