Replying to LO28298 --
In his recent reply, At was asking:
> Thank you for your own thoughts, especially for
> reminding me of Einstein's thinking on problem
> solving. How would you convince this manager that
> Einstein's kind of thinking is applicable here?
In response to the above question, I would like to share the following
with the List as well as with the manager whose comments we are
discussing.
This is an excerpt from an article written by Prof. dr. Gerard de Zeeuw
(more information on his work at: http://www.cict.demon.co.uk/) This is
unpublished and came as a personal communication.
DP
==
Notes on Creative Problem Solving (Gerard de Zeeuw, unpublished, not to be
quoted)
The notions of problem and of problem solving have been around for quite a
while. The word problem derives from ancient Greek, where it referred to
throwing something forward, or in one's path -- where it would become an
obstacle to continued action. Problem solving refers to overcoming that
obstacle and maintaining the flow of one's actions.
A clear understanding of the basic elements of problems was achieved in
the 1960s with the work of Newell and Simon (1972) who were foremost in
elaborating the characteristics of problem solving. These include
identifying the problem space, or the set of trajectories along which,
potentially or practically, the problem solver may transform starting
states into (desired) end states. Selecting one trajectory rather than
another requires the use of a (selection) rule. The trajectory chosen
constitutes a solution to the problem if its implementation can be
justified or shown to achieve one or more of the end states and nothing
else...
This fuzzyness in the operationalisation of problem characteristics
suggests that one may transform any one problem into another, or more
generally, of making the formulation of any problem into a problem itself.
This problem often is considered as important as the problem to be solved.
For example, one may wish to reduce an initial problem space by
identifying and removing the most expensive trajectories, even when these
would constitute solutions (this implies adding a criterion to define
'desired' end states). Or by constraining the problem space such that it
contains only one trajectory (which makes 'solving' easy). Being able to
solve a problem thus becomes being able to formulate a problem such that
it is (more) easily solvable (see Amarel, 1968).
In their original work Newell and Simon spent much effort in exploring
processes when solving so called well-defined problems... Well-defined
problems allow for the development of expertise, or competence.
High-ranking chess players appear to use problem formulations that differ
from those of low-ranking ones. The former are more abstract (include
longer series of moves), include trajectories that are stable against
variations in the other player's moves, etc.
Ill-defined problems differ from well-defined ones in that no unique
solution has been found (or more precisely, has been found yet), for
example because whatever the problem space one explores, all trajectories
appear to have non-desired side-effects (Rittel and Webber, 1973).
Examples of ill-defined problems ... (Carse, 1968).
... The discovery of ill-defined problems has led to a (sometimes frantic)
search for extensions of and modifications to problem solving that may
make it more successful as a tool. An example is the introduction of rules
that 'force' consensus -- for example by a scheme of choosing problem
solvers as representatives of company employees (Kompier and Marcelissen,
1990). Another example is the attempt to define all good management
activities as the result of solving the problem of problem formulation, or
problematisation.
The collection of efforts such as these has become known as the field of
creative problem solving. Its core consists of methods to avoid getting
stuck on the definition of any aspect of the process of problem
formulation, for example when defining end states (as in the case of
nominal group technique), or starting states (Delphi). One gets stuck when
it is assumed that some problem is already well-defined, when it isn't or
isn't yet....
References
Amarel, S., On representations of problems of reasoning about actions.
Machine Intelligence 3(1968)131-171
Carse, J.P., Finite and infinite games. Penguin Books, Middlesex 1986
Kline, E., e.a. Planning side-effects. In: G. de Zeeuw en P. v.d. Eeden
(red), Problems of context. Proceedings. VU-Boekhandel, Amsterdam 1979
Kompier, M.A.J., & F.H.G. Marcelissen, Handboek Werkstress. Amsterdam: NIA
1990
Newell, A., & Simon, H.A., Human problem solving. Prentice-Hall, Englewood
Cliffs 1972
Rittel, H. & Webber, M., Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Policy
Sci-ences 1973
Zeeuw, G. de, Three phases of science: a methodological exploration.
Systemica, vol. 13(2001), p. 433-461
==
--Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.