Peterson's CASVE cycle

Have you heard of the CASVE cycle? This is an old piece of career decision-making kit, written up in the 1990s, detailing five steps of: communication, analysis, synthesis, valuing, and execution (Peterson et al., 1996). It walking us through a range of problem solving and decision making ideas, fitting neatly with the Cognitive Information Processing (CIP) theory. This is where career choice is seen as a process of problem-solving; effectively closing the 'gap' between not-knowing and knowing (Peterson et al., 1996). 

The CASVE Cycle is as follows (Peterson et al., 1996): 

1. Communication: this is effectively gap analysis (so 'communication' is not an apt term!). We encounter a career 'problem' through internal signals (e.g. nervousness or indecision), or external demands (e.g. an enrolment deadline) which we need to get our head around. Like the "defining the problem" of Krumboltz and Hamel (1980, read more here) Decides model, we need to get our heads around the decision ahead of us, and defining the gap between where we are now, and where we want to get to (Peterson et al., 1996).
2. Analysis: here we work out what has caused the block, creating a mental model of the problem by mapping the puzzle pieces together, including an inventory of things we might need: such as relationships and knowledge gaps we need to fill (Peterson et al., 1996).
3. Synthesis: in order to synthesise, we run two processes. Firstly, we 'elaborate' (another stupid term, imho) where we get creative and brainstorm the widest possible range of options. Secondly, we start knocking out options which don't fit, bringing our options into focus or 'crystallising' them to "a more manageable set of viable alternatives" (Peterson et al., 1996, p. 436).
4. Valuing: this step is basically evaluating the viable alternatives from step 3, assigning likely costs and benefits to ourselves, those around us, and - if we are socially-inclined - our community. Each one is 'weighed up' based how likely it is to close the gap we identified in step 1. By the end of this step, we should have a tentative first choice and "an internal[...] commitment to act" (Peterson et al., 1996, p. 437).
5. Execution: in this last step we build a plan to put our chosen alternative into action, using a "means-ends analysis" (Peterson et al., 1996, p. 437), similar to Doran's SMART goals (1981). We set short-, mid- and long-term goals, and start taking the actions to put our plans in motion. 

To close the cycle, after we have 'executed' our plan, we should go back to step 1 to review whether the gap has now been closed. If not, we go around again (Peterson et al., 1996).

If you read this model in the original, the language used is quite scientific and task-focused (Peterson et al., 1996). As a result, I think this model suits those who are more scientific, more process-oriented, who like more clearly delineated steps and who align with rational and logical solutions.

Understanding that there are a range of processes available for clients to work with, and that we can find a process that suits each of us is a wonderful thing.

Sam

References:

Doran, G. T. (1981). There's a S.M.A.R.T. way to write managements' goals and objectives. Management Review, 70(11), 35-36.

Krumboltz, J. D., & Hamel, D. A. (1980, August). The Effect of Decision Training on Career Decision-Making Competence (No. ARITR487). US Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA124139.pdf

Peterson, G. W., Sampson, J. P., Jr., Reardon, R. C., & Lenz, J. G. (1996). A cognitive information processing approach to career problem solving and decision making. In D. Brown, L. Brooks, & Associates (Eds.), Career Choice and Development (3rd ed., pp. 423–475). Jossey-Bass.

 * NotebookLM was used to create the graphic accompanying this post