FOR-DEC – De-escalation

Smart Structuring Methode FOR-DEC
Categorie De-escalation
Short overview The FOR-DEC method was developed at that time for the safe guidance of aircraft. After the introduction of flight recorders, it became apparent that acute stress caused by time pressure or uncertainty drastically increased the human error rate. The so called “Similarity Matching” enables fast decisions by best fit of the current situation to previous situations or “Frequency Gambling”, with which I personally had the most frequent success so far, but which are only conditionally useful for the solution of complex and extraordinary situations with the requirement of the lowest possible error rate. The FOR-DEC method, on the other hand, provides a structured procedure for the determined recording of the actual extraordinary and complex situation and weighs up options and risks for a solution. It is also suitable for solving complex conflicts in the business environment under time pressure and stress. The method helps to make decisions more fact-based, as opposed to a more actionistic approach.
Developed by Deutschen Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt
Online Reference de.wikipedia.org/wiki/FORDEC
Book H.-J. Hörmann: FOR-DEC. A prescriptive model for aeronautical decision making
Video Wie komme ich zur richtigen Entscheidungen?“ [7:46m]
Key words De-escalation, decision making, structure, risiko management
Insights

The methodology distinguishes two phases FOR and DEC. The first outlines and evaluates the options, the second phase deals with their implementation.

  1. Facts
    What is the neutral factual situation? The sounding out of the situation initially without any solution approaches, without any evaluation approach. The most precise understanding of the situation.
  2. Options
    Based on the facts, solution options are developed. The entire team is explicitly required to do this – not just one person and not just the boss. Definition of the success parameters.
  3. Risks
    Due to the special situation of aircraft, it is important to consider the risks before implementation.
  4. Decision
    The decision for one of the options with the best probability of success on the basis of the defined parameters with the lowest risk.
  5. Execution
    Implementation of the option under the supervision of all previously involved parties.
  6. Check
    Review of the (partial) result according to success parameters. If no satisfactory result is achieved, the process is restarted with 1. the neutral fact-finding.
Best usage for… High-risk situations that cannot be solved with existing empirical knowledge; complex projects that require a time-critical review of success or focused implementation.
Weak result when… Hierarchical ways of thinking exist
Template Software, that is based on FORDEC-Principle
Needed time span 2 hours plus
Type of presentation Simple documentation in tables or word processing sheet
Size of group 2 to 5

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *