carter racing

In our seminar today, we reviewed this scenario known as the Carter Racing scenario. It's apparently pretty well known for being a good model to analyze decision-making, but none of us were quite ready for what it entailed.

The gist of it is this: Each seminar group must play a mock scenario where they are all members of the Carter Racing team. It is an hour before the race and the team members are all discussing how the gasket on the engine tends to blow and they don't know why. One member acts as the representative for Goodyear, this huge sponsorship company that is giving lots of financial incentive for Carter Racing to go through with the race. On the other hand, the mechanics state that there is a relationship with colder weather and the gaskets blowing and have weak evidence that suggests this trend. The driver also gets a say, and then the general managers must decide whether or not to continue. If they drive and win, there is a ridiculous amount of sponsorships and cash involved. If they drive and blow the gasket, they lose everything. There is also the possibility to withdraw from the race, end up 50 grand in the hole, but at least you won't be totally ruined.

There are three stages to the Carter Racing scenario, and at each stage you decide whether or not you want to go through with the race. The first stage was aforementioned, and includes the weak evidence that the gasket tends to blow more often below 20 degrees weather. The second stage elaborates in that the mechanic has 20 years of experience and has noticed that weather significantly affects the gasket breakdown. The final stage gives another graph that shows that above 20 degrees there are plenty of races without breakdowns, although no evidence is given for the temperature the race is currently experiencing (5 degrees - cold). They also mention that a new sealing technique has been used and the last two races have ended up fine.

Essentially, each stage gives you a little bit more information but not enough to make an obvious decision. The scenario is meant to pressure you by making you note that there is a lot on the line. It becomes extremely easy to avoid facing the evidence. Very few people (only one group out of 12) will be comfortable with backing up in the face of adversity in a pressured situation - gain seems to be more accessible than going in the hole and recouping. One group even said, "It's lame to not race".

I played the role of the mechanic, which ended up being appropriate because I didn't want to continue the race. The evidence suggested a trend that continuing the race would be irresponsible. However scant it was, I felt it was too risky to continue, regardless of how much incentive lay at the other end if we won. It's like gambling, right? There a lot of cash if you win, but you have to know when you're in over your head to call it quits - you can walk away better off and come back another day on more stable footing. I'm a conservative guy, so my thoughts were to just walk away. Ultimately, I was overruled by the General Manager who made the final decision to race despite my hesitations.

There is an answer to what happens. When we learned what it was, the entire room went silent, because the Carter Racing scenario was modeled on a very famous incident. The purpose of the scenario was to demonstrate the process that goes into decision-making with limited information, and the actions that people take as a result. While the consequences of the Carter Racing scenario versus the actual one differ entirely, both are dramatic analogies to how physiotherapists must practice with best evidence for the sake of the client.

***

Interesting analysis of Carter Racing Case.