The naturalistic decision making (NDM) framework emerged as a means of studying how people actually make decisions and perform cognitively complex functions in demanding situations. These include situations marked by time pressure, uncertainty, vague goals, high stakes, team and organizational constraints, changing conditions, and varying amounts of experience. The NDM movement originated at a conference in Dayton, Ohio in 1989, which resulted in a book by Gary Klein, Judith Orasanu, Roberta Calderwood, and Caroline Zsambok. Since then, NDM conferences have been held every 2-3 years, alternating between U.S. and European venues. A series of NDM books have been published, and in 1995 the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society established a new technical group, Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, that has built on the NDM tradition.

The NDM framework focuses on cognitive functions such as decision making, sensemaking, situational awareness, planning – which emerge in natural settings and take forms that are not easily replicated in the laboratory. For example, it is difficult to replicate high stakes, or provide for problem detection, or to achieve extremely high levels of expertise, or to realistically incorporate team and organizational constraints. Therefore, NDM researchers rely on cognitive field research methods such as cognitive task analysis to observe and study skilled performers. From the perspective of scientific methodology, NDM studies usually address the initial stages of observing phenomena and developing descriptive accounts. In contrast, controlled laboratory studies emphasize the testing of hypotheses. NDM and controlled experimentation are thus complementary approaches. NDM provides the observations and models, and controlled experimentation provides the testing and formalization.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_decision_making
• Klein, G., Orasanu, J., Calderwood, R., and Zsambok, C.E. (1993) Decision Making in Action: Models and Methods. Ablex Publishing Co., Norwood, NJ.
• Todd, P. and Gigerenzer, G, Putting Naturalistic Decision Making into the Adaptive Toolbox, Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, Vol. 14, 353-384, 2001.
• Zsambok, C.E. and Klein, G (1997) Naturalistic Decision Making. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
• Johnson, J.G. and Raab, M Take the First: Option Generation and Resulting Choices. Elsevier Science, San Diego, CA.

Recognition-primed decision (RPD) is a model of how people make quick, effective decisions when faced with complex situations. In this model, the decision maker is assumed to generate a possible course of action, compare it to the constraints imposed by the situation, and select the first course of action that is not rejected. This technique has benefits in that it is rapid, but is prone to serious failure in unusual or misidentified circumstances. It appears to be a valid model for how human decision-makers make decisions.

The RPD model identifies a reasonable reaction as the first one that is immediately considered. RPD combines two ways of developing a decision; the first is recognizing which course of action makes sense, and the second, evaluating the cause of action through imagination to see if the actions resulting from that decision make sense. However, the difference of being experienced or inexperienced plays a major factor in the decision-making processes.

RPD reveals a critical difference between experts and novices when presented with recurring situations. Experienced people will generally be able to come up with quicker decision because the situation may match a prototypical situation they have encountered before. Novices, lacking this experience, must cycle through different possibilities, and tend to use the first course of action that they believe will work. The inexperienced also have the tendencies of using trial and error through their imagination.

There are three variations in RPD strategy. In variation 1, decision makers recognize the situation as typical, so they know what course of action they will do. They immediately know the goals, priorities and the steps of the course of action in the given situation. Variation 1 is basically an “If… then,” reaction. One situation can lead to the immediate course of action due to its typicality.

Variation 2 occurs when the decision maker diagnoses the situation to develop a course of action. Variation 2 takes the form of “If (???)… Then,” In order to prevent complications and misinformation the decision maker is more concerned about the situation rather than the course of action or the goal.

In Variation 3, the decision maker is knowledgeable of the situation but unaware of the proper course of action. Implementing a mental simulated trial and error to develop the most effective course of action. The mental simulation helps produce in finding out the consequences of the different types of course of action. Cycling through different courses of actions to take, if one does not work, they will proceed to the next course of action until they come up with the first effective course of action. Variation 3 takes the form of “if… then (???)” where in the decision maker considers other outcomes of a reaction. However, the relevance of inexperience lies here. Inexperienced decision makers are more likely to develop different types of course of action before he chooses the most proficient course of action.

Recognition primed decision making is highly relevant to the leaders or officers of organizations that are affiliated with emergency services such as fire fighters, search and rescue units, police, and other emergency services. It is applied to both the experienced and the inexperienced, and how they manage their decision making processes. The Recognition primed decision making model is developed as samples for organizations on how important decisions can affect important situations which may either save lives or take lives. The model develop can be used as a study for organizations to fill in the gaps and to determine which type of RPD variation is more applicable to the organization.

http://www.army.mil/professionalwriting/volumes/volume2/october_200...

Books
Sources of Power: How People Make Decisions Cambridge, MA: MIT Press 1999 ISBN 0262611465
The Power of Intuition: How to Use Your Gut Feelings to Make Better Decisions at Work Currency, 2004 ISBN 0385502893
(with Judith Orasanu, and Roberta Calderwood) Decision Making in Action: Models and Methods Ablex, 1993 ISBN 0893919438
(with Eduardo Salas) Linking Expertise and Naturalistic Decision Making Erlbaum, 2001 ISBN 0805835385
(with Caroline Zsambok) Naturalistic Decision Making Erlbaum, 1996 ISBN 080581874X