Do the elements of thought, as described by Drs. Paul & Elder, assist Army officers conducting the Army Problem Solving Process? Argue why or why not?
ELEMENT OF THOUGHT VS MILITARY DECISION-MAKING
Paul and Elder clearly describe the element of thought in their theory of analysis of thought. To get the fundamental moves in the theory, there are several steps to follow. In their study, thinking through for the purpose helps to state the questions that seek answers. Gathering of information follows to evaluate the facts while checking on the assumptions. With all the facts and assumptions, a clear concept is necessary for understanding your point of view. The implications for making a particular move is evaluated against the rest for the optimal solution. The analysis finally leads in making the best move out of the alternatives.
The military problem-solving process entails knowing and defining the problem, what follows is gathering facts and making assumptions relevant to the situation. Evaluate the outcome and establish a criterion for a review of the possible solutions developed. After analysis of the potential solution, choose the most feasible and analyze it for effectiveness. For a successful process, one must overcome the fear of failure, command pressure, over certainty and over-seriousness, tunnel vision and abide by the customs. An eight-step representation of the logic in comparison of elements of thought as described by Paul and Elder and the problem-solving process by the army officers is as follows
The paper is an analysis that determines whether there is a relationship between the military problem-solving process and the theory of elements of thought by Paul and Elder. The two concepts need to be reviewed, and conclusions made on whether or not the military decision-making process is dependent on the thought process.
The fundamental issue does the elements of thought, as described by Paul and Elder, assist army officers in conducting the problem-solving process. If they do assist the officers in decision-making then you state why and if they do not why not?
The most important information for this article is how the military conducts their Army problem-solving process and the theory of elements of thought as described by Paul and Elder. With this information, it will be easier to refine the objective for making a decision that is fact oriented. The assumptions will be clear and solutions based on these facts will be easy to compare.
On comparing the two important pieces of information in (3) above, the elements of thought, by Paul and Elder, and the part they play in the military problem-solving process appear to be similar. The steps involved are same as the ones described in the theory of element of thought, thus utilized in the army problem-solving process.
The key concepts in this article are problem definition, which entails coming up with the objectives or the problem that require a solution. After a clear definition of the problem, facts gathering follow where a research is done on the factors and a history of the problem. Some of the factors cannot be proved and are stated to be assumptions. Bringing together the facts and the assumptions of an individual problem, an optimal solution is determined, and an assessment of outcome carried out.
There is an assumption of similarity between the theory of element of thought described by Paul and Elder and the army problem-solving process. The elements of thought are hypothetical and takes place in a persons’ brain while the military problem-solving process is practical. An agreement with this assumption is necessary to presume workability.
Taking the authors reasoning, what is in the mind is what translate into actions and therefore, the concept of the theory of thought will be directly applicable to the Army problem-solving process. We need to look at the two contexts from a similar point of view of problem-solving.
Failing to take this class of thought will imply that the two concepts are entirely different and not viable for use as relations. It suggests that the description of the elements of thought does not apply to the army problem-solving process.
Points of view
The main point considered in the above abstract is the utilization of the elements of thought in conducting army problem-solving process. The two methods are similar since they are using the same logic and workability. Their steps are the same except for the final stages of the implementation. If the assumption of the similarity between the two situations does not apply, then the elements of thought, as discussed by Paul and Elder, does not assist the army officers conducting the problem-solving process.