Based on the reading of the Challenger case , do you think the advocacy or inquiry approach dominated the decision making process? Why?
Yes I feel that advocacy as well as inquiry both approach dominated the decision making process in the Challenger because productive advocacy helped move the collective thinking of the group forward, to
create shared understanding and direction, and turn words and ideas into coordinated action. It also helped reveal and resolve potential flaws in reasoning, gaps, in information and conflict in goals. Advocating
brought awareness of others, skills in speaking and in listening, sensitivity, respectfulness and humility.
Do you think that DeBono’s parallel thinking would have worked in the Challenger situation? Why/Why not?
My opinion about DeBono’s parallel thinking wouldn’t have worked in the Challenger case base on the different hats for parallel thinking. For example Blue hats manages the thinking process by timekeeping,
moderating, and ensuring the thinking hat guidelines are observed. White hat calls and provides facts and data that are known or needed. Green hats focuses on alternatives, new perception, or fresh ideas.
Yellow hat finds the value and benefits of ideas and supporting concepts. Red hats acknowledges feelings like fear, disappointment, enthusiasm, and expresses intuitions or hunches.Black hat spots problems
and tries to make the best argument against an idea.
What relationships do you see between the material for this week and prior course material?
The relationship I see between the material for this week and prior course material is it all relates to decision making and critical thinking. I’ve learned the 7 steps to effective decision making process, steps to
critical thinking and now the Hats to Parallel thinking.
DeBono, E. (2012, Feb. 12) Six Thinking Hats [Video file]. https:”keiseruniversity.blackboard.com/webapps/.execute/content/file?