75
Prospective Sensemaking
Weick ( 1995), sensemaking is triggered by uncertainty or ambiguity, meaning situations involving both incomprehensibility as well as the possibility of several possible
interpretations. The following quote is illustrative, “… explicit efforts at sensemaking tend to occur when the current state of the world is perceived to be different from
the expected state of the world, or when there is no obvious way to engage the world”
( Weick et al., 2005:409).
Moreover, we as actors cannot relate to an objective reality out there that can
verify our efforts to make sense of something. Furthermore, retrospective means that
our ( attentional) creation of meaning, i.e., our sensemaking processes are targeted
primarily on the past for us to construct meaning to what is happening now, or as
Weick et al. ( 2005) describe, “… sensemaking involves the ongoing retrospective
development of plausible images that rationalize what people are doing. Viewed as a
significant process of organizing, sensemaking unfolds as a sequence in which people concerned with identity in the social context of other actors engage ongoing circumstances from which they extract cues and make plausible sense retrospectively,
while enacting more or less order into those ongoing circumstances” ( Weick et al.,
2005:409). Sensemaking is thus directed backwards from any distinct situation, i.e.,
whatever is going on now will be impacted by what one experiences when looking
backwards. It might be that trying to correctly identify a certain object in front is
hampered due to having successfully identified ( and got verification after some time)
a similar object several times before in the same position and at the same moment in
time. Arguably, our retrospective sensemaking can be biased.
At the same time, Weick’s approach to sensemaking implies that sensemaking
processes are put in motion only when people experience events or situations where
meaning becomes precarious, or worse, lost. Paradoxically, this means that when
everything goes smoothly or as planned, for example, when ship navigation proceeds as expected, Weick ( 1995) argues that sensemaking is not prominent per se,
hence also challenging to identify. Arguably, the crew on KNM Helge Ingstad can
be said to experience the sailing prior to the collision as “ normal”, in the sense that
none on the bridge uttered any immediate major concerns regarding the course of
events. Consequently, applying a traditional sensemaking perspective without anything being unnormal on the frigate bridge or within Hjeltefjorden per se would be
somewhat challenging from Weick’s position.
CONCEPTS RELATED TO SENSEMAKING
The concept of situation awareness ( SA) is well known within safety science as
well as various industries. Endsley ( 1995) defines SA as “… the perception of the
elements in the environment within a volume of time and space, the comprehension of their meaning and the projection of their status in the near future” ( Endsley,
1995:36). SA is a skill that has three cognitive phases: the first involving the ability to perceive elements in a situation. On a ship’s bridge it can involve perceiving
an increase in speed. Phase two is about comprehension of a given situation, i.e.,
perceived elements become meaningful in the current situation. A speed increase
might be the result of new incoming information. The third phase implies projecting
the future state based on previous experience. Moreover, the concept of SA is often
Prospective Sensemaking
Weick ( 1995), sensemaking is triggered by uncertainty or ambiguity, meaning situations involving both incomprehensibility as well as the possibility of several possible
interpretations. The following quote is illustrative, “… explicit efforts at sensemaking tend to occur when the current state of the world is perceived to be different from
the expected state of the world, or when there is no obvious way to engage the world”
( Weick et al., 2005:409).
Moreover, we as actors cannot relate to an objective reality out there that can
verify our efforts to make sense of something. Furthermore, retrospective means that
our ( attentional) creation of meaning, i.e., our sensemaking processes are targeted
primarily on the past for us to construct meaning to what is happening now, or as
Weick et al. ( 2005) describe, “… sensemaking involves the ongoing retrospective
development of plausible images that rationalize what people are doing. Viewed as a
significant process of organizing, sensemaking unfolds as a sequence in which people concerned with identity in the social context of other actors engage ongoing circumstances from which they extract cues and make plausible sense retrospectively,
while enacting more or less order into those ongoing circumstances” ( Weick et al.,
2005:409). Sensemaking is thus directed backwards from any distinct situation, i.e.,
whatever is going on now will be impacted by what one experiences when looking
backwards. It might be that trying to correctly identify a certain object in front is
hampered due to having successfully identified ( and got verification after some time)
a similar object several times before in the same position and at the same moment in
time. Arguably, our retrospective sensemaking can be biased.
At the same time, Weick’s approach to sensemaking implies that sensemaking
processes are put in motion only when people experience events or situations where
meaning becomes precarious, or worse, lost. Paradoxically, this means that when
everything goes smoothly or as planned, for example, when ship navigation proceeds as expected, Weick ( 1995) argues that sensemaking is not prominent per se,
hence also challenging to identify. Arguably, the crew on KNM Helge Ingstad can
be said to experience the sailing prior to the collision as “ normal”, in the sense that
none on the bridge uttered any immediate major concerns regarding the course of
events. Consequently, applying a traditional sensemaking perspective without anything being unnormal on the frigate bridge or within Hjeltefjorden per se would be
somewhat challenging from Weick’s position.
CONCEPTS RELATED TO SENSEMAKING
The concept of situation awareness ( SA) is well known within safety science as
well as various industries. Endsley ( 1995) defines SA as “… the perception of the
elements in the environment within a volume of time and space, the comprehension of their meaning and the projection of their status in the near future” ( Endsley,
1995:36). SA is a skill that has three cognitive phases: the first involving the ability to perceive elements in a situation. On a ship’s bridge it can involve perceiving
an increase in speed. Phase two is about comprehension of a given situation, i.e.,
perceived elements become meaningful in the current situation. A speed increase
might be the result of new incoming information. The third phase implies projecting
the future state based on previous experience. Moreover, the concept of SA is often