problem formulation in planning

8/2/2019 Problem Formulation in Planning

1/15

Problem Formulation in Planning and Design

Author(s): Roger J. VolkemaReviewed work(s):Source: Management Science, Vol. 29, No. 6 (Jun., 1983), pp. 639-652Published by: INFORMSStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2631092 .

Accessed: 27/04/2012 23:59

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

INFORMS is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toManagement Science.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=informshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2631092?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2631092?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=informs


2/15

MANAGEMENT SCIENCEVol. 29, No. 6, June 1983

Prinltedin U.S.A.

PROBLEM FORMULATION IN PLANNINGAND DESIGN*ROGER J. VOLKEMAt

This paper deals with the role of problem formulation in planning and design, including: (a)the importance of problem formulation to planning and design; (b) problematic, physiological,psychological and environmental factors that can affect the formulation process; and (c)problem formulation heuristics. Two types of formulation heuristics are identified-problemreduction and problem expansion. Because the latter type has received little empiricalresearch, an initial study of a problem expansion heuristic (Problem-Purpose Expansion) wasconducted. Experimentation showed that Problem-Purpose Expansion may have a positiveeffect on idea generation, particularly for individuals working on problems that fall outsidetheir area of expertise. Exhorting the importance of problem formulation, a second treatmentstudied in these experiments, produced little measurable effect on idea generation.(PHILOSOPHY OF MODELING/PROBLEM FORMULATION)

1. IntroductionIn recent years, theorists and practitioners have proposed a wide variety of planningand design methods. Some of these proposals have been attempts to describe howpeople actually plan and design (Braybrooke and Lindblom [8], Etzioni [17], Darke[12]). In other cases, the theorist or practitioner has tried to improve the planning anddesign process by prescribing a method that he or she believes is superior to an

intuitive approach or to other normative methods (for example: Van de Ven andKoenig [77], Nadler [54]).The difficulity in modelling the planning and design process, whether it be descrip-tively or prescriptively, is not in identifying the potential planning and design phases.The list of phases appears to be finite, and often includes (in one form or another):problem detection or discovery, formulation, exploration, selection, detail design,implementation and evaluation. The difficult part of the modelling process is suggest-ing a generalized ordering of phases. The planning process is characterized byfeedback and feed-forward loops to any stage at any time (Payne [60], Mintzberg et al.[46]). And as Nadler [53] points out, returning to a previous phase may be a misnomer,since the levels of detail, uncertainty, commitment and understanding of the problemundoubtedly have changed. Perhaps the only thing that can be said with certainty isthat the process must begin with some sort of detection, discovery or sensation that aneed or opportunity exists (see Figure 1.)In attempting to understand and improve planning and design methods, researchersgenerally have focused their attention on the exploration, selection, design, implemen-tation and evaluation stages of the planning and design process (McGuire [40]). As aresult, much less is known about how problems are found and formulated (Getzels[23], Mitroff and Kilmann [49]). The value of an appropriate or "quality" problemformulation, however, is well documented. It is supported by introspective, anecdotaland empirical evidence.The purpose of this paper is twofold: to examine the literature relevant to problemformulation (i.e., the importance of problem formulation to planning and design,

*Accepted by Ambar G. Rao; received May 12, 1982. This paper has been with the author 1 month for 1revision.tUniversity of Wisconsin-Eau Claire.639

0025-1909/83 2906/0639$0 1.25Copyright e 1983, The lnstitute of Management Sciences


3/15

640 ROGER J. VOLKEMAPhases Time >SensationFormulationExplorationSelectionDesignImplementationEvaluation

FIGURE 1. A Generic Model of Planning and Design.

factors that can affect the formulation process, and strategies for reducing complexityin problem diagnosis and formulation), and to report the results of an initial study onproblem formulation exhortation and Problem-Purpose Expansion, a strategy forreformulating problems.

2. The Importanceof Problem Formulation to Planning and DesignIt is not difficult to make a cogent argument for more investigation into the problemformulation process. Because problem formulation often occurs in the early stages ofplanning and design, it has the potential for affecting the direction of all succeedingstages (Mintzberg et al. [46]). This is due, at least in part, to the strong relationship that

exists between the representation of a problem and the domain of solutions and ideasthat the representation can produce (Duncker [16], Judson and Cofer [33], Maier andBurke [43], Kohler [36], Posner [62], Simon and Hayes, [72], Tversky and Kahneman[76]).When a problem is first discovered, it is rich in solution possibilities (Maier [42]). Asthe process continues, however, assumptions and constraints are added in an effort tobring manageability and closure to the problem (Reitman [65], Taylor [73]). Theselimit the scope of the problem and the range of possible solutions.Because the amount of information needed to change a decision is much greaterthan the amount needed to make it initially (Pruitt [63], Gibson and Nicol [24]),reformulation of the problem becomes less likely once a particular formulation isselected and pursued. This places added pressure on decision makers to avoidpremature closure and to select "optimal" problem statements. A problem that isdefined with incorrect presumptions concerning needs and opportunities can result insignificant monetary losses as well as problem solving ineffectiveness (Granger [25],Kahn [34], Nadler [52]).

3. Factors Affecting Problem FormulationUnfortunately, it is difficult (if not impossible) to tell from the syntax and semanticsof a problem statement whether or not the statement will lead to a good solution. Andwhile some problem statements may not be rich in solutions or ideas, they may beinvaluable because they lead to new problem perspectives.One recourse that a planner has is to devote more time and energy to theformulation process and to consider as many different perspectives on the problem aspossible. This may be a way of avoiding an Error of the Third Kind, solving the"wrong" problem or a suboptimal problem when another problem would have beenmore appropriate (Mitroff and Betz [47]).Several factors can affect the amount of time and effort a planner or designer willdevote to formulating a problem. They include: (1) the complexities of the problem,


4/15

PROBLEM FORMULATION IN PLANNING AND DESIGN 641(2) the capabilities and experiences of the planner or designer, (3) the environment inwhich the planning or design takes place, and (4) the formulation process used by theplanner or designer (Lewin [37], Hinton [29]).(1) There have been many attempts to understand the first factor problem com-plexity through a classification of problem types (for example: Getzels [22], Fullerand Myers [19], Reitman [65], Cartwright [10], Greeno [26]). While each of thesetypologies has lent some clarity to the task of managing problem complexity, auniversally accepted system of classification has yet to be found (Bourne et al. [7],Scriven [68]). There are several reasons for this. First, there is a lack of agreement onwhat is and what is not a "problem." Many definitions exist. A problem has beendefined alternatively as a conflict (Duncker [16]), an obstacle (Maier [42]), an acceptedtask that a person does not know how to carry out (Simon [70]), dissatisfaction with apurposeful state (Ackoff and Emery [3]), and the difference between what one has andwhat one wants (de Bono [13]), to name but a few.Second, the potential number of problematic situations that must be classified isenormous, perhaps infinite. As a result, it is difficult to say with confidence that afinite classification system circumscribes an indeterminate and growing list of situa-tions.Third, while it would appear that some problems are more "ill-structured" thanothers, the boundary between such problems is imprecise.' Instead, a continuum existsfrom problems like cryptarithmetic puzzles to a problem like the task of designing ahouse (Simon [70]). Furthermore, few problems of any type remain fixed. Planningand design proceed in large part by replacing problems of one type with problems orsubproblems of a different type. A problem can be ill-defined at some points, butrelatively well-defined at others (Reitman [65]). This dynamic is one reason why thepsychology literature on general problem solving and creative problem solving, whichprimarily focuses on well-defined problems, is relevant to the study of planning anddesign.Although science lacks at present a universally accepted scheme of classification,some dimensions of problem complexity are apparent. As the number of variables in aproblem increases and the specificity and measurability of those variables is dimin-ished, a problem becomes more complex and the limits on analysis and action aremore constrained (Cartwright [10]). In terms of problem formulation, increased prob-lem complexity means that a single, comprehensive problem statement will be moredifficult to identify. If several parties are involved in the formulation process, theremay not be agreement on a statement of the problem. And when the parties do agree,it may be because they have found the least controversial problem statement, notnecessarily the best statement for generating creative, effective solutions.(2) A second set of factors, the capabilities and experiences of the planner, also canaffect how a problem is formulated and solved. The physiology of the humaninformation processing system, for example, is a critical limiting factor in the formula-tion process. As reported by Simon [70] and Newell and Simon [56], human memoryconsists of a small but fast short-term memory, and an essentially infinite long-termmemory with fast retrieval but slow storage times. In human memory, information isprocessed sequentially (Simon and Barenfeld [71]).These properties,which appear to be invariant over problem solver and task, imposestrong limitations on the ways in which the human system can seek solutions tocomplex problems. Short-term memory is not large enough to hold all the facts andalgorithms necessary to solve complex problems, and only strategies that have been

'According to Taylor [74], a problem is ill-structured if one or more of its components-initial state,terminal state, and transformations-are unfamiliar to the decision maker.


5/15

642 ROGER J. VOLKEMAused recently and frequently are likely to be available in long-term memory. As aresult, familiar problems are likely to be defined in terms of obvious solutions, and theformulation process may never be fully activated. While this may be efficient in somecases, it may be ineffective (if you become fixated on an obvious solution that fails) orunopportunistic (if the problem that the solution addresses is embedded in a largerproblem) in others (Hoffman et al. [30], Colgrove [11]).The human brain has another property that can affect the problem formulationprocess. Recent studies of the left and right hemispheres of the cerebrum suggest thateach hemisphere serves a different function (Ornstein [58]). The left hemisphere seemsto specialize in logical, analytical, rational processes, and is especially proficient inverbal comprehension. The right hemisphere appears to control intuitive, holistic,affective processes, and is superior in the comprehension of spatial relations andpictorial stimuli (Sackeim and Gur [67]). If an individual has a tendency to use onehemisphere more than the other, the formulation of certain types of problems may beeasier or more difficult.In addition to these physiological limitations, the life experiences of an individualplay a major role in determining how a problem is perceived and approached (Shull etal. [69]). An individual's past experiences determine what part of a task environmentwill stimulate him/her, as well as how the data that is received will be evaluated.Differing perceptions of uncertainty, complexity or conflict can lead two individuals toemploy two very different strategies of problem identification and formulation(MacCrimmon and Taylor [39]).

One particular factor of human experience and perception which can affect how aproblem is formulated is the extent to which a high quality solution is desired. In somesituations a planner or designer may be willing to accept the first solution that satisfiesthe minimum requirementsof the problem (i.e., "satisfices"). When this is the case, lesstime is likely to be spent solving (and formulating) the problem than if a high qualitysolution was critical (March and Simon [44], Maier [41]).(3) Many factors in the planner's environment can affect the problem formulationprocess. Time constraints, work load and support from colleagues are three examples.When environmental factors tax the physiological and psychological limitations of theplanner or designer, stress is produced. Stress is a function of an individual's ability tocope with the complexities and uncertainties of his or her environment, and can affecthow much time and energy are devoted to formulating a problem. For example, if adecision is needed quickly, the amount of time spent in formulating (and reformulat-ing) the problem may be cut short (Maier [41], Wright [80]). Likewise, if the planner ordesigner is emotionally fatigued, the search for a satisfactory statement of the problemmay be abbreviated (Holsti [31], Janis and Mann [32]).Sometimes problems are defined for us by someone else. If that person appears tohave spent considerable time defining the problem, has high credibility due to pastsuccesses, education or social status, or is in a position of authority, the problemrecipient is more likely to accept without question the definition of the problem that isgiven to him or her (Milgram [45], Janis and Mann [32], Lyles and Mitroff [38]). Thisis particularly true if the recipient has had little experience in challenging problemstatements, independent of problem ownership (Gagne [20]).(4) These are some of the factors related to the problem, the planner, and theplanning environment which mediate the problem formulation process. Most of thefactors are difficult or impossible to control. They can affect not only how much timeand attention are devoted to the formulation process, but also what strategies will beemployed by the planner or designer.The causal relationship between these factors and a planner's choice of formulationstrategies has not received much empirical study. A first step is to identify the domain


6/15

PROBLEM FORMULATION IN PLANNING AND DESIGN 643of problem formulation strategies used by planners and designers. This is a difficulttask since thinking and decision making are by nature covert processes.MacCrimmon and Taylor [39] give a review of some of the strategies for coping withthe main types of decision environments-uncertain, conflictive and complex. Theyidentify four decision strategies for reducing complexity in problem diagnosis andformulation:(a) determining the boundaries of a problem,(b) examining changes in the decision environment (or decision maker) which mayhave precipitated the problem,(c) factoring complex problems into subproblems, and(d) focusing on the controllable components of a decision situation.Table 1 identifies some of the specific strategies that fall within these four categories.The majority of these strategies assume a correctly defined problem and seek tomanage the problem by breaking it down to controllable components or subproblems.Means-Ends Analysis, for example, is a technique for reducing the gap between aknown, desired end-state and an existing state. Likewise, each of the strategies listedunder the last three categories of Table 1 is a problem reduction heuristic.A large number of studies have been conducted on problem reduction heuristics(Reed and Abramson [64], Carroll, Thomas and Malhotra [9]). While ostensibly themost rational and efficient approach for solving complex problems, problem reductionhas a number of potential drawbacks, including focusing so quickly on solutions thatthe problem is never fully understood or validated (Maier [42], Mitroff and Betz [47]).Expanding or broadening the scope of a problem is one way of checking validity.The strategies listed under "Determining Problem Boundaries" in Table 1 areconcerned with examining the assumptions or boundaries of a problem (i.e., thecritical factors, organizational rules, physical laws, social norms, personal values, etc.,that delimit the problem). Explicit Boundary Clarification and Assumptional Analysisare strategies for explicitly clarifying problem boundaries, while Function Expansionclarifies problem boundaries implicitly. All three strategies can be classified as problemexpansion heuristics.As a method for implicitly clarifying the boundaries of a problem, FunctionExpansion has several advantages. Many times it is difficult or impossible to identifyall of the relevant factors that circumscribe a problem. Breaking the problem down

TABLE IDecision Strategies or ReducingComplexity n ProblemDiagnosis and Formulation(using categories suggested by MacCrimmonand Taylor [39])

a. DeterminingProblem BoundariesExplicit Boundary Clarification (Kepner and Tregoe [35])Function Expansion (Nadler [51])Assumptional Analysis (Mitroff, Emshoff and Kilmann [48])b. Examining Changes

Focusing on Changes (Kepner and Tregoe [35])c. Factoring Into SubproblemsMeans-Ends Analysis (Newell, Shaw and Simon [55])Morphological Analysis (Hall [27])Attribute Listing (Rickards [66])Input-Output Analysis (Hall [27])d. Focusingon the ControllableComponentsWorking Forward, Working Backward (Feldman and Kanter [18], Polya [61])Planning Process (Bourne et al. [7])Mixed Scanning (Etzioni [17])

Selective Focusing (Shull et al. [69])


7/15

644 ROGER J. VOLKEMAdoes not always help, since a system has characteristics that the mere sum of its partscannot reproduce (Ackoff [2]). Through Function Expansion these characteristics andother factors are taken into consideration implicitly (since problem boundaries areusually embedded in the broader functions or purposes that a solution to the problemwill serve). In addition, an ordering (hierarchy) of the major directions to seek insolving the problem is constructed.On an organizational level, efforts to explicitly define problem boundaries within theexisting system can make people defensive and uncooperative. Debating organiza-tional rules, social norms and personal values, as well as scrutinizing past humanerrors,can cause great consternation among people. By concentrating on the purposes(major directions) of the system being analyzed or designed, problem boundaries canbe defined implicitly and many unnecessary conflicts can be avoided (Delp et al. [15],Lyles and Mitroff [38]).

Unfortunately, the relative effectiveness of Function Expansion (and problemformulation heuristics, in general) has gone largely untested. In one of the few studiesof the formulation process that has been conducted in planning and design, Nutt [57]compared the relative effectiveness of two design methods in solving design problemsfor a health planning council. The two structuredapproaches-the Program PlanningMethod (Delbecq and Van de Ven [14]) and the IDEALS method (Nadler [52])-differin terms of approach to problem formulation. The ProgramPlanning Method attemptsto define the true needs of clients as a basis for specifying solution requirements,whereas the IDEALS approach uses an interacting group to develop a hierarchy ofpurposes with the intention of selecting a particular purpose level from which to work.Nutt found that the former social-psychology-based design method generated morenew information, while the latter systems-based design method generated superiorresults. However, since the two problem formulation philosophies were embedded indesign approaches that differed in several other respects, it is difficult to say to whatextent the findings can be attributed to differences in the formulation process.4. An EmpiricalInvestigationof Problem FormulationandProblem-PurposeExpansion

4.1. The DesignTo evaluate the potential of problem expansion heuristics to planning and design,different problem formulation approaches were compared in a laboratory study.Participants were asked to work on two problems, each for 16 minutes. The time foreach problem was broken down into four 4-minute intervals.Two primary treatments were compared (see Figure 2). The first treatment wasproblem formulation exhortation. Without mentioning a specific problem formulationstrategy, a group2 of participants was forewarned (and reminded at the beginning ofthe second, third and fourth intervals) of the importance of the formulation process.This was accomplished by citing the exhortations of a well-known scientist andthrough examples of problems that were cleverly solved through reformulation. Thepurpose of this treatment was to insure that participants were not simply forgetting toemploy effective formulation strategies that they knew and had used in the past.The second treatment group was given a specific technique, called Problem-PurposeExpansion, for systematically expanding the scope of a problem to take advantage ofbroader purposes. This particular technique was chosen because it incorporates manyof the attributes of problem expansion as extolled by Alinsky [4], Bateson [6]. andArgyris [5], and developed by Nadler [51] and Warfield [78]-theories which have not2The term "group" is used here and elsewhere in this paper in the nominal sense. Participants workedindividually on the experimental tasks.


8/15

PROBLEM FORMULATION IN PLANNING AND DESIGN 645BrainstormingWithProblem-PurposeBrainstorming Only ExpansionNo Problem Problem No Problem Problem

Formulation Formulation Formulation FormulationExhortation Exhortation Exhortation Exhortation

= t ; Y 4 4 4 4

u 304 4 4 4Q 3~ 4 4 4 4

4 4 4 4

FIGURE2. Factorial Design: Distribution of Participants.been tested in a laboratory setting. By expanding or broadening the scope of aproblem, the boundaries of the problem are relaxed and the corresponding solution-space enlarged (Hall [27]). Theoretically, the number of solutions should increase asexpansion (and idea generation) continue.The application of this treatment was similar to the application of problem formula-tion exhortation. The technique was explained in a handout given to participants at thebeginning of the experiment. At the start of the second, third and fourth time intervalsparticipants were asked to reformulate the problem using Problem-Purpose Expansionbefore they continued idea generation. The technique is explained in more detail inAppendix 1.In addition, all participants, including the control group, were given instructions inBrainstorming (Osborn [59]), and were reminded at 4-minute intervals of the rules ofBrainstorming.

The participants in these experiments were students of junior standing or higher at aMidwestern university. Each was paid $10 for attending two sessions totalling threehours. Of the 64 participants, half were enrolled in a technical curriculum (engineer-ing); the other half were enrolled in a behavioral curriculum (counseling and guid-ance).Prior to experimentation, the Torrance Test of Verbal Creativity (Torrance [75]) wasgiven to each participant to take into account creativity, a potentially interveningvariable, when assigning participants to treatments. Participants were categorized aseither high or low creatives, and assigned treatments using a randomized blocks design(Hays [28]).3Environmental factors (physical and social) were held constant in theseexperiments.

3A number of different instruments exist for measuring creativity (see Taylor [73]) and cognitive styles(e.g., the Myers-Briggs Indicator Type, Myers [50]). In these experiments a creativity measure was selectedbecause of the correlation that has been found to exist between creativity and a number of other variables,such as curiosity, motivation, self-confidence, openness, flexibility, age and sex (for a review, see Taylor[73]). The Torrance Test of Verbal Creativity was chosen because its short-term and long-term validity havebeen tested extensively (Torrance [75]). A bipartite division (high and low creatives) was used for ease ingeneralizing. While it would be interesting to know that engineers who scored between 200 and 230 on theTorrance Test found a particular technique of problem formulation helpful, planners and designers seldomhave access to scores from creativity tests. A more useful piece of information would be to know that,generally speaking, a technique is more helpful to high or low creatives.


9/15

646 ROGER J. VOLKEMAParticipants were asked to solve two problems that closely approximate real plan-ning and design problems (as opposed to puzzles, which have only a single, well-defined solution or end-state). One was a problem that had been used for several yearsat a university School of Social Work ("The Staffing Problem"). The Staffing Probleminvolves a hospital ward where some patients are disturbing others apparently becausethey cannot find their rooms. The other, called "The Elevator Problem," was avariation of a problem suggested by Ackoff [1]. The Elevator Problem involves tenantcomplaints about the elevator service in a large office building. Each problemcontained multiple problem levels, and participantswere given an initial problem focus(see Appendix 2).The primary measures of effectiveness for the treatments were the following out-come measures: number of different solutions, ability to sustain idea generation,number of different conceptualizations, and quality of the solutions. In addition, a

post-exercise questionnaire was administered.4.2. The Results4

The strongest relationship that was found in these experiments pertained to creativ-ity. High creative participants outproduced low creative participants in terms ofnumber of different solutions, number of different conceptualizations, and quality ofsolutions. In the analyses of variance these were significant at the 0.001 level or betterin all three cases.The technique of Problem-Purpose Expansion had some limited or restricted bene-fits. In general, the technique was useful in increasing the number of different solutionsproduced. Overall, Problem-Purpose Expansion users produced 13% more solutionsthan nonusers. Because of the strong relationship that was found to exist betweencreativity and most of the outcome measures, an ad hoc analysis was conducted bycreativity types. This showed that for high creatives the number of different solutionsproduced was 20% greater for participants using Problem-Purpose Expansion. In at-test this was significant at the 0.01 level. No significant overall differences, however,were found for the other three outcome measures.Analysis of variance also revealed that the interaction of Problem-Purpose Expan-sion, participant background and problem type was significant (0.012) for the numberof solutions produced. Problem-Purpose Expansion appeared to be most useful forcounseling and guidance people working on the Elevator Problem and engineeringpeople working on the Staffing Problem (see Table 2). This seems logical, since theElevator Problem apparently is a technical problem (initially suggesting the need formore, larger or faster means of transportation),which counseling and guidance people(behavior conceptualizers) might have trouble solving without Problem-Purpose Ex-pansion. Likewise, the Staffing Problem apparently is a behavioral problem (initiallysuggesting behavioral changes on the part of staff or patients), which engineeringpeople (technical conceptualizers) might find more difficult to solve without Problem-Purpose Expansion. The increase in number of solutions produced was 28% forcounseling and guidance people and 20% for engineering people. Again, ad hocanalyses were conducted by creativity type and it was found that Problem-PurposeExpansion helped high creative counseling and guidance participants come up with33%more solutions when working on the Elevator Problem. This was significant at the0.051 level in a t-test. High creative engineering participants generated 37% moresolutions when Problem-Purpose Expansion was used. This was significant at the 0.059level.

4These results are based, in part, on analyses of variance that were run for each of the four outcomemeasures. Because of the 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 repeated measures design, the ANOVA tables are lengthy and arenot reproduced here. They are available on request from the author.


10/15

PROBLEM FORMULATION IN PLANNING AND DESIGN 647TABLE 2

Comparsoniof Problem-Purpose Expansion Users with ConitrolGroup or Select Par icipant Groupsand Problems*Engineering Participants Counseling Participants

Working on the Staffing Problem Working on the Elevator ProblemHigh HighAll Creatives All CreativesNumber of Different Solutions + 20% + 37% + 28% + 33%Number of Different Conceptualizations + 26% + 27% + 18% + 18%Ability to Sustain Idea Generation + 1.4% + 4.8% - 0.4% - 5.2%Quality of Solutions + 2.1% - 5.3% - 1.9% - 1.3%* Positive percentages indicate Problem-Purpose Expansion superiority over control group.

As Table 2 also indicates, the number of different conceptualizations increased foreach of the select groups using Problem-Purpose Expansion. And, although ability tosustain idea generation decreased for high creative counseling and guidance partici-pants working on the Elevator Problem, it increased for low creative counseling andguidance participants (not shown in Table 2). In a t-test this was significant at the0.039 level.Problem-Purpose Expansion produced mixed results in terms of the quality of thesolutions. The significance of this result is suspect because of the low inter-raterreliabilities among the three expert raters. For the three components of a qualitysolution-Technical Feasibility/Effectiveness, Likelihood of Acceptance, and Innova-tiveness-the highest inter-rater reliability was only 0.571 (for Likelihood of Accep-tance on the Staffing Problem); for Innovativeness it was 0.174 and 0.142 (Staffingand Elevator Problems, respectively). The diverse backgrounds of the three expertraters (engineering, human relations, and financial planning) and minimal amount oftraining they were given might account for part of these low correlations.A post-exercise questionnaire, administered at the conclusion of the experiments,revealed general satisfaction with Problem-Purpose Expansion. Problem-Purpose Ex-pansion was the most common response given to the first question asked: "What didyou like about this problem solving experience?" Comments included: Problem-Purpose Expansion is fast, logical, developmental, fun and helps give a new perspec-tive on the problem. The reformulation technique was familiar to some (mostly highcreatives). It was described as beneficial by most (generally low creatives) and hard,tedious or unfamiliar to a few (also low creatives).Indeed, low creatives did appear to have the most difficulty in consistently expand-ing the problem's scope using Problem-Purpose Expansion. Of the twelve cases ofinconsistent problem expansion (i.e., the problem's scope was narrowed, remainedunchanged, or the change in scope was uncertain during one or more of the threereformulations), low creatives accounted for ten (83%) of the inconsistences.5 In a x2test this was significant at the 0.02 level. This suggests the possibility of unfamiliaritywith Problem-Purpose Expansion among low creatives, and the need for additionaltraining in how to use the technique.Problem formulation exhortation, at least as it was defined in these experiments, hadno significant impact on the four outcome measures. This would suggest either thatparticipants did not need to be reminded of the importance of reformulation (becausethey were already reformulating the problems as needed) or that this particularexhortation approach was ineffective in eliciting useful heuristics.

5Consistency in problem expansion was determined by a group of three experts who had familiarity withproblem purposes and problem hierarchies.


11/15

648 ROGER J. VOLKEMATABLE 3

Problem Solving Heuristics Reportedby ParticipantsDuring Retrospection* Redefine/expand the problem* Breakproblem down; examine classes of solutions* Look at the problem from points of view of different people* Evaluate/restrict problem* Think about personal experiences and those of others* Let ideas roll* Ignore or deny problem* Examine assumptions* Use available resources* Keep reviewing the facts* Segregate ideas by what, when, where, how* Elaborate/improve on previous ideas

This is not to say, however, that other heuristics were not being used by theparticipants. By using a technique suggested by Gagne and Smith [21]-retrospectionwith forewarning-additional heuristics that participants said they had used whilesolving the two problems were elicited (see Table 3). Some of these heuristics werecharacteristic of only one group of participants. For example, only engineeringparticipants suggested "ignoring or denying the problem" and "elaborating or improv-ing on previous ideas" as heuristics they had used. Only counseling and guidanceparticipants suggested "using available resources." The utility of these heuristics isunknown.

5. Summary and ConclusionThe purpose of this paper was twofold: to examine the literature relevant to problemformulation and to report the results of an initial study on problem formulationexhortation and Problem-Purpose Expansion, a strategy for reformulating problems.In reviewing the literature on problem formulation, several discoveries were made.Problem formulation often occurs in the early stages of planning and design. As aresult, it has the potential to affect the direction of all succeeding stages. To someextent this is due to the strong relationship that exists between the way a problem isrepresented and the solutions or ideas the representation can produce.Often too little time and energy are devoted to the formulation process, which canresult in solving the "wrong" problem or a suboptimal problem. Many factors cancontribute to this breakdown, including problem complexity, the capabilities andexperiences of the planner or designer, the planning environment, and the formulationprocess(es) used by the planner or designer.The last of these may be a function of the other three factors. Broadly speaking,there are two types of problem formulation heuristics used by individuals: problem

reduction and problem expansion. Few problem expansion heuristics have beenreportedin the literatureand much less attention has been given to evaluating problemexpansion heuristics.To evaluate the potential of problem expansion heuristics in planning and design,different problem formulation approaches were compared in a laboratory study. Twotreatments-problem formulation exhortation and Problem-Purpose Expansion-werecompared. The results showed that problem formulation exhortation had no effect onoutcome. Problem-Purpose Expansion had some effect on the number of differentsolutions that were produced, particularly when participants were working on aproblem that fell outside their area of expertise.


12/15

PROBLEM FORMULATION IN PLANNING AND DESIGN 649The results of the study were not overwhelming. The study did show, however, thatproblem formulation can be evaluated under laboratory conditions. Future effortsmight seek to improve the design of these experiments by developing alternativemethods of training in the use of problem formulation heuristics, by more closelysimulating a true planning and design environment through factors of personalattachment to a particular problem perspective, stress and problem ownership, and byallowing for more flexible time intervals for idea generation and more variability inreformulating.Finally, retrospection with forewarning proved to be an effective way of elicitingplanning and design strategies while problem formulation was the focus of theresearch. Additional research might seek to identify and evaluate other problemformulation heuristics. The order in which heuristics are applied and the frequencywith which they are tried also could be studied.

Appendix 1The technique of Problem-Purpose Expansion has two parts. The first part is simplya format suggested by Warfield [78], [79] for stating a problem. The format is: anaction verb + an object phrase + a qualifying phrase (optional). For example, if anoffice building needs two new elevators, the problem might be stated as follows:TO GET TWO NEW ELEVATORS INSTALLED WITHIN THREE MONTHS

action verb object phrase qualifying phraseOnce a problem has been stated in this format it can become the focus of a brainstorm(rapid generation) of solutions and ideas.6The second part of the technique is concerned with taking a problem that has beenput in this format and reformulatingit (i.e., expanding or broadening its scope). This isdone by answering the following:

What am I trying to accomplish?I want (Most Recent Problem Formulation)in order (Reformulation).

For example, for the abovementioned problem statement you might decide that youwant TO GET TWO NEW ELEVATORS INSTALLED WITHIN THREEMONTHS (Most Recent Problem Formulation) in order TO IMPROVE THE ELE-VATOR SERVICE IN THE BUILDING (Reformulation). This latter statement is abroader interpretation of the problem which then could become the subject of asecond brainstormof solutions and ideas.7The reformulation part of Problem-Purpose Expansion can be applied repeatedly,but always using the most recent problem formulation (or most recent reformulation)6In these experiments an initial problem focus was provided for each of the two planning and designproblems. These statements were provided at the beginning of the first four-minute interval and participantswere asked to brainstorm solutions for each initial statement. The statement shown above (TO GET TWONEW ELEVATORS INSTALLED WITHIN THREE MONTHS) was the initial problem statementprovided for the Elevator Problem (see Appendix 2).7As an illustration of why TO IMPROVE THE ELEVATOR SERVICE IN THE BUILDING is abroader interpretation (expansion) of the initial statement (TO GET TWO NEW ELEVATORS IN-STALLED WITHIN THREE MONTHS), note that getting two new elevators is only one way of improvingelevator service in the building. Elevator service might also be improved by renovating existing elevators orhiring an elevator attendant, which are examples of solutions that are not suggested by the initial problemstatement.


13/15

650 ROGER J. VOLKEMAas the referent. For example, before beginning a third brainstorm of solutions youwould complete the following:

What am I trying to accomplish?I want TO IMPROVE THE ELEVATOR SERVICE IN THE BUILDINGin order TO

(Reformulation)Thus, the scope of the problem continues to be expanded with each reformulation.

Appendix2The Staffing Problem. In the geriatric (senior citizens') ward of a hospital, housingabout 20 patients, the staff are concerned about patients who wander into rooms of

other patients and cause a disturbance. At any one time there seems to be three to fourpatients who have difficulty finding their rooms. One of the hospital's administratorshas suggested that the patients be escorted back to their rooms. However, this willrequire that some time be freed up from an already overworked staff. As an assistantto the administrator, you were asked to come up with a plan to free up staff time. Youmust present the plan at the next administrative meeting.The Elevator Problem. The manager of a large office building has been receivingan increasing number of complaints about the building's elevator service, particularlyduring rush hours. Several of the larger tenants in the building have threatened tomove out unless the service is improved. In response, the manager recently inquiredinto the possibility of adding one or two elevators to the building. Although it wouldbe feasible, the only elevator company in the area has a six month backlog of orders.As an assistant to the manager, you were asked to come up with a plan to get two newelevators installed within three months. You must present the plan at the next staffmeeting.8

8The author wishes to thank Gerald Nadler, Jerome Kaufman and Willy Cats-Baril for their carefulreading of an earlier draft of this paper and helpful suggestions. This investigation was supported in part bya grant from the National Institutes of Health.

References1. ACKOFF, . L., The Art of Problem Solving, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1978.2. , "The Art and Science of Mess Management," Interfaces, Vol. 11, No. 1 (1981), pp. 20-26.3. ANDEMERY, ., On PurposefulSystems, Aldine-Atherton, Chicago, 1972.4. ALINSKY, . D., Rules for Radicals, Vintage Books, New York, 1971.5. ARGYRIS, ., "Single-Loop and Double-Loop Models in Research on Decision Making," Admin. Sci.Quart., Vol. 21 (September 1976), pp. 363-375.6. BATESON, ., Steps to an Ecology of Mind, Chandler Publishing Co., New York, 1972.7. BOURNE, . E., JR., EKSTRAND, B. R. AND DOMINOWSKI,. L., The Psychology of Thinking, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1971.8. BRAYBROOKE, D. AND LINDBLOM, C. E., A Strategy of Decision, Free Press, New York, 1963.9. CARROLL, J. M., THOMAS, J. C. AND MALHOTRA, A., "Clinical-Experimental Analysis of DesignProblem Solving," Design Stud., Vol. 1, No. 2 (1979), pp. 84-92.10. CARTWRIGHT, T. J., "Problems, Solutions and Strategies: A Contribution to the Theory and Practice ofPlanning,"AIP J., Vol. 39, No. 3 (May 1973), pp. 179-187.11. COLGROVE, M. A., "Stimulating Creative Problem Solving: Innovative Set," Psych. Reports, Vol. 22(1968), pp. 1205-1211.12. DARKE, J., "The Primary Generator and the Design Process," Design Stuid.,Vol. 1, No. 1 (1979), pp.36-44.13. DE BONO,E., Lateral Thinking: CreativityStep by Step, Harper and Row, New York, 1970.


14/15

PROBLEM FORMULATION IN PLANNING AND DESIGN 65114. DELBECQ, . L. AND VAN DE VEN, A. H., "A Group Process Model for Problem Identification andProgram Planning," J. AppL Behavioral Sci., Vol. 7, No. 4 (1971), pp. 466-492.15. DELP, P., THESEN,A., MOTIWALLA,J. AND SESHADRI,N., Systems Tools for Project Planning, Pasitam,Bloomington, Indiana, 1977.16. DUNCKER,K., "On Problem Solving," Psychological Monographs,Vol. 58, No. 5 (1945), Whole No. 270.17. ETZIONI,A., "Mixed Scanning: A 'Third' Approach to Decision-Making," Public Admin. Rev., Vol. 27(1967), pp. 385-392.18. FELDMAN,J. AND KANTER, H. E., "Organizational Decision Making," in Handbook of Organizations,J. G. March (Ed.), Rand McNally, Chicago, 1965.19. FULLER, R. C. AND MYERS, R. R., "The Conflict of Values," in The Study of Social Problems,E. Rubington and M. S. Weinberg (Eds.), Oxford University Press, New York, 1971.20. GAGNE, R. M., "Human Problem Solving: Internal and External Events," in Problem Solving:Research, Method, and Theory, B. Kleinmuntz (Ed.), John Wiley, New York, 1966.21. AND SMITH, E. C., JR., "A Study of the Effects of Verbalization on Problem Solving," J.Experimental Psych., Vol. 63, No. 1 (1962), pp. 12-18.22. GETZELS,J. W., "Creative Thinking, Problem-Solving, and Instruction," National Soc. Study of Ed.

Yearbook,Vol. 63, No. 1 (1964), pp. 240-267.23. , "Problem-Finding and the Inventiveness of Solutions," J. Creative Behavior, Vol. 9, No. 1(1975), pp. 12-18.24. GIBSON, R. S. AND NICOL,E. H., "The Modification of Decisions Made in a Changing Environment,"USAF-ESD-TR-No. 64-657, 1964.25. GRANGER,. H., "The Hierarchy of Objectives," Harvard Bus. Rev., Vol. 42, No. 3 (May-June 1964),pp. 63-74.26. GREENO, . G., "Trends in the Theory of Knowledge for Problem Solving," in Problem Solving andEducation: Issues in Teaching and Research, D. T. Tuma and F. Reif (Eds.), Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates, Hillsdale, New Jersey, 1980.27. HALL,A. D., A Methodology or Systems Engineering,Litton Educational Publishing, Inc., New York,1962.28. HAYS,W. L., Statistics for the Social Sciences, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., New York, 1973.29. HINTON, . L., "A Model for the Study of Creative Problem Solving," J. CreativeBehavior, Vol. 2, No.2 (1968), pp. 133-142.30. HOFFMAN,L. R., BURKE,R. J. ANDMAIER,N. R. F., "Does Training with Differential Reinforcementon Similar Problems Help in Solving a New Problem?," Psych. Reports, Vol. 13 (1963), pp. 147-154.31. HOLSTI,0. R., "Individual Differences in 'Definition of the Situation'," J. Conflict Resolution, Vol. 14,No. 3 (1970), pp. 303-310.32. JANIS, I. L. AND MANN, L., Decision Making: A Psychological Analysis of Conflict, Choice, andCommitment,The Free Press, New York, 1977.33. JUDSON,A. I. ANDCOFER,C. N., "Reasoning as an Associative Process: I. 'Direction' in a SimpleVerbal Problem," Psych. Reports,Vol. 2, (1956), pp. 469-476.34. KAHN,A. J., Theoryand Practice of Social Planning, Russell Sage Foundation, New York, 1969.35. KEPNER, . H. ANDTREGOE, . B., The Rational Manager, McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, 1965.36. KOHLER,W., The Task of GestaltPsychology,Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1969.37. LEWIN,K., Field Theoryand Social Science, Harper and Brothers,New York, 1951.38. LYLES,M. A. ANDMITROFF,. I., "OrganizationalProblem Formulation: An Empirical Study," Admin.Sci. Quart.,Vol. 25 (1980), pp. 102-119.39. MACCRIMMON,. R. AND TAYLOR,R. N., "Decision Making and Problem Solving," in Handbook ofIndustrial and Organizational Psychology, M. D. Dunnette (ed.), Rand McNally College PublishingCo., Chicago, 1976.40. McGUIRE, W. J., "The Yin and Yang of Progress in Social Psychology: Seven Koan," J. Personalityand Social Psych., Vol. 26 (1973), pp. 446-456.41. MAIER, N. R. F., Problem Solving Discussions and Conferences: Leadership Methods and Skills,McGraw-Hill, New York, 1963.42. , Problem Solving and Creativityin Individuals and Groups, Brooks/Cole Publishing Co., Bel-mont, California, 1970.43. AND BURKE, R. J., "Response Availability as a Factor in the Problem-Solving Performance ofMales and Females," J. Personalityand Social Psych., Vol. 5 (1967), pp. 304-310.44. MARCH, J. G. AND SIMON,H. A., Organizations,John Wiley, New York, 1958.45. MILGRAM, S., Obedience to Authority, Harper and Row, New York, 1974.

46. MINTZBERG, H., RAISINGHANI, D. AND THEORET, A., "The Structure of 'Unstructured' DecisionProcesses," Admin. Sci. Quart.,Vol 21 (1976), pp. 246-275.47. MITROFF, I. I. AND BETZ, F., "Dialectical Decision Theory: A Meta Theory Of Decision Making,"

Management ci., VOl. 19, No. 1 (1972), PP. 1 1-24.


15/15

652 ROGER J. VOLKEMA48. , EMSHOFF,. R. AND KILMANN, . H., "Assumptional Analysis: A Methodology for StrategicProblem Solving," ManagementSci., Vol. 25, No. 6 (1979), pp. 583-593.49. AND KILMANN,R. H., MethodologicalApproaches o Social Science, Josey-Bass, San Francisco,1978.50. MYERS, I. B., Manual (1962): The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, Educational Testing Service, Princeton,New Jersey, 1962.51. NADLER,G., WorkSystemsDesign: The IDEALS Concept, Richard D. Irwin, Inc., Homewood, Illinois,1967.52. , Work Design: A Systems Concept, Richard D. Irwin, Inc., Homewood, Illinois, 1970.53. , "A Timeline Theory of Planning and Design," Design Stud., Vol. 1, No. 5 (1980), pp. 299-307.54. , The Planning and Design Approach,John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1981.55. NEWELL, A., SHAW, J. C. AND SIMON,H. A., "Report on a General Problem-Solving Program for aComputer," InformationProcessing: Proceedingsof the InternationalConferenceon InformationProcess-ing, 1960, pp. 256-264.56. AND SIMON,H. A., Human Problem Solving, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey,1972.57. NuTT, P. C., "An Experimental Comparison of the Effectiveness of Three Planning Methods,"Management Sci., Vol. 23, No. 5 (1977), pp. 499-511.58. ORNSTEIN,R. E., The Psychology of Consciousness,W. H. Freeman & Co., San Francisco, 1972.59. OSBORN, . F., Applied Imagination, Scribner's, New York, 1957.60. PAYNE, J. W., "Task Complexity and Contingent Processing in Decision Making: An InformationSearch and Protocol Analysis," OrganizationalBehavior and Human Performance,Vol. 16 (1976), pp.366-387.61. POLYA,G., How to Solve It, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1973.62. POSNER,M. I., Cognition:An Introduction,Scott, Foresman & Co., Glenview, Illinois, 1973.63. PRUITT,D. G., "Informational Requirements in Making Decisions," Amer. J. Psych., Vol. 74 (1961),

pp. 433-439.64. REED, S. K. AND ABRAMSON,A., "Effect of the Problem Space on Subgoal Facilitation," J. EducationalPsych., Vol. 68, No. 2 (1976), 243-246.65. REITMAN,W. R., "Heuristic Decision Procedures, Open Constraints, and the Structure of Ill-DefinedProblems," in Human Judgmentsand Optimality, M. Shelley and G. Bryan (Eds.), Wiley, New York,1964.66. RICKARDS,T., Problem Solving ThroughCreativeAnalysis, Gower Press, Epping, Essex, 1975.67. SACKEIM,H. A. ANDGUR, R. C., "Self-Deception, Self-Confrontation, Consciousness," in Consciousnessand Self-Regulation:Advances in Researchand Theory, Vol. 2, G. E. Schwartz and D. Shapiro (Eds.),John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, England, 1978.68. SCRIVEN,M., "Prescriptiveand Descriptive Approaches to Problem Solving," in Problem Solving andEducation: Issues in Teaching and Research, D. T. Tuma and F. Reif (Eds.), Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey, 1980.69. SHULL, F. A., JR., DELBECQ,A. L. AND CUMMINGS,L. L., OrganizationalDesign Making, McGraw-HillBook Co., New York, 1970.70. SIMON,H. A., "Information Processing Theory of Human Problem Solving," CIP Working Paper No.324, May 28, 1976.71. AND BARENFELD,M., "Information-Processing Analysis of Perceptual Processes in ProblemSolving," Psych. Rev., Vol. 76 (1969), pp. 473-483.72. AND HAYES,J. R., "The Understanding Process: Problem Isomorphs," Cognitive Psych., Vol. 8(1976), pp. 165-190.73. TAYLOR,I. A., "A Retrospective View of Creativity Investigation," in Per-spectivesn Creativity,I. A.Taylor and J. W. Getzels (Eds.), Aldine Publishing Company, Chicago, 1975, pp. 1-36.74. TAYLOR, R. N., "Nature of Problem Ill-Structuredness: Implications for Problem Formulation andSolution," Decision Sci., Vol. 5, No. 4 (1974), pp. 632-643.75. TORRANCE,E. P., Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: Norms-Technical Manual, Personnel Press,Princeton, New Jersey, 1966.76. TVERSKY,A. AND KAHNEMAN,D., "The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice," Science,Vol. 211 (1981), pp. 453-458.77. VAN DE VEN, A. H. AND KOENIG,R., JR., "A Process Model for Program Planning and Evaluation," J.Econom. and Business, Vol. 28, No. 3 (1976), pp. 161-170.78. WARFIELD,J. N., "Intent Structures,"IEEE Trans.Systems Man Cybernet.,Vol. SMC-3, No. 2 (1973),pp.133-140.79. , Societal Systems: Planning, Policy and Complexity,John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1976.80. WRIGHT,P., "The Harassed Decision Maker: Time Pressures, Distractions, and the Use of Evidence,"

J. Appl.Psych.,Vol. 59, No. 5 (1974), pp. 555-561.

problem formulation in planning

Documents