14.3 Informed Decision-Making
Key Takeaways
- The CRAAP test evaluates information sources on Currency, Relevance, Authority, Accuracy, and Purpose.
- Divergent thinking generates multiple varied solutions; convergent thinking seeks the correct or best possible solution from identified possibilities.
- The Osborn-Parnes model's six stages are mess finding, data finding, problem finding, idea finding, solution finding, and acceptance finding — governed by the principle of deferred judgment.
- The Vroom-Yetton-Jago model's five levels run from decide and announce, through gather input from individuals, gather input from the group, facilitate consensus, to delegate with constraints.
- AFH 1 warns that formal education and training tend to improve convergent thinking but not divergent thinking, which may even worsen.
Learning Is Power
AFH 1 sets the stake: "From Airman Basic to General, the decisions each of us make every day impact the delivery of airpower." And it names what habitual critical thinking prevents: "the habitual application of critical thinking methods... helps reduce our unconscious and natural tendency to accept an available option as satisfactory without actually exploring all feasible options before making a decision."
The process claim is testable on its own: "The process of decision-making is as important as the information analyzed."
Digital Literacy and the CRAAP Test
AFH 1 acknowledges the upside — the internet provides immediate access to information from a wide variety of sources with real-time updates — and the risk: "because internet information is not regulated for quality and accuracy, it is particularly important to critically evaluate sources."
The recommended best practice is the CRAAP test.
| Letter | Criterion | Questions AFH 1 supplies |
|---|---|---|
| C | Currency (timeliness) | When was the information published or last updated? Have newer articles been published? Does your topic require recent information, or will older sources work as well? |
| R | Relevance (importance for your needs) | Does the information answer your question? Who is the intended audience? Is the information at an appropriate level — not too simple, or overly technical? |
| A | Authority (source of the information) | Who is the publisher or sponsor? What are the author's credentials or organizational affiliations? Is the author qualified to write on the topic? |
| A | Accuracy (reliability, truthfulness, correctness) | Is the information supported by evidence? Was it reviewed by editors or subject experts? Can you verify it in other sources? |
| P | Purpose (the reason the information exists) | Is it intended to inform or teach, or to sell, entertain, or persuade? Does the point of view appear objective and impartial? Are there political, ideological, cultural, religious, institutional, or personal biases? |
AFH 1 adds a heuristic worth remembering: "aim to rely on sources that have strong incentives to present accurate information." There is little consequence to a blog or message board writer who gets facts wrong, and for-profit companies may purposely mislead — but newspaper articles and scientific papers are normally reliable because errors there can seriously damage the author's reputation.
Analytical Thinking
"Informed decision making requires more than gathering and evaluating facts. It requires analytical thinking to systematically break information apart, compare different aspects of a problem, and organize information." The first step is to exercise healthy skepticism and consider several potential causes of what you observe.
Limitations of Small Sample Sizes
"Judgments based on a large number of observations are more likely to be accurate than judgments based on a small number of observations."
AFH 1's example: choosing between University A (where your friends are happy but your own visit went poorly) and University B (where your friends are dissatisfied but your visit went well). Many people say go with your gut and pick University B — but the handbook pushes you to "fully recognize the limited duration of your visit": how much of the school did you see, how many classes, how many people? Your friends have had much more extensive interaction over a longer time period.
The takeaway: "Impressions based on a few days, or a few people will usually not be as accurate as judgments or data based on a larger number of observations."
Correlation Doesn't Imply Causality
"Even when two factors are clearly related, do not immediately assume that one factor is causing the other." AFH 1 asks you to apply the concept of the control group: before concluding a pill causes an outcome, scientists compare those who took it to those who didn't and ask "Are the two groups otherwise (mostly) the same?"
The worked example: a base offers XYZ supplements free to all members; takers improve their fitness test scores while non-takers do not. Before concluding the supplement works, ask whether takers differed in important ways — self-selection bias (members who already exercised more or ate better were more likely to take them), age differences, or fewer pre-existing health conditions. "The more similar the two groups, the more reasonable it would be to conclude that XYZ supplements cause improved physical fitness."
Creative Problem Solving
| Type of thinking | AFH 1's definition |
|---|---|
| Divergent thinking | "The ability to generate multiple varied solutions to a given problem." Brainstorming is a divergent thinking task |
| Convergent thinking | "A process that seeks out the correct or best possible solution (from identified possibilities)" |
The warning that makes this section matter: "With formal education and training, we tend to improve in Convergent Thinking skills, but we tend not to improve (may even worsen) on Divergent Thinking. Yet both processes are important for effective problem solving."
The Osborn-Parnes Model
Central to this approach is the principle of deferred judgment — "allow a period of time to let ideas flow freely (apply Divergent Thinking) without internal or external evaluation. Only after we have identified many possible ideas, should we evaluate them (apply Convergent Thinking)." Each stage involves successive divergent and convergent thinking tasks.
| Stage | What you do |
|---|---|
| 1. Mess Finding | Identify the problem you want to address. Summarize it as a "How to…" statement — AFH 1's example: "How to reduce the number of Airmen calling in sick" |
| 2. Data Finding | Seek out all relevant facts. Ask the five Ws: Who is involved? What is involved and what are some examples? When does it happen? Where does it happen? Why does it happen? Then identify what additional facts are lacking and where to search for them |
| 3. Problem Finding | Describe what you want to accomplish in more specific terms. Ask "In What Ways Might We…" (IWWMW) and brainstorm many problem statements, because what you initially thought you wanted may reflect another concern. Then select the statement capturing the most important or underlying problem |
| 4. Idea Finding | Identify as many potential solutions as possible — even far-out, odd, or unusual ideas. Set a numeric goal (e.g., 50–75 ideas) before discussing them. Incubate if time permits; positive mood and rest facilitate brainstorming. In groups, anonymity may help, because extrinsic motivations can undermine divergent thinking. Only afterward narrow to 6–8 ideas |
| 5. Solution Finding | Use a list of selected criteria — time, cost, feasibility, safety, impact on morale — assign a weight to each on a 1–10 scale, then use a decision matrix to rate each idea against each criterion and multiply the ratings by the weights |
| 6. Acceptance Finding | Gain acceptance for the solution, develop a plan of action, and implement it (follow through) |
AFH 1 explicitly links this model back to Chapter 13: the Osborn-Parnes stages map onto the practical problem-solving method — Mess, Data, and Problem Finding support Step 1 (clarify and validate the problem), and Idea, Solution, and Acceptance Finding support Step 5 (develop countermeasures).
The most testable single fact here is the principle name — deferred judgment — and the reason for it: evaluate only after generating.
The Vroom-Yetton-Jago Decision-Making Model
AFH 1 describes it as a model "used for deciding how to decide," with five primary levels, each requiring a different level of involvement or complexity.
| Level | What the leader does | Pros | Cons |
|---|---|---|---|
| I: Decide and Announce | Makes the decision and announces or presents it | Quick decision and implementation; the leader controls the decision and the situation | May not consider all necessary information; may alienate members unnecessarily. Leaders should explain the rationale for deciding unilaterally |
| II: Gather Input from Individuals and Decide | Gathers input from selected individuals or the group individually, then decides | Allows consultation with recognized experts without requiring a meeting with the entire group | Others may wonder why they were not consulted and may perceive the leader as playing favorites, producing resistance at implementation |
| III: Gather Input from the Group and Decide | Gathers input from the group, then decides | Enhances the chance for synergy and better-informed decision-making | If the decision differs from what the group suggested, the group may feel their inputs were not valued or that the process was a façade; also takes more time |
| IV: Facilitate Consensus | Presents the issue and facilitates the group's decision, retaining the option to decide if consensus fails | Enhances buy-in and ownership, educates the group, allows quicker implementation, and builds and sustains trust and respect | Takes more time; the decision could be adequate but not optimal because groups compromise to reach agreement |
| V: Delegate with Constraints | Delegates the problem and authorizes the group to decide within specified boundaries, while facilitating support and resources | Builds team leadership skills, allows ownership, and frees the leader to focus on other issues | Takes more time; may produce a decision the leader does not view as optimal; the team may lack the skills to reach a quality decision, producing disharmony |
Two details the exam relies on. First, Level V is delegation with constraints, not abandonment — AFH 1 says explicitly that "leaders do not abandon the group." Second, at Level IV the leader retains the fallback authority to decide if the group cannot reach consensus, which is what distinguishes it from Level V.
AFH 1 closes by noting the two models combine: the Osborn-Parnes process can be applied regardless of who provides input or makes the final decision — a leader can run it alone at Level I, involve others in Idea Finding only at Level I or II, or encourage others to apply it at Level IV or V.
What does the CRAAP test evaluate?
What principle is central to the Osborn-Parnes creative problem-solving model?
A flight chief presents a scheduling problem to the flight, facilitates the group's decision-making, and retains the option to decide if consensus is not reached. Which Vroom-Yetton-Jago level is this?