1

Case Analysis

Case 1

Step 1

The first step towards analyzing the linked decisions that would be of concern to the USA

is understanding the basic decision problem. In this step, U.S should define the problem that

would arise if the Russian hackers were successful with what they intended to do. There are

numerous American secrets that are available in various American Intelligence programs that

would have been too detrimental if exposed to the outside world.

Step 2

The second step to carrying out this analysis is by understanding ways to reduce the

critical uncertainties. The U.S government needs to seek information that is that is capable of

reducing or resolving any possible future uncertainties, therefore improving its basic decision.

The government took this step when it decided to order Kaspersky software removed from all

government computers. Since the Russian hackers were using Kaspersky software to look for the

code names of American Intelligence Programs, removal of the software from government

computers is likely to stop them from succeeding.

Step 3

The third step includes identifying future decisions that are linked to the basic decision.

In this step, the U.S government has to list all the future decisions that they can think of and then

narrow the list down to the few ones that seem more significant. In this step, the U.S government

does not need to look too far ahead, instead just look for a natural time horizon. The most
 2

significant decisions here were removing Kaspersky software from government machines, and

finding enough evidence about the attack.

Step 4

The fourth step is understanding the relationships in linked decisions. Here, the U.S

government ought to draw a tree that represents the different links between the choices and

learned information in a specific sequence. The government needed to get the timing of the

decisions they make right. For instance, the removal of Kaspersky software from government

machines needed to be done at the right time, before too much information could be handed to

the hackers. In this step, the government also needs to describe the consequences at the end

points. For instance, what would be consequences of doing away with Kaspersky and is there a

better alternative?

Step 5

The fifth step involves making a decision on what to do in the basic decision. For

example, the U.S government could look to work backward in time and look at a time when their

data and secrets were safe under a different anti-virus software. The government could then

decide to ditch Kaspersky completely and use the alternative.

Step 6

The sixth and final step involves treating later decisions as new decisions. However well

the government will feel prepared earlier, when it actually reaches subsequent decision points, it

has to rethink the situation. The U.S government has to take advantage of any new knowledge

that it may have gathered to improve its plan.

 3

Case 2

Even in situations where there is a complete analysis and a forward path seems quite

clear, decision-making can still be a challenge. Sometimes the fault for some sub-standard

decisions does not come from the decision-making process, the information gathered, or the

completed analysis, but rather, the mind of the decision maker. Psychological traps are always

easy to fall for when it comes to making critical decisions. There are three main psychological

traps that USA decision makers should be aware of before deciding whether to continue using

Kaspersky products or not.

The Anchoring Trap

The anchoring trap is a very easy psychological trap to fall for. The initial question that

surrounds the decision of whether the USA government should continue using Kaspersky

products or not has already created an anchor. This type of trap leads the decision makers into

giving a disproportionate weight to the first information that they receive. Anchor come in

various ways ranging from old data, and even stereotypes. Two main keys to avoiding this trap is

through critical thinking and being open minded.

Being held hostage to the past

Once someone has made a bad decision, it can be embarrassing trying to cut losses and

running away. That might be the right thing to do; however, it might be too hard to admit a

mistake, especially one that has serious problems. There have been previous case of hacking in

the USA government and therefore the government’s decision makes should not be caught up in

this trap and be afraid of making the right decision due to mistakes of the past.
 4

The Framing Trap

This type of a psychological step occurs when information is presented in methods that

could possibly change perspective. The USA decision makes should be advised not to look at the

hacking problem from only its original frame as presented by Israel. They should always

consider a number of ways on how to evaluate the whole situation on whether to continue using

Kaspersky products or not.