Problem structuring methods (PSMs) are a group of techniques used tomodel or tomap the nature or structure of a situation orstate of affairs that some people want to change.[1] PSMs are usually used by a group of people incollaboration (rather than by a solitary individual) to create aconsensus about, or at least to facilitatenegotiations about, what needs to change.[2] Some widely adopted PSMs[1] include
Unlike someproblem 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 thecoaching andcounseling of individuals.[7]
The term "problem structuring methods" as a label for these techniques began to be used in the 1980s in the field ofoperations research,[8] especially after the publication of the bookRational 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]
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 andwicked 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]
| Thinker | Left extreme | Right extreme |
|---|---|---|
| Rittel &Webber | Tame problem | Wicked problem |
| Herbert A. Simon | Programmed decision | Non-programmed decision |
| Russell L. Ackoff | Puzzle / Problem | Mess |
| Jerome Ravetz | Technical problem | Practical problem |
| Ronald Heifetz | Technical challenge | Adaptive challenge |
| Peter Checkland | Hard systems | Soft systems |
| Donald Schön | The high ground | The swamp |
| Barry Johnson | Problems to solve | Polarities 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 multiplestakeholders and uncertainties and no definitive formulation. These situations are complex and have nostopping 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 assistargumentation 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.
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]
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]
Mingers and Rosenhead have noted that there are similarities and differences between PSMs andlarge 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 rigorousconceptual model orcognitive 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]
There is significant overlap or shared characteristics between PSMs and some of the techniques used inparticipatory 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]
In 2004, Mingers and Rosenhead published a literature review of papers that had been published inscholarly 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 theSan Francisco Zoo, developing abusiness strategy andinformation system strategy, planning livestock management in Nepal, regional planning in South Africa, modeling hospital outpatient services, and eliciting knowledge about pesticides.[24]
PSMs are a generalmethodology and are not necessarily dependent on electronicinformation technology,[26] but PSMs do rely on some kind ofshared display of the models that participants are developing. The shared display could beflip charts, a largewhiteboard,Post-it notes on the meeting room walls, and/or apersonal computer connected to avideo 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 implementcognitive mapping for strategic options development and analysis (SODA), andCompendium, which implementsIBIS fordialogue 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 groupdecision support systems.
Some practitioners prefer not to use computers during group work sessions because of the effect they have ongroup 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 includespreadsheet modeling,system dynamics software[30] orgeographic information systems.[31] Some practitioners, who have focused on buildingsystem dynamics simulation models with groups of people, have called their workgroup model building (GMB) and have concluded "that GMB is another PSM".[32] GMB has also been used in combination with SODA.[33]
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)