Charette Procedure

Charette Procedure

The Charette Procedure, often referred to simply as a Charette, is a collaborative and intensive design and planning process used in various fields, including architecture, urban planning, product design, and software development. This method brings together multidisciplinary teams and stakeholders to brainstorm, explore ideas, and generate innovative solutions for complex design and planning challenges.

Understanding the Charette Procedure

The Charette Procedure is a structured and time-bound approach to problem-solving and design innovation. It typically involves a dedicated workshop or collaborative session that brings together diverse participants, including designers, planners, experts, stakeholders, and end-users. The primary goal is to generate creative ideas, explore design possibilities, and develop solutions for complex projects or challenges.

Key components of the Charette Procedure include:

  • Multidisciplinary Teams: Participants from different disciplines and backgrounds collaborate to provide varied perspectives and expertise.
  • Time Constraints: Charettes are typically conducted over a relatively short period, ranging from a few hours to a few days, to encourage focused and intensive work.
  • Structured Process: The procedure follows a structured format, often including brainstorming sessions, design iterations, and feedback loops.
  • Stakeholder Engagement: Stakeholders, including clients and end-users, are actively involved in the process to ensure their input is considered.
  • Visualization: Visual aids, such as sketches, diagrams, and prototypes, are used to communicate ideas and concepts effectively.

Real-World Applications

The Charette Procedure finds applications in a wide range of domains:

  • Architecture and Urban Planning: Architects and urban planners use Charettes to design sustainable buildings, neighborhoods, and public spaces.
  • Product Design: Industrial designers employ Charettes to develop new products, focusing on functionality, aesthetics, and user experience.
  • Software Development: In the realm of software engineering, Charettes aid in defining software requirements, user interfaces, and system architectures.
  • Environmental Planning: Charettes are used in environmental planning to design parks, conservation areas, and green infrastructure.
  • Community Engagement: Local governments and community organizations use Charettes to engage citizens in shaping the development of their neighborhoods and cities.

Advantages of the Charette Procedure

The Charette Procedure offers several advantages in the design and planning processes:

  • Collaborative Innovation: It fosters collaboration among diverse stakeholders, resulting in innovative and holistic solutions.
  • Efficient Problem-Solving: The time-bound nature of Charettes encourages efficient problem-solving and decision-making.
  • Enhanced Communication: Visual aids and interactive discussions improve communication and ensure a shared understanding of design concepts.
  • Stakeholder Involvement: Engaging stakeholders and end-users from the beginning increases project buy-in and reduces the risk of later conflicts.
  • Iterative Design: The iterative nature of Charettes allows for the exploration of multiple design possibilities and the refinement of ideas.

Disadvantages of the Charette Procedure

While the Charette Procedure offers numerous advantages, it may have limitations:

  • Resource Intensive: Organizing Charettes requires time, resources, and coordination, which may be challenging for some projects.
  • Limited Time: The time constraints of a Charette may not allow for in-depth research or comprehensive analysis.
  • Potential for Groupthink: Group dynamics can lead to conformity and discourage dissenting opinions.
  • Stakeholder Availability: Ensuring the availability of key stakeholders can be challenging, especially for large-scale projects.

Strategies for Effective Use of the Charette Procedure

To use the Charette Procedure effectively, consider the following strategies:

  1. Clear Objectives: Define clear objectives and outcomes for the Charette to keep participants focused.
  2. Diverse Participants: Assemble a diverse group of participants to bring varied perspectives to the table.
  3. Facilitation: Appoint a skilled facilitator to guide the Charette and ensure that discussions remain productive.
  4. Structured Agenda: Develop a structured agenda with designated time slots for brainstorming, design iterations, and feedback.
  5. Visual Tools: Use visual aids, such as whiteboards, sketching materials, and digital design software, to facilitate idea generation and communication.
  6. Feedback Mechanisms: Implement feedback mechanisms to capture participants’ input and refine design concepts.
  7. Stakeholder Engagement: Ensure active involvement of key stakeholders and end-users throughout the process.
  8. Documentation: Document the outcomes, ideas, and decisions made during the Charette for future reference.

When the Charette Procedure Becomes a Concern

The Charette Procedure may become a concern when:

  • Lack of Resources: Organizing a Charette can be resource-intensive, making it impractical for some projects.
  • Time Constraints: In situations where time constraints are too tight, a Charette may not allow for thorough exploration of design options.
  • Ineffective Facilitation: Poor facilitation can lead to unproductive discussions and limited outcomes.
  • Groupthink: Group dynamics may suppress innovative ideas and discourage dissenting opinions.

Conclusion

The Charette Procedure is a valuable tool for fostering collaboration, creativity, and innovation in various design and planning contexts. By understanding its principles, real-world applications, advantages, disadvantages, and strategies for effective implementation, professionals and organizations can harness the power of multidisciplinary collaboration to tackle complex challenges and create innovative solutions. In a rapidly changing world that demands creative problem-solving and holistic design approaches, the Charette Procedure serves as a versatile method for driving progress and achieving successful outcomes in diverse domains.

Key Highlights:

  • Overview of the Charette Procedure: It’s a collaborative and time-bound approach to problem-solving and design innovation, involving multidisciplinary teams and stakeholders.
  • Key Components: Include multidisciplinary teams, time constraints, structured process, stakeholder engagement, and visualization.
  • Real-World Applications: Found in architecture, urban planning, product design, software development, environmental planning, and community engagement.
  • Advantages: Collaborative innovation, efficient problem-solving, enhanced communication, stakeholder involvement, and iterative design.
  • Disadvantages: Resource-intensive, limited time, potential for groupthink, and challenges with stakeholder availability.
  • Strategies for Effective Use: Clear objectives, diverse participants, skilled facilitation, structured agenda, visual tools, feedback mechanisms, stakeholder engagement, and documentation.
  • Concerns with Use: Lack of resources, time constraints, ineffective facilitation, and potential for groupthink can hinder the effectiveness of the Charette Procedure.
  • Conclusion: The Charette Procedure is a valuable tool for fostering collaboration, creativity, and innovation in design and planning contexts, provided it’s used strategically and with consideration for its limitations.
Related FrameworkDescriptionWhen to Apply
Design Charrette– A Design Charrette is a collaborative workshop or meeting where stakeholders, designers, and experts come together to brainstorm, share ideas, and develop solutions for architectural or urban design projects. – While similar to the Charette Procedure, design charrettes often involve intensive, time-limited sessions focused on generating design concepts, gathering feedback, and refining proposals through iterative discussions and group work. – Design charrettes are commonly used in architecture, urban planning, and community development to engage stakeholders, foster creativity, and generate consensus around design decisions.– When seeking to engage stakeholders, gather input, and generate design ideas or solutions for architectural or urban planning projects. – Design charrettes provide a collaborative and participatory platform for stakeholders, designers, and experts to collaborate, exchange ideas, and co-create design concepts, making them suitable for organizations, communities, and municipalities undertaking architectural or urban development initiatives seeking to involve stakeholders, enhance design quality, and build consensus around project goals and outcomes.
Charrette System– The Charrette System is an integrated approach to planning and decision-making that incorporates collaborative workshops, design iterations, and stakeholder engagement to address complex issues and challenges. – While broader in scope than the Charette Procedure, the Charrette System encompasses multiple phases, including visioning, analysis, design, and implementation, to guide project development and foster community involvement throughout the planning process. – The Charrette System is applied in urban planning, community development, and sustainable design to facilitate inclusive decision-making, promote innovation, and achieve consensus-driven outcomes.– When undertaking complex planning or development projects requiring stakeholder engagement, collaborative decision-making, and integrated design solutions. – The Charrette System offers a structured and iterative approach to planning and decision-making that promotes stakeholder involvement, interdisciplinary collaboration, and consensus-building, making it suitable for organizations, municipalities, and planning agencies seeking to address complex challenges, promote sustainable development, and create inclusive communities through participatory processes and integrated design solutions.
Charrette Process– The Charrette Process is a facilitated workshop or series of workshops that bring together diverse stakeholders to address specific planning, design, or development challenges. – Similar to the Charette Procedure, the Charrette Process emphasizes collaboration, creativity, and problem-solving to generate actionable solutions and consensus around project objectives. – The Charrette Process is utilized in urban planning, community design, and land development to engage stakeholders, solicit input, and develop comprehensive plans or designs that reflect community needs and aspirations.– When seeking to engage stakeholders, foster collaboration, and develop comprehensive plans or designs for urban or community development projects. – The Charrette Process provides a structured and inclusive framework for stakeholders, planners, and designers to work together, exchange ideas, and co-create solutions that address complex challenges, making it suitable for organizations, municipalities, and community groups undertaking planning or development initiatives aimed at achieving sustainable, equitable, and inclusive outcomes.
Community VisioningCommunity Visioning is a participatory planning process that engages residents, stakeholders, and decision-makers in defining a shared vision for the future of a community or neighborhood. – While distinct from the Charette Procedure, community visioning often involves workshops, surveys, and public meetings to gather input, identify priorities, and develop goals and strategies for guiding community development and decision-making. – Community visioning is employed in urban planning, neighborhood revitalization, and strategic planning to empower communities, build consensus, and shape the direction of future development.– When seeking to engage residents, stakeholders, and decision-makers in defining a shared vision for the future of a community or neighborhood. – Community visioning provides a platform for inclusive participation, dialogue, and collaboration among diverse stakeholders, making it suitable for municipalities, community organizations, and planning agencies undertaking strategic planning or development initiatives aimed at empowering communities, fostering civic engagement, and achieving collective aspirations.
Participatory DesignParticipatory Design is an approach to design and planning that involves end-users, stakeholders, and communities in the decision-making process to ensure their needs, preferences, and aspirations are reflected in the final outcomes. – While broader in scope than the Charette Procedure, participatory design methods often incorporate workshops, co-design sessions, and iterative prototyping to engage stakeholders, solicit feedback, and co-create solutions that address real-world challenges. – Participatory design is applied in architecture, urban design, and product development to enhance user satisfaction, promote social equity, and foster sustainable design practices.– When involving end-users, stakeholders, or communities in the design and planning process to ensure their perspectives are considered and integrated into the final outcomes. – Participatory design methods provide opportunities for inclusive participation, collaborative decision-making, and co-creation of solutions that reflect diverse needs and preferences, making them suitable for designers, planners, and organizations seeking to create user-centered, socially inclusive, and environmentally sustainable designs or interventions across various domains and contexts.
Collaborative PlanningCollaborative Planning is an approach to decision-making and problem-solving that emphasizes cooperation, dialogue, and shared decision-making among stakeholders with diverse interests and perspectives. – While distinct from the Charette Procedure, collaborative planning processes involve workshops, forums, and negotiations to build consensus, resolve conflicts, and develop strategies for addressing complex issues. – Collaborative planning is utilized in urban development, environmental management, and public policy to engage stakeholders, build trust, and achieve mutually beneficial outcomes through collaborative problem-solving and decision-making.– When addressing complex issues or challenges requiring cooperation, dialogue, and shared decision-making among stakeholders with diverse interests. – Collaborative planning processes provide a structured framework for stakeholders to work together, identify common goals, and develop solutions that balance competing interests, making them suitable for organizations, government agencies, and community groups seeking to address contentious issues, promote sustainable development, and build consensus around shared objectives.
Integrated Design Process– The Integrated Design Process (IDP) is a collaborative approach to design and project delivery that involves interdisciplinary teams working together from project inception to completion. – While broader in scope than the Charette Procedure, the Integrated Design Process emphasizes early stakeholder engagement, holistic decision-making, and integrated solutions to optimize project performance and sustainability. – The Integrated Design Process is applied in architecture, engineering, and construction to maximize resource efficiency, minimize environmental impact, and enhance occupant comfort and well-being through integrated design solutions.– When undertaking design and construction projects that require interdisciplinary collaboration, early stakeholder engagement, and integrated design solutions. – The Integrated Design Process provides a framework for teams to work collaboratively, leverage diverse expertise, and integrate sustainability principles into project planning and implementation, making it suitable for architects, engineers, developers, and building owners seeking to deliver high-performance, environmentally responsible, and socially responsive projects.
Charrette PlanningCharrette Planning is a comprehensive planning approach that involves intensive, collaborative workshops or sessions to address specific planning challenges or opportunities. – While similar to the Charette Procedure, charrette planning typically focuses on urban or regional planning initiatives and involves multiple stakeholders, experts, and community members working together to develop actionable plans or strategies. – Charrette planning is employed in urban revitalization, transportation planning, and community development to engage stakeholders, gather input, and shape the direction of future development.– When undertaking urban or regional planning initiatives requiring intensive stakeholder engagement, collaboration, and visioning. – Charrette planning offers a participatory and inclusive approach to planning that fosters creativity, innovation, and consensus-building among diverse stakeholders, making it suitable for municipalities, planning agencies, and community organizations seeking to address complex challenges, shape sustainable development, and create vibrant, inclusive communities.
Consensus BuildingConsensus Building is a collaborative process that aims to reconcile differing viewpoints, interests, and preferences among stakeholders to reach mutually acceptable solutions or agreements. – While broader in scope than the Charette Procedure, consensus-building techniques often involve facilitated discussions, negotiations, and problem-solving exercises to build trust, foster communication, and resolve conflicts constructively. – Consensus building is utilized in conflict resolution, public policy, and community development to promote dialogue, build relationships, and achieve durable agreements that reflect shared interests and values.– When seeking to reconcile differing viewpoints, interests, or preferences among stakeholders to reach mutually acceptable solutions or agreements. – Consensus-building techniques provide a structured approach for facilitators, mediators, and stakeholders to engage in constructive dialogue, negotiation, and problem-solving to resolve conflicts, build trust, and achieve consensus around common goals or objectives, making them suitable for organizations, government agencies, and community groups facing contentious issues or decision-making challenges requiring collaboration and cooperation.
Visioning Workshop– A Visioning Workshop is a collaborative event or series of sessions designed to develop a shared vision, goals, and priorities for a project, organization, or community. – While distinct from the Charette Procedure, visioning workshops often involve stakeholders, experts, and community members working together to articulate aspirations, identify challenges, and define strategies for realizing desired outcomes. – Visioning workshops are applied in strategic planning, organizational development, and community engagement to inspire collective action, align stakeholders, and shape future direction.– When developing a shared vision, goals, or priorities for a project, organization, or community. – Visioning workshops provide a platform for stakeholders to come together, explore possibilities, and co-create a shared vision or strategic direction that reflects their aspirations and values, making them suitable for organizations, municipalities, and community groups undertaking strategic planning, organizational change, or community development initiatives aimed at fostering alignment, engagement, and commitment among participants.

Connected Thinking Frameworks

Convergent vs. Divergent Thinking

convergent-vs-divergent-thinking
Convergent thinking occurs when the solution to a problem can be found by applying established rules and logical reasoning. Whereas divergent thinking is an unstructured problem-solving method where participants are encouraged to develop many innovative ideas or solutions to a given problem. Where convergent thinking might work for larger, mature organizations where divergent thinking is more suited for startups and innovative companies.

Critical Thinking

critical-thinking
Critical thinking involves analyzing observations, facts, evidence, and arguments to form a judgment about what someone reads, hears, says, or writes.

Biases

biases
The concept of cognitive biases was introduced and popularized by the work of Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman in 1972. Biases are seen as systematic errors and flaws that make humans deviate from the standards of rationality, thus making us inept at making good decisions under uncertainty.

Second-Order Thinking

second-order-thinking
Second-order thinking is a means of assessing the implications of our decisions by considering future consequences. Second-order thinking is a mental model that considers all future possibilities. It encourages individuals to think outside of the box so that they can prepare for every and eventuality. It also discourages the tendency for individuals to default to the most obvious choice.

Lateral Thinking

lateral-thinking
Lateral thinking is a business strategy that involves approaching a problem from a different direction. The strategy attempts to remove traditionally formulaic and routine approaches to problem-solving by advocating creative thinking, therefore finding unconventional ways to solve a known problem. This sort of non-linear approach to problem-solving, can at times, create a big impact.

Bounded Rationality

bounded-rationality
Bounded rationality is a concept attributed to Herbert Simon, an economist and political scientist interested in decision-making and how we make decisions in the real world. In fact, he believed that rather than optimizing (which was the mainstream view in the past decades) humans follow what he called satisficing.

Dunning-Kruger Effect

dunning-kruger-effect
The Dunning-Kruger effect describes a cognitive bias where people with low ability in a task overestimate their ability to perform that task well. Consumers or businesses that do not possess the requisite knowledge make bad decisions. What’s more, knowledge gaps prevent the person or business from seeing their mistakes.

Occam’s Razor

occams-razor
Occam’s Razor states that one should not increase (beyond reason) the number of entities required to explain anything. All things being equal, the simplest solution is often the best one. The principle is attributed to 14th-century English theologian William of Ockham.

Lindy Effect

lindy-effect
The Lindy Effect is a theory about the ageing of non-perishable things, like technology or ideas. Popularized by author Nicholas Nassim Taleb, the Lindy Effect states that non-perishable things like technology age – linearly – in reverse. Therefore, the older an idea or a technology, the same will be its life expectancy.

Antifragility

antifragility
Antifragility was first coined as a term by author, and options trader Nassim Nicholas Taleb. Antifragility is a characteristic of systems that thrive as a result of stressors, volatility, and randomness. Therefore, Antifragile is the opposite of fragile. Where a fragile thing breaks up to volatility; a robust thing resists volatility. An antifragile thing gets stronger from volatility (provided the level of stressors and randomness doesn’t pass a certain threshold).

Systems Thinking

systems-thinking
Systems thinking is a holistic means of investigating the factors and interactions that could contribute to a potential outcome. It is about thinking non-linearly, and understanding the second-order consequences of actions and input into the system.

Vertical Thinking

vertical-thinking
Vertical thinking, on the other hand, is a problem-solving approach that favors a selective, analytical, structured, and sequential mindset. The focus of vertical thinking is to arrive at a reasoned, defined solution.

Maslow’s Hammer

einstellung-effect
Maslow’s Hammer, otherwise known as the law of the instrument or the Einstellung effect, is a cognitive bias causing an over-reliance on a familiar tool. This can be expressed as the tendency to overuse a known tool (perhaps a hammer) to solve issues that might require a different tool. This problem is persistent in the business world where perhaps known tools or frameworks might be used in the wrong context (like business plans used as planning tools instead of only investors’ pitches).

Peter Principle

peter-principle
The Peter Principle was first described by Canadian sociologist Lawrence J. Peter in his 1969 book The Peter Principle. The Peter Principle states that people are continually promoted within an organization until they reach their level of incompetence.

Straw Man Fallacy

straw-man-fallacy
The straw man fallacy describes an argument that misrepresents an opponent’s stance to make rebuttal more convenient. The straw man fallacy is a type of informal logical fallacy, defined as a flaw in the structure of an argument that renders it invalid.

Streisand Effect

streisand-effect
The Streisand Effect is a paradoxical phenomenon where the act of suppressing information to reduce visibility causes it to become more visible. In 2003, Streisand attempted to suppress aerial photographs of her Californian home by suing photographer Kenneth Adelman for an invasion of privacy. Adelman, who Streisand assumed was paparazzi, was instead taking photographs to document and study coastal erosion. In her quest for more privacy, Streisand’s efforts had the opposite effect.

Heuristic

heuristic
As highlighted by German psychologist Gerd Gigerenzer in the paper “Heuristic Decision Making,” the term heuristic is of Greek origin, meaning “serving to find out or discover.” More precisely, a heuristic is a fast and accurate way to make decisions in the real world, which is driven by uncertainty.

Recognition Heuristic

recognition-heuristic
The recognition heuristic is a psychological model of judgment and decision making. It is part of a suite of simple and economical heuristics proposed by psychologists Daniel Goldstein and Gerd Gigerenzer. The recognition heuristic argues that inferences are made about an object based on whether it is recognized or not.

Representativeness Heuristic

representativeness-heuristic
The representativeness heuristic was first described by psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky. The representativeness heuristic judges the probability of an event according to the degree to which that event resembles a broader class. When queried, most will choose the first option because the description of John matches the stereotype we may hold for an archaeologist.

Take-The-Best Heuristic

take-the-best-heuristic
The take-the-best heuristic is a decision-making shortcut that helps an individual choose between several alternatives. The take-the-best (TTB) heuristic decides between two or more alternatives based on a single good attribute, otherwise known as a cue. In the process, less desirable attributes are ignored.

Bundling Bias

bundling-bias
The bundling bias is a cognitive bias in e-commerce where a consumer tends not to use all of the products bought as a group, or bundle. Bundling occurs when individual products or services are sold together as a bundle. Common examples are tickets and experiences. The bundling bias dictates that consumers are less likely to use each item in the bundle. This means that the value of the bundle and indeed the value of each item in the bundle is decreased.

Barnum Effect

barnum-effect
The Barnum Effect is a cognitive bias where individuals believe that generic information – which applies to most people – is specifically tailored for themselves.

First-Principles Thinking

first-principles-thinking
First-principles thinking – sometimes called reasoning from first principles – is used to reverse-engineer complex problems and encourage creativity. It involves breaking down problems into basic elements and reassembling them from the ground up. Elon Musk is among the strongest proponents of this way of thinking.

Ladder Of Inference

ladder-of-inference
The ladder of inference is a conscious or subconscious thinking process where an individual moves from a fact to a decision or action. The ladder of inference was created by academic Chris Argyris to illustrate how people form and then use mental models to make decisions.

Goodhart’s Law

goodharts-law
Goodhart’s Law is named after British monetary policy theorist and economist Charles Goodhart. Speaking at a conference in Sydney in 1975, Goodhart said that “any observed statistical regularity will tend to collapse once pressure is placed upon it for control purposes.” Goodhart’s Law states that when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.

Six Thinking Hats Model

six-thinking-hats-model
The Six Thinking Hats model was created by psychologist Edward de Bono in 1986, who noted that personality type was a key driver of how people approached problem-solving. For example, optimists view situations differently from pessimists. Analytical individuals may generate ideas that a more emotional person would not, and vice versa.

Mandela Effect

mandela-effect
The Mandela effect is a phenomenon where a large group of people remembers an event differently from how it occurred. The Mandela effect was first described in relation to Fiona Broome, who believed that former South African President Nelson Mandela died in prison during the 1980s. While Mandela was released from prison in 1990 and died 23 years later, Broome remembered news coverage of his death in prison and even a speech from his widow. Of course, neither event occurred in reality. But Broome was later to discover that she was not the only one with the same recollection of events.

Crowding-Out Effect

crowding-out-effect
The crowding-out effect occurs when public sector spending reduces spending in the private sector.

Bandwagon Effect

bandwagon-effect
The bandwagon effect tells us that the more a belief or idea has been adopted by more people within a group, the more the individual adoption of that idea might increase within the same group. This is the psychological effect that leads to herd mentality. What in marketing can be associated with social proof.

Moore’s Law

moores-law
Moore’s law states that the number of transistors on a microchip doubles approximately every two years. This observation was made by Intel co-founder Gordon Moore in 1965 and it become a guiding principle for the semiconductor industry and has had far-reaching implications for technology as a whole.

Disruptive Innovation

disruptive-innovation
Disruptive innovation as a term was first described by Clayton M. Christensen, an American academic and business consultant whom The Economist called “the most influential management thinker of his time.” Disruptive innovation describes the process by which a product or service takes hold at the bottom of a market and eventually displaces established competitors, products, firms, or alliances.

Value Migration

value-migration
Value migration was first described by author Adrian Slywotzky in his 1996 book Value Migration – How to Think Several Moves Ahead of the Competition. Value migration is the transferal of value-creating forces from outdated business models to something better able to satisfy consumer demands.

Bye-Now Effect

bye-now-effect
The bye-now effect describes the tendency for consumers to think of the word “buy” when they read the word “bye”. In a study that tracked diners at a name-your-own-price restaurant, each diner was asked to read one of two phrases before ordering their meal. The first phrase, “so long”, resulted in diners paying an average of $32 per meal. But when diners recited the phrase “bye bye” before ordering, the average price per meal rose to $45.

Groupthink

groupthink
Groupthink occurs when well-intentioned individuals make non-optimal or irrational decisions based on a belief that dissent is impossible or on a motivation to conform. Groupthink occurs when members of a group reach a consensus without critical reasoning or evaluation of the alternatives and their consequences.

Stereotyping

stereotyping
A stereotype is a fixed and over-generalized belief about a particular group or class of people. These beliefs are based on the false assumption that certain characteristics are common to every individual residing in that group. Many stereotypes have a long and sometimes controversial history and are a direct consequence of various political, social, or economic events. Stereotyping is the process of making assumptions about a person or group of people based on various attributes, including gender, race, religion, or physical traits.

Murphy’s Law

murphys-law
Murphy’s Law states that if anything can go wrong, it will go wrong. Murphy’s Law was named after aerospace engineer Edward A. Murphy. During his time working at Edwards Air Force Base in 1949, Murphy cursed a technician who had improperly wired an electrical component and said, “If there is any way to do it wrong, he’ll find it.”

Law of Unintended Consequences

law-of-unintended-consequences
The law of unintended consequences was first mentioned by British philosopher John Locke when writing to parliament about the unintended effects of interest rate rises. However, it was popularized in 1936 by American sociologist Robert K. Merton who looked at unexpected, unanticipated, and unintended consequences and their impact on society.

Fundamental Attribution Error

fundamental-attribution-error
Fundamental attribution error is a bias people display when judging the behavior of others. The tendency is to over-emphasize personal characteristics and under-emphasize environmental and situational factors.

Outcome Bias

outcome-bias
Outcome bias describes a tendency to evaluate a decision based on its outcome and not on the process by which the decision was reached. In other words, the quality of a decision is only determined once the outcome is known. Outcome bias occurs when a decision is based on the outcome of previous events without regard for how those events developed.

Hindsight Bias

hindsight-bias
Hindsight bias is the tendency for people to perceive past events as more predictable than they actually were. The result of a presidential election, for example, seems more obvious when the winner is announced. The same can also be said for the avid sports fan who predicted the correct outcome of a match regardless of whether their team won or lost. Hindsight bias, therefore, is the tendency for an individual to convince themselves that they accurately predicted an event before it happened.

Read Next: BiasesBounded RationalityMandela EffectDunning-Kruger EffectLindy EffectCrowding Out EffectBandwagon Effect.

Main Guides:

Discover more from FourWeekMBA

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Scroll to Top
FourWeekMBA