I’m digging further into the cognitive processes used by EOD technicians. Let me be clear that I’m not suggesting that all EOD operators struggle, just that the process of threat assessment and RSP development can be tricky.
One of the things that some nations or organisations try to do is to reduce EOD into “decision trees”… i.e reduce the process of threat assessment and RSP development to an algorithm. This is an interesting process to participate in, fascinating, looks good on paper but invariably falls down in the field, in my humble opinion. The mind is not a computer that processes information towards an end decision point – it is much more complex than that. IED incidents are very complex things with too many variables for a decision tree. Reducing the mind’s process to a crude decision tree does not optimize the potential to make much more refined decisions in much more complex environments than algorithmic decision trees allow.
An IED incident I think can be distilled as a puzzle (see below) to which 4 cognitive steps are applied
1. Memory – information from training and intelligence from previous incidents or sources
2. Perception – the ability to order and understand data as they appear in front of you
3. Imagination – The ability to use the information/intelligence you have to see what might happen
4. Decision making – what can be done to affect the future.
It seems to me that EOD operators fail, regularly in bad operators, indeed almost predictably, at functions 2 and 4. But could that be improved by improving cognitive function 1 – Memory? And we improve memory by better training and better delivery of intelligence. Improving training is a perennial activity – but how much work has been done to optimize the delivery of intelligence in forms that are better absorbed and understood?Modern technology allows intelligence to be delivered in all sorts of media – but I’ve never seen studies which review the optimal methods of delivering intelligence data. This is an area that interests me greatly.
In my next blog I’ll discuss the different sorts of cognitive “memory” that we use and also make a personal point about EOD teams and the widely held concept of two heads are better than one when it comes to threat assessment – which I think is either wrong, or poorly implemented, or the dangers it provides are not recognised.
As ever comments are welcome.
Curious to read more about this topic…
As an EOD tech and now trainer, I learned that good EOD work is decision making, with a little bit more. Decision making under often great pressure, but with a creative element. The 'Macguyver' factor, if you will. Because no two incidents are the same, and there is no single solution to any given problem, those who can make solid decisions quickly, based on a large mental library of history/items/events, that can adapt and improvise on the fly, are the best EOD techs. Plus, there is a disturbingly large number of techs that are not passionate about their craft. Passion drives one to continue learning, inventing, and discovering are critical to success in this field.
EODinert- I agree 100%. Creative thinking is important as is a willingness to think outside the box and not to rely on drills , as important as they are. I think your point about passion is important too – the curious succeed – I like the use of the word "discovering", because I think that's what its all about, this EOD lark.