Problem structuring methods

Last updated

Problem structuring methods (PSMs) are a group of techniques used to model or to map the nature or structure of a situation or state of affairs that some people want to change. [1] PSMs are usually used by a group of people in collaboration (rather than by a solitary individual) to create a consensus about, or at least to facilitate negotiations about, what needs to change. [2] Some widely adopted PSMs [1] include

Contents

Unlike some problem solving methods that assume that all the relevant issues and constraints and goals that constitute the problem are defined in advance or are uncontroversial, PSMs assume that there is no single uncontested representation of what constitutes the problem. [6]

PSMs are mostly used with groups of people, but PSMs have also influenced the coaching and counseling of individuals. [7]

History

The term "problem structuring methods" as a label for these techniques began to be used in the 1980s in the field of operations research, [8] especially after the publication of the book Rational Analysis for a Problematic World: Problem Structuring Methods for Complexity, Uncertainty and Conflict. [9] Some of the methods that came to be called PSMs had been in use since the 1960s. [2]

Thinkers who later came to be recognized as significant early contributors to the theory and practice of PSMs include: [10]

Types of situations that call for PSMs

In discussions of problem structuring methods, it is common to distinguish between two different types of situations that could be considered to be problems. [17] Rittel and Webber's distinction between tame problems and wicked problems (Rittel & Webber 1973) is a well known example of such types. [17] The following table lists similar (but not exactly equivalent) distinctions made by a number of thinkers between two types of "problem" situations, which can be seen as a continuum between a left and right extreme: [18]

Different types of situations, and thinkers who named them [18]
ThinkerLeft extremeRight extreme
Rittel & Webber Tame problemWicked problem
Herbert A. Simon Programmed decisionNon-programmed decision
Russell L. Ackoff Puzzle / ProblemMess
Jerome Ravetz Technical problemPractical problem
Ronald Heifetz Technical challengeAdaptive challenge
Peter Checkland Hard systemsSoft systems
Donald Schön The high groundThe swamp
Barry JohnsonProblems to solvePolarities to manage

Tame problems (or puzzles or technical challenges) have relatively precise, straightforward formulations that are often amenable to solution with some predetermined technical fix or algorithm. It is clear when these situations have changed in such a way that the problem can be called solved.

Wicked problems (or messes or adaptive challenges) have multiple interacting issues with multiple stakeholders and uncertainties and no definitive formulation. These situations are complex and have no stopping rule and no ultimate test of a solution.

PSMs were developed for situations that tend toward the wicked or "soft" side, when methods are needed that assist argumentation about, or that generate mutual understanding of multiple perspectives on, a complex situation. [17] Other problem solving methods are better suited to situations toward the tame or "hard" side where a reliable and optimal solution is needed to a problem that can be clearly and uncontroversially defined.

Characteristics

Problem structuring methods constitute a family of approaches that have differing purposes and techniques, and many of them had been developed independently before people began to notice their family resemblance. [17] Several scholars have noted the common and divergent characteristics among PSMs.

Eden and Ackermann identified four characteristics that problem structuring methods have in common: [19]

  1. The methods focus on creating "a model that is populated with data that is specific to the problem situation". These cause–effect models can be analyzed (albeit in different ways by different methods), and the models are intended to facilitate conversation and negotiation between the participants.
  2. The methods seek to increase the overall productivity of group processes. Productivity includes creating better agreements that are more likely to be implemented, and realizing (to the extent possible in the given situation) ideals such as communicative rationality and procedural justice.
  3. The methods emphasize that the facilitation of effective group processes requires some attention to, and open conversation about, power and politics within and between organizations. Power and politics can become especially important when major change is being proposed.
  4. The methods provide techniques and skills for facilitation of group processes, and they appreciate that such techniques and skills are essential for effective sensemaking, systems modeling, and participative decision-making. People who use PSMs must pay attention to what group facilitators call process skills (guiding interactions between people through nonlinear applications of the methods) and content skills (helping people build sufficiently comprehensive models of the given situation).

Rosenhead provided another list of common characteristics of PSMs, formulated in a more prescriptive style: [20]

An early literature review of problem structuring proposed grouping the texts reviewed into "four streams of thought" that describe some major differences between methods: [21]

Compared to large group methods

Mingers and Rosenhead have noted that there are similarities and differences between PSMs and large group methods such as Future Search, Open Space Technology, and others. [22] PSMs and large group methods both bring people together to talk about, and to share different perspectives on, a situation or state of affairs that some people want to change. However, PSMs always focus on creating a sufficiently rigorous conceptual model or cognitive map of the situation, whereas large group methods do not necessarily emphasize modeling, and PSMs are not necessarily used with large groups of people. [22]

Compared to participatory rural appraisal

There is significant overlap or shared characteristics between PSMs and some of the techniques used in participatory rural appraisal (PRA). Mingers and Rosenhead pointed out that in situations where people have low literacy, the nonliterate (oral and visual) techniques developed in PRA would be a necessary complement to PSMs, and the approaches to modeling in PSMs could be (and have been) used by practitioners of PRA. [23]

Applications

In 2004, Mingers and Rosenhead published a literature review of papers that had been published in scholarly journals and that reported practical applications of PSMs. [24] Their literature survey covered the period up to 1998, which was "relatively early in the development of interest in PSMs", [25] and categorized 51 reported applications under the following application areas: general organizational applications; information systems; technology, resources, planning; health services; and general research. Examples of applications reported included: designing a parliamentary briefing system, modeling the San Francisco Zoo, developing a business strategy and information system strategy, planning livestock management in Nepal, regional planning in South Africa, modeling hospital outpatient services, and eliciting knowledge about pesticides. [24]

Technology and software

PSMs are a general methodology and are not necessarily dependent on electronic information technology, [26] but PSMs do rely on some kind of shared display of the models that participants are developing. The shared display could be flip charts, a large whiteboard, Post-it notes on the meeting room walls, and/or a personal computer connected to a video projector. [26] After PSMs have been used in a group work session, it is normal for a record of the session's display to be shared with participants and with other relevant people. [26]

Software programs for supporting problem structuring include Banxia Decision Explorer and Group Explorer, [27] which implement cognitive mapping for strategic options development and analysis (SODA), and Compendium, which implements IBIS for dialogue mapping and related methods; [28] a similar program is called Wisdom. [29] Such software can serve a variety of functions, such as simple technical assistance to the group facilitator during a single event, or more long-term online group decision support systems.

Some practitioners prefer not to use computers during group work sessions because of the effect they have on group dynamics, but such use of computers is standard in some PSMs such as SODA [27] and dialogue mapping, [28] in which computer display of models or maps is intended to guide conversation in the most efficient way. [26]

In some situations additional software that is not used only for PSMs may be incorporated into the problem structuring process; examples include spreadsheet modeling, system dynamics software [30] or geographic information systems. [31] Some practitioners, who have focused on building system dynamics simulation models with groups of people, have called their work group model building (GMB) and have concluded "that GMB is another PSM". [32] GMB has also been used in combination with SODA. [33]

See also

Notes

  1. 1 2 Rosenhead 2013 , p. 1162
  2. 1 2 Rosenhead 1996 , p. 117
  3. Checkland & Poulter 2006
  4. Friend & Hickling 2005
  5. Reynolds & Holwell 2010 , pp. 135–190
  6. Rosenhead 1996 , p. 118
  7. For example: Chatjoulis & Humphreys 2007
  8. For examples, see: Norris 1985 , p. 871; Dunn 1988 , p. 720; Landis 1988 , pp. 117–119. William N. Dunn wrote in 1988: "In the absence of appropriate problem-structuring methods, how can we expect to formulate problems that encompass the proper elements, for example, the proper policy objectives, alternatives, and expected outcomes? Given a particular problem formulation, how do we know whether all important elements have been included in the set? In short, how do we know when we have formulated an approximate solution to the right problem, as distinguished from an exact solution to the wrong problem?" (Dunn 1988 , p. 720)
  9. Rosenhead 1989
  10. Rosenhead 2013 , p. 1164
  11. Rittel & Webber 1973
  12. For example: Ackoff 1974, Ackoff 1979
  13. Checkland 1975, Checkland 1981
  14. For example: Eden & Sims 1979, Eden 1982, Eden & Ackermann 2006
  15. For example: Jackson & Keys 1984, Flood & Jackson 1991
  16. For example: Rosenhead 1989, Mingers & Rosenhead 2001
  17. 1 2 3 4 Rosenhead 2013 , pp. 1163–1164
  18. 1 2 This table is adapted from: Culmsee & Awati 2013 , p. 108
  19. Eden & Ackermann 2006
  20. Rosenhead 2013 , pp. 1164–1165
  21. Woolley & Pidd 1981 , pp. 203–204
  22. 1 2 Mingers & Rosenhead 2004 , p. 548; examples of large group methods can be found in Bunker & Alban 2006
  23. Mingers & Rosenhead 2004 , pp. 548–549
  24. 1 2 Mingers & Rosenhead 2004 , pp. 541–542
  25. Rosenhead 2013 , p. 1167
  26. 1 2 3 4 Rosenhead 2013 , p. 1170
  27. 1 2 Ackermann & Eden 2011; Rosenhead 2013 , p. 1169
  28. 1 2 Conklin 2006; Culmsee & Awati 2013; Culmsee & Awati 2014
  29. Mackenzie et al. 2006
  30. For example: Rodriguez-Ulloa & Paucar-Caceres 2005; Hovmand 2014 , p. 83
  31. For example: Pfeiffer et al. 2008; Ferretti 2016
  32. Andersen et al. 2007 , p. 691
  33. Herrera et al. 2016

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Systems engineering</span> Interdisciplinary field of engineering

Systems engineering is an interdisciplinary field of engineering and engineering management that focuses on how to design, integrate, and manage complex systems over their life cycles. At its core, systems engineering utilizes systems thinking principles to organize this body of knowledge. The individual outcome of such efforts, an engineered system, can be defined as a combination of components that work in synergy to collectively perform a useful function.

Operations research, often shortened to the initialism OR, is a discipline that deals with the development and application of analytical methods to improve decision-making. The term management science is occasionally used as a synonym.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Stafford Beer</span> British management consultant and cyberneticist

Anthony Stafford Beer was a British theorist, consultant and professor at the Manchester Business School. He is best known for his work in the fields of operational research and management cybernetics.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Decision support system</span> Information systems supporting business or organizational decision-making activities

A decision support system (DSS) is an information system that supports business or organizational decision-making activities. DSSs serve the management, operations and planning levels of an organization and help people make decisions about problems that may be rapidly changing and not easily specified in advance—i.e., unstructured and semi-structured decision problems. Decision support systems can be either fully computerized or human-powered, or a combination of both.

Within personality psychology, personal construct theory (PCT) or personal construct psychology (PCP) is a theory of personality and cognition developed by the American psychologist George Kelly in the 1950s. The theory addresses the psychological reasons for actions. Kelly proposed that individuals can be psychologically evaluated according to similarity–dissimilarity poles, which he called personal constructs. The theory is considered by some psychologists as forerunner to theories of cognitive therapy.

Morphological analysis or general morphological analysis is a method for exploring possible solutions to a multi-dimensional, non-quantified complex problem. It was developed by Swiss astronomer Fritz Zwicky. General morphology has found use in fields including engineering design, technological forecasting, organizational development and policy analysis.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Russell L. Ackoff</span> American organizational theorist, consultant and management scientist

Russell Lincoln Ackoff was an American organizational theorist, consultant, and Anheuser-Busch Professor Emeritus of Management Science at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania. Ackoff was a pioneer in the field of operations research, systems thinking and management science.

Soft systems methodology (SSM) is an organised way of thinking that's applicable to problematic social situations and in the management of change by using action. It was developed in England by academics at the Lancaster Systems Department on the basis of a ten-year action research programme.

In planning and policy, a wicked problem is a problem that is difficult or impossible to solve because of incomplete, contradictory, and changing requirements that are often difficult to recognize. It refers to an idea or problem that cannot be fixed, where there is no single solution to the problem; and "wicked" denotes resistance to resolution, rather than evil. Another definition is "a problem whose social complexity means that it has no determinable stopping point". Moreover, because of complex interdependencies, the effort to solve one aspect of a wicked problem may reveal or create other problems. Due to their complexity, wicked problems are often characterized by organized irresponsibility.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Management cybernetics</span> Application of cybernetics to management and organizations

Management cybernetics is concerned with the application of cybernetics to management and organizations. "Management cybernetics" was first introduced by Stafford Beer in the late 1950s and introduces the various mechanisms of self-regulation applied by and to organizational settings, as seen through a cybernetics perspective. Beer developed the theory through a combination of practical applications and a series of influential books. The practical applications involved steel production, publishing and operations research in a large variety of different industries. Some consider that the full flowering of management cybernetics is represented in Beer's books. However, learning continues.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Issue-based information system</span> Argumentation scheme

The issue-based information system (IBIS) is an argumentation-based approach to clarifying wicked problems—complex, ill-defined problems that involve multiple stakeholders. Diagrammatic visualization using IBIS notation is often called issue mapping.

Critical systems thinking (CST) is a systems approach designed to aid decision-makers, and other stakeholders, improve complex problem situations that cross departmental and, often, organizational boundaries. CST sees systems thinking as essential to managing multidimensional 'messes' in which technical, economic, organizational, human, cultural and political elements interact. It is critical in a positive manner because it seeks to capitalize on the strengths of existing approaches while also calling attention to their limitations. CST seeks to allow systems approaches such as systems engineering, system dynamics, organizational cybernetics, soft systems methodology, critical systems heuristics, and others, to be used together, in a responsive and flexible way, to maximize the benefits they can bring.

Interactive planning is a concept developed by Russell L. Ackoff, an American theorist, early proponent of the field of operations research and recognized as the pioneer in systems thinking. Interactive planning forwards the idea that in order to arrive at a desirable future, one has to create a desirable present and create ways and means to resemble it. One of its unique features is that development should be ideal-oriented. Interactive planning is unlike other types of planning such as reactive planning, inactive planning, and preactive planning.

Robust decision-making (RDM) is an iterative decision analytics framework that aims to help identify potential robust strategies, characterize the vulnerabilities of such strategies, and evaluate the tradeoffs among them. RDM focuses on informing decisions under conditions of what is called "deep uncertainty", that is, conditions where the parties to a decision do not know or do not agree on the system models relating actions to consequences or the prior probability distributions for the key input parameters to those models.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Confrontation analysis</span> Operational analysis derived from game theory

Confrontation analysis is an operational analysis technique used to structure, understand and think through multi-party interactions such as negotiations. It is the underpinning mathematical basis of drama theory.

A decisional balance sheet or decision balance sheet is a tabular method for representing the pros and cons of different choices and for helping someone decide what to do in a certain circumstance. It is often used in working with ambivalence in people who are engaged in behaviours that are harmful to their health, as part of psychological approaches such as those based on the transtheoretical model of change, and in certain circumstances in motivational interviewing.

DSRP is a theory and method of thinking, developed by systems theorist and cognitive scientist Derek Cabrera. It is an acronym that stands for Distinctions, Systems, Relationships, and Perspectives. Cabrera posits that these four patterns underlie all cognition, that they are universal to the process of structuring information, and that people can improve their thinking skills by learning to use the four elements explicitly.

David Allen Hickling is a British architect, strategic choice process consultant, author, game designer, and an authority in the field of toy forts and castles.

Colin Eden was a professor in management science and operations research at Strathclyde University.

Jonathan Vivian Rosenhead is a British mathematician, operational researcher and Labour Party activist.

References

Further reading