EFFECTIVE
GROUP
DISCUSSION
Theory and Practice
Twelfth Edition
CHAPTER 10
Problem-Solving &
Decision Making I: Defining a
Problem & Evaluating Options
© 2007 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Chapter Content
 Problem Solving & Decision Making
 Group versus Individual Problem Solving &
Decision Making
 Factors Affecting Quality of Group Outputs
 Need for Structure in Group Problem Solving
 Problem-Solving Guidelines
 Procedural Model of Problem Solving, Steps
One through Three
© 2007 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Problem Solving &
Decision Making
 Problem
 Problem solving
 Decision making
© 2007 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Group versus Individual Problem
Solving & Decision Making
 Advantages of groups:
 Assembly effect
 Better decisions
 Compensation for others’ weaknesses
 Ability to process more information
 Different perspectives on a problem
 Greater acceptance of a decision
 Satisfaction of belonging & affection needs
Continued
© 2007 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Group versus Individual Problem
Solving & Decision Making
 Disadvantages of groups:
 Longer time to make decisions
 Pressure to conform from group members
 Strained relationships among members
© 2007 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
So, when is it worth the trouble?
 Solution Multiplicity
 Population Acceptance
 Sufficient Time
© 2007 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Factors Affecting
Quality of Group Outputs
 Input factors
 Type of task
 Conjunctive
 Disjunctive
 Abilities of members
 Integrative complexity
 Need for cognition
Continued
© 2007 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Factors Affecting
Quality of Group Outputs
 Throughput factors
 Communication among members
 Full group member participation
 Group’s climate
© 2007 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Intuitive Problem-Solving
 Steps …
 Conception
 Preparation
 Incubation
 Illumination
 Verification
 “Trust but Verify”
 Graham Wallis’ approach
© 2007 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Need for Structure in
Group Problem Solving
 Without structure, groups:
 Move randomly between ideas
 Produce lower quality output
Continued
© 2007 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Need for Structure in
Group Problem Solving
 Organized problem-solving discussions
allow groups to:
 Balance participation
 Improve reflectiveness
 Coordinate group members’ thinking
 Establish important ground rules for
proceeding
© 2007 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Functional Perspective


Communication influences the quality
of solutions
Guidelines
© 2007 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Functional Perspective

Task requirements for groups to
succeed:
1. Understand the issue
2. Determine minimal characteristics of
acceptable alternatives (Criteria)
3. Determine relevant and realistic
alternatives
4. Examine the alternatives
5. Select the best alternative
© 2007 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Problem-Solving Guidelines
 Procedural Model of Problem Solving
(P-MOPS)
 Single Question Format
 Ideal Solution Format
Continued
© 2007 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Procedural Model of Problem
Solving (P-MOPS)
 General model
 Major steps:
1. Problem description & analysis
2. Generating & elaborating on possible
solutions
3. Evaluating possible solutions
4. Consensus decision making
5. Implementing the solution chosen
© 2007 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Single Question Format


Less-structured
Major steps:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Identify the problem question
Create a collaborative setting
Identify and analyze the issues
Identify possible solutions
Resolve the single question
© 2007 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Ideal Solution Format

Major steps:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Identify the nature of the problem
Identify the ideal solution
Identify the conditions that must change
Select the most ideal solution
© 2007 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Comparison of Problem-Solving
Guidelines
Figure 10.1 Comparison of the Questions Addressed by Three Problem-Solving
Guidelines
© 2007 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Step 1 of P-MOPS:
Problem Description & Analysis
 1A: Understand the charge and area of
freedom
 1B: Understand the type of question to
be addressed
 Question of fact, value, conjecture, or policy
 1C: Focus on the problem
Continued
© 2007 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Step 1 of P-MOPS:
Problem Description & Analysis
 1D: State the problem appropriately
 Solution questions versus problem questions
 1E: Map the problem
 Use the problem census to discover
problems
© 2007 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Step 2 of P-MOPS: Generating &
Elaborating on Possible Solutions
 2A: Identify as many good ideas as you can
 Use brainstorming to discover alternatives
 2B: Defer judgment during discussion to
identify options
 2C: Discuss criteria for evaluating solutions
 Absolute and relative criteria
© 2007 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Step 3 of P-MOPS:
Evaluating Possible Solutions
 3A: Establish a collaborative climate for
evaluation
 3B: Establish norms that promote
critical thinking
 Identify negatives about all possible
solutions
Continued
© 2007 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Step 3 of P-MOPS:
Evaluating Possible Solutions
 Evaluate information
 Distinguish between facts and inferences
 Evaluate survey and statistical data
 Evaluate the sources and implications of
opinions
Continued
© 2007 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
© 2007 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Statements of Fact &
Statements of Opinion & Inference
Figure 10.4 Comparing Statements of Fact and Statements of Opinion and
Inference
© 2007 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Step 3 of P-MOPS:
Evaluating Possible Solutions
 Evaluate reasoning -- Fallacies
 Overgeneralizing
 Ad hominem attacks
 Suggesting inappropriate causal
relationships
 False dilemmas
 Faulty analogies
 Precedent
© 2007 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Step 3 of P-MOPS:
Evaluating Possible Solutions
Criteria for evaluating information and
reasoning from the Internet:
 Accuracy
 Credible authority
 Audience
 Purpose
 Recency
 Coverage
© 2007 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Notes on Chapter 10
 Whatever outline you use, you first must
achieve a thorough understanding of
your problem.
 The more good quality options you
generate, and the more thoroughly and
objectively you evaluate them, the
better your group’s chance of achieving
the best solution.
© 2007 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.