CHAPTER 6:
PROBLEM & SOLUTION IDENTIFICATION
Chapter Outline
9.
1.
2.
3.
Problem & solution identification issues
PSID vs. decision-making
Identifying problems vs. solutions
Time orientation/reactive vs. proactive
Larson’s Single Question Patterns
10. Posner & Simon’s Hierarchical Strategies
11. Cummings, Long, & Lewis’ Elaborated
Hierarchical Strategy
Principles for Problem Solving
Avoid selection bias
Continuous information gathering
Avoid premature evaluation
Set acceptance criteria
Support differentiation
Maximize involvement
12. Using Teams
Teams vs. Committees
When to Use Teams
Team Advantages
Team Purpose
Team Composition
Process Action Team Membership
Dewey’s Reflective Thinking
4.
Koehler’s RPIM & Cause/Effect Strategy
5.
Koehler’s PAIM & Goal Achievement
Strategy
6.
Brainstorming
7.
Gordon & Prince’s Synectics
8.
Turner’s Inertia Activation
13. Decision Tools for Teams
Typical Pattern for Tool Application
Uses of Tools
Flowcharting
Brainstorming Techniques
Aspect Grouping
Interrelationship Digraph
Fish Bone
Task & Objective Plan
Problem & Solution Identification Issues
Organizational problem and solution identification is most effective when
managers have a variety of problem-solving models to select from. It is problematic
when the same technique is used all of the time because some approaches are best in
certain circumstances and worst in others. Consequently, this chapter will describe 10
different models that are commonly used.
PSID vs. decision-making. Problem-solving or problem and solution
identification (PSID) is commonly viewed as a general process that begins with a felt
need and results in selecting a solution to satisfy that need. Often, the terms “problemsolving” and “decision-making” are used interchangeably in work settings. However,
6-1
these concepts are different. Problem solving is a broad process that involves all
communication functions. In contrast, decision-making, or selecting a course of action,
is the consequence of problem identification, solution identification, and solution
selection.
Identifying problems vs. solutions. Identifying problems and identifying
solutions are specialized activities that constitute the PSID communication function.
Past research and practice, however, seldom differentiates between these activities
and the consequent impact on decisions that are made. So, we initially need to
examine how time orientation influences perspective.
Time orientation. One way to differentiate among PSID models is by time
orientation. Some models are reactive, post-hoc, a’ posteriori, or, simply, “after the
fact.” Other approaches are proactive or a’ priori (Koehler, 1975). Thus, PSID models
may be placed along a continuum with proactive and reactive as end-points (see Figure
6-1).
Koehler described short-term decisions as reactive because they are responses
to unanticipated, occasionally
negative, events. Proactive
activities are long-term
organizational planning
processes and procedures.
They are typically tied to a
Reactive Approach
1. Short-term decisions
2. Need for immediate attention
3. “fire fighter” mentality
Proactive Approach
1. Long-term decisions
2. More time
3. “preventive maintenance”
mentality
Figure 6-1
sequence of steps that are
followed in order to reach goals.
Visualizing reactive and proactive as opposite ends of a continuum highlight
differences in perspective. Reaction represents a “fire fighter” approach to problem
solving. In other words, one waits until something goes wrong, and when the problem
is discovered, a procedure to solve the problem is applied. In contrast, proactive
approaches do not wait for a dysfunction to occur before a procedure is implemented.
6-2
Instead, a proactive manager would look for potential obstacles or methods of
improvement – a type of “preventive maintenance” approach. By analogy, you take a
reactive approach to healthcare when you buy medicine to treat flu symptoms you have
acquired. Had you been proactive with respect to catching the flu, you would have
gotten a flu shot “before the fact!”
Principles for Problem Solving
Each model discussed in this chapter contains unique characteristics and
assumptions. Yet, successful application requires adherence to a shared set of
communication principles:
1. Avoid model selection bias. This principle can take many forms. For
example, most organizations use reactive models exclusively. Why? The reasons are
many and include – fire fighter mentality, lack of appreciation for inherent benefits of
different models, interpersonal relationship weaknesses, poor communication skills,
refusal to delegate responsibility and authority, etc. This PSID “rut” assumes past
answers to problems will always work in the future. There is value in learning from the
past; however, to hold rigidly to this assumption is to deny the dynamic nature of PSID
processes and the inevitability of changing conditions.
2. Continually gather information. Regardless of the model or time
orientation, information gathering and analysis is critical. Quite often problems are
poorly defined, unworkable solutions are selected, or organizational goals that play key
roles in prioritizing problems and solutions lack clarity. Thus, continual research, or
avid use of the adaptive subsystem, recognizes the dynamic nature of organizations. It
is critical and basic to effective problem solving. Poor information management is often
the culprit that inhibits this principle.
3. Avoid premature evaluation. We are often in such a rush to make a
decision and reduce tension that we neglect to use our critical thinking skills – we
conclude a problem is defined before it is, oversimplify our analysis, and reach into our
“bag of tricks” for a solution. Why? There are many reasons – intolerance for
6-3
ambiguity, pressure to produce, desire to eliminate irritant, and short-term thinking
without consideration of long-term consequences.
4. Set acceptance criteria before making a decision. In both proactive and
reactive modes, boundaries are necessary. For example, important time is often
wasted discussing solutions that are unaffordable or unmanageable. This happens
because decision selection criteria aren’t agreed upon early. Beyond wasting time,
unstated criteria many lead to PSID conflicts, unknown to participants at the time of
discussion, because individuals often are working from different sets of criteria.
5. Establish an environment conducive to differentiation. Low trust levels
lead to hidden agendas, lack of disclosure, deceptive practices, and distorted or
retarded information-gathering outcomes. Differentiation is, put quite simply, the
communication of differences. Differences in viewpoint, perception, knowledge, and
values need to be expressed and properly processed during PSID. Healthy
differentiation allows disagreement, consideration of alternatives, and advocacy of
different perspectives without feeling defensive or threatened. Research indicates that
differentiation is critical to the quality and efficacy of PSID outcomes (Folger & Poole,
1984).
6. Maximize involvement. Clearly, there are times when involvement in PSID
should be limited. However, when decisions are made that have widespread
ramifications, they are much more difficult to implement if participant “buy in” was not
achieved during the PSID process. Sometimes decision-makers fear that participation
will inhibit their ability to employ a preferred outcome. Consequently, they often
suggest that others “. . . simply do not have the knowledge or experience needed to
come up with a solution.” While this may be true in some instances, this adage is often
abused and employees are not involved when they should be. Often, decision-makers
acquire this characteristic as a management style, exclaiming (usually silently, but
overtly through behaviors), “I am hired to make decisions and you are hired to carry
them out because I know more than you do!” While there may be some validity to this
assertion, increasing complexities in organizations, limits in human information
6-4
processing, and resistance to change tendencies have significantly reduced the viability
of this position. In other words, managers should consider the following caveats:
•
Today’s manager cannot know all that is needed to adequately solve problems
and anticipate barriers to future goals.
•
Employees are more involved in their work when they participate in problem
solving processes.
•
Employees who participate in problem solving processes report higher levels of
job satisfaction.
•
Increased participation enhances information-gathering activity.
•
Increased participation increases operational degrees of freedom.
Now that PSID issues and principles
Relative Complexity of PSID Models
Elaborated Hierarchical
Hierarchical
Single Question Patterns
Inertia Activation
Synectics
Brainstorming
Goal Achievement
Cause/effect
Reflective Thinking
have been discussed, we will devote the
MOST COMLEX
remainder of the chapter to describing
10 specific models. These models are
presented in order, from the least to
most complex (figure 6-2). Here,
LEAST COMPLEX
increasing levels of complexity are
Figure 6-2
based upon each subsequent model having the capacity to assume the characteristics
or use the elements in each previous model.
Reflective Thinking
How We Think (Dewey, 1910) was
Reflective Thinking
the catalyst for describing steps in problem
1. Felt difficulty (problem ID)
2. Difficulty isolated & defined (problem ID)
3. Solutions suggested (solution ID)
4. Solutions examined by criteria (solution ID)
5. Solution selected & implemented (solution ID)
6. Based on outcome, solution retained or
rejected; if rejected, process repeated (PSID)
solving. In this book, a step-by-step
cognitive, response to individual problems
was suggested and called the “reflective
thinking process.” Reflective thinking
Figure 6-3
consisted of 6 steps (see Figure 6 -3). This
6-5
model shows a concern for problem and solution identification and implies an inherent
value in collective decision-making.
A key part of this model is in step 4. What should be the criteria for identifying
solutions? Are there any criteria for identifying and defining the perceived difficulty in
step 1? Criteria and felt difficulties are difficult to describe until the organization’s
culture – values and beliefs – are assessed.
Dewey’s work has had a tremendous impact on PSID theorists. Many models
are little more than a slight modification of Dewey’s work. The strength of this
approach is that it is logical, time-tested, and works well for personal problem solving.
Its weakness is that it assumes needed information is accessible. This assumption,
however, is not always valid. For example, contemporary research has established
that humans are not capable of gathering, analyzing, and organizing all information
needed for perfect problem solving.
RPIM or Cause/Effect Strategy
Koehler’s Reactive Problem Identification Model (RPIM) is a cause/effect
strategy (Figure 6-4). These strategies are used often everyday. They direct the user
to identify the cause of a problem and then act to remove the cause. Then, the
problem should disappear. There are 3 steps in these strategies: (1) identify an
undesirable condition, (2) define the cause of the condition (problem ID), and (3)
identify ways to remove the cause and implement (solution ID).
RPIM extends these steps. It begins with defining expectations, which are
“desirable” organizational outcomes. If
productivity is a high priority, then it
becomes a significant part of expected
outcomes. The second step is to
describe what occurred. This includes
defining conditions or situation that
Koehler’s RPIM
UNANTICIPATED NEGATIVE REACTION
1. Define expectations
2. Describe outcomes
3. Identify effects on personal & organizational goals
4. Identify negative effects, if any
5. Identify cause of negative effects
CAUSE IS THE PROBLEM
Figure 6-4
6-6
deviated from expectations. Step 3 is concerned with the impact on personal and
organizational goals. Step 4 consists of identifying negative effect. Step 5 requires
definition of specific element that caused the negative effect. Then removal of the
causes becomes the solution.
There is a certain “street-wise” logic to cause/effect strategies. Unfortunately,
problems rarely have one cause. If this is the case, some of the more complex models
should be used.
PAIM or Goal Achievement Strategy
Goal achievement strategies are common when there is a dominant
organizational belief that the organization is a group of people collaborating to achieve
an outcome. This approach differ slightly from the cause effect approach, following this
3-step question pattern: (1) what is the organization’s objective/goal, (2) what
frustrates or is a barrier to achieving the goal (problem ID), and how can the barrier(s)
be removed (solution ID). Here the difference is obvious in that cause-effect models
tend to focus on problems inherent in a previous condition, assuming that previous
causal conditions are the problems. Goal achievement strategies, however, assume
that the organization is goal oriented, that future or present conditions are causal
agents, and these causal agents are the problem. Here the solution is to remove
current and potential barriers. Often, cause/effect decision makers move to a goal
achievement strategy when they say, “what can we do to insure this circumstance
doesn’t happen again?”
It is important that goal-setting models project future barriers. This requires
clear, mutual understanding of short, intermediate, and long run goals. However, this is
often an organizational weakness.
Koehler’s PAIM
Overcoming this weakness requires
carefully designed, at least annual,
GOAL
1. Determine obstacles to goal achievement
long-range planning. When this is
2. Identify controllable obstacles that affect outcomes
done, Koehler’s Pro-Active
3. Define causes of controllable obstacles
Identification Model (PAIM) can make
CAUSE IS THE PROBLEM
an excellent contribution to
Figure
6-5
organizational success (figure 6-5).
6-7
PAIM begins with determining all possible obstacles an organization might
encounter in achieving a goal. Step 2 focuses on defining obstacles that are
controllable. Step 3 is a comprehensive definition of all obstacles to goal achievement
– these are the problems to be identified. The steps a similar to the cause/effect
model, yet are also quite different because they are a’ priori or “before the fact.” It is
common, for example, to combine RPIM and PAIM models.
Brainstorming
Decision theorists have known for some time that PSID is difficult because
employees are afraid to risk public evaluation of their ideas. To combat the fear of
public scrutiny, they propose that people should be permitted to generate ideas in an
open and free environment. In this way, creative, high-quality solutions can be
realized. There are many techniques used to achieve this end. A common approach is
to write down an idea and post it on the wall. This is called silent brainstorming. It is
common for a group of 5 or 6 people to generate 60 or 70 ideas in a 5-minute silent
brainstorming session.
Brainstorming has 3 steps. Step 1 is free expression of ideas without
evaluation. Step 2 is creation of an environment that assures full participation of all
during the interchange of ideas. Obviously, the trust level must be high in order to
achieve step 2. Step 3 is evaluation. This begins only when all ideas have had
complete and unevaluated expression.
Nothing in these steps focuses on identifying problems or solutions. This is a
process for generating these – it is multi-purposive. Hence, it is more complicated to
use since it is done in conjunction with other models.
Brainstorming has been often studied in terms of its capacity to lead to high
quality decisions. Overall, evidence is mixed – in some cases it works, in others it
doesn’t. Many have challenged it for being time consuming. However, new methods
(e.g., silent brainstorming) have recently been found as much more productive when
compared to conventional discussions. It seems apparent that the approach, when
6-8
applied correctly in a supportive environment, will produce more ideas than other
methods. Whether or not the ideas are applied successfully is beyond the scope of this
model.
Synectics
Gordon (1961) and Prince (1968) developed synectics. This model is similar to
brainstorming, but is a bit more complex because it is based on a different assumption.
Synectics assumes that beyond the employees, themselves are obstacles to PSID. To
overcome this obstacle, the model allows and encourages the use of an active
imagination in its first step. Step 1 consists of fantasizing what you would do if you
could to improve or change conditions in the organization (solution ID). Step 2 consists
of evaluating the solution’s strengths and weaknesses (solution ID). Step 3 is a repeat
of the fantasize-evaluation sequence until consensus develops on one or more
solutions, followed by a consideration of how the solution may be implemented
(problem ID).
This is the method used by many futurists who ponder the impact of technology.
For example, an entrepreneur may fantasize about solution (Internet and World Wide
Web) and what problems the solution could solve (e.g., information accessibility,
marketing channel inefficiencies, etc.).
Synectics represents a reversal from other sequences with the solution being
explored first, followed by problem identification. This strategy assumes that when
peoples’ imaginations are “fired up,” they can generate creative solutions to problems
never before experienced.
Inertia Activation
Some experts in labor negotiations claim that the “two warring factions – often
the union and the company – should be locked up I a room and not allowed to come
out until they have an agreement.” This assumes that after a period of forced inactivity,
or inertia, a sudden burst of energy will follow, and that this activity should produce
6-9
meaningful results (Turner, 1964). Turner described inertia as following this general
process:
Step 1: Place people who share the same values and preoccupations together
(value convergence) to identify problems and solutions. OR, select a group
composed of those with different values and preoccupations (value divergence).
Step 2: Activate values and predispositions by directing the group’s attention
toward a specific situation or event requiring attention.
Step 3: When sufficient levels of frustration are generated by agitation (by the
assigned task), the inert tendency to avoid activity will be followed by an energy
release or explosion.
This was a commonly used teaching technique during the 1960’s and 1970’s on
college campuses. The typical classroom reaction was silence. Within a short period
of time, however, class members would mobilize in order to meet deadlines (often a
group project).
Single Question Patterns
Single Question Patterns
Single question
patterns (Larson, 1969) begin
with the question: What is
the problem? (see figure 6 -6)
Then, the single question is
divided into parts or sub-
1. What single question, which when answered, means the
organization knows how to accomplish its purpose
2. What sub-questions must be answered to the question in #1
3. Is there sufficient information (if yes, go to #5; if no, go to #4)
4. What are most reasonable answers to questions
5. If sub-question answers are adequate, what is best solution
6. How will this be implemented
Figure 6-6
questions. Step 3 calls for
information gathering, followed by an assessment of solution feasibility in step 4.
This approach is similar to the process of preparing a speech outline, or
constructing an argument in a debate: (1) decide on the specific theme and/or
purpose, (2) divide the speech into its main points or topics, and (3) support each main
topic with evidence in the sub-topics. This is actually the process of “chunking”
6-10
described in chapter 5. Often, this model is used with brainstorming, either in reactive
and proactive circumstances.
Hierarchical Strategies
Posner (1963) and Simon (1969) made significant contributions to this approach
suggesting 3 general steps. Step 1 is to structure the problem into parts of chunks
(problem ID). Step 2 consists of ordering the chunks, hierarchically, from most to least
important (problem ID). Step 3 is selecting a solution that matches the hierarchical
importance of the problem (solution ID).
Advocates of this approach view other models as inadequate citing the
assumption of sufficient information. In contrast, hierarchical approaches argue that
there are degrees of information (consistent with information theory). Thus, the
approach recognizes levels of complexity in PSID. The model gives equivalent
emphasis to selecting a solution “good enough” for a problem, a concept that Simon
labeled as the process of “sufficing.”
Several conditions in organizations make this approach is very difficult to use.
For example, problems are often too complex to simply select a solution for each
“chunk” or part. Furthermore, the amount of available information for each part varies
and often problem areas overlap. Finally, the act of communicating to make a decision
is inherently limited by characteristics and skills of those persons involved.
How, then, can a hierarchical strategy be applied to complex problems? When
communication principles we discussed in chapters 1 through 6 are combined with this
model, the consequence is the elaborated hierarchical model. This combination of
elements, firmly entrenched in systemic thinking, provides an approach for capitalizing
upon the advantages of the previously described models.
6-11
Elaborated Hierarchical Model
The elaborated hierarchical model (EHM) assumes multiple, overlapping causes
of problems. The approach accents an initial step (Step 1 ) of identifying the problem,
but also emphasizes identifying problem complexity: How many problems require
attention (see figure 6-7); how many problem parts are there? In this way, problemrelated information is chunked in
Elaborated Hierarchical Model
usable, meaningful ways. Without
information chunking, the decisionmaker cannot deal with the typical vast
amounts of information that complex
organizations contain.
1. Identify problem according to complexity
2. Locate problem in context
3. Order sub-problems according to importance. Is each
important enough to justify an investment of time &
energy
4. Identify solutions to problems
5. Assess possible consequences for solution
implementation
Figure 6-7
Step 2 requires locating the
problem in context. In other words, problem ID begins by examining intraorganizational elements first, followed by an analysis of inter-organizational
relationships; likewise, intra-group or interpersonal contexts are examined first,
followed by inter-group or inter-departmental context assessment. Cyert and March
(1963) pointed out, “ . . . a failure of local search can lead decision-makers to more
complex search strategies,” often making a problem far more complicated and timeconsuming than it should be.
Communication concepts and principles provide the basis for problem location
(see figure 6-8). There are 3 dimensions of a problem: system location, content, and
function. System location may be intrinsic or extrinsic to the organization, i.e., internal
or external. Content is either work or person related. Functional dimensions are the
consequence of information exchange, problem/solution identification, behavior
regulation, and conflict management.
Thus, application of this model begins is very analytic, with full recognition of the
potential for complexities. Contextual location, then, consists of answering specific
questions: is the problem or problem part inside or outside the organization; is the
problem or problem part work- or person-related; is the problem related to information
6-12
exchange, problem-solving processes, behavior management, or conflict. When
combined, this combination of three dimensions produces 16 specific problem contexts.
The value of multi-dimensional contextual location is that problem complexities and
interactions are more likely to be considered.
Conflict management
Function
Behavior regulation
Problem & Solution ID
Information Exchange
Internal
System
External
WORK
PERSON
Content
Figure 6-8: 16 problem contexts
The third step required ordering by importance. Here, 3 questions are asked:
are the internal problems more important than external problems; are problems related
to work more important than those related to personal needs and goals; which
problems are most to least important – information exchange, problem/solution
identification, behavior regulation, conflict management? It’s important to remember
that societal, organizational, and personal values and beliefs will influence rank
ordering.
6-13
Step 4 requires solution identification for each problem in the same location or
context. Solution implementation follows the priority of importance established in step
3.
Step 5 is analysis of potential consequences for each solution to be
implemented. This is an important step because a new solution might induce new
problems. For example, one organization we are aware required a 10% budget
reduction across all departments. One executive proposed that all probationary
employees be terminated. When this solution was examined for its potential, it was
discovered that such a move would have virtually eliminated the information technology
division. Needless to say, that part of the plan was dropped.
This model is the most complex because it can be reactive or proactive and its
users can incorporate all of the other models during its application. The advantage of
the approach is that it recognizes complexities inherent in effective decision-making.
The weakness is that it is complex, requiring skilled communicators operating in a
supportive, trusting environment.
Using Teams
Teams vs. Committees
When to Use Teams
Team Advantages
Team Purpose
Team Composition
Who should be on a Process Action Team Membership
Decision Tools for Teams
Typical Pattern for Tool Application
Uses of Tools
Flowcharting
Brainstorming Techniques
Aspect Grouping
Interrelationship Digraph
Fish Bone
Task & Objective Plan
6-14