don't define the problem

Don't Define the ProblemAuthor(s): Iris LloydSource: Public Administration Review, Vol. 38, No. 3 (May - Jun., 1978), pp. 283-286Published by: Wiley on behalf of the American Society for Public AdministrationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/975684 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 20:21

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 ofcontent 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].

.

Wiley and American Society for Public Administration are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve andextend access to Public Administration Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.182 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 20:21:55 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aspa

http://www.jstor.org/stable/975684?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


283

DON'T DEFINE THE PROBLEM

Iris Lloyd, National Bureau of Standards

The approach to management studies that I learned in training courses was to define the problem, analyze it, develop recommendations, and sell the recommendations to an operating staff. This approach appeals because it is structured, disciplined, and logical. It provides the satisfactory feeling of bringing order out of chaos.

Recently I have had doubts about this neat and orderly approach. Problems that I "solved" with this technique have had an exasperating way of coming up again and again for solution. I thought perhaps it was an error in problem definition-that I had used definitions which didn't get to the heart of the matter; 'or that I had defined the problem narrowly, superficially, or only in terms of a single point in time; or that I had mistaken a peripheral problem for the main one; or that I was tailoring the problem to fit a preconceived solution. These errors of definition may well have been present, but, in addition, I now think that most management problems defy definition altogether.

Some work that I have been doing on the management of equipment makes me think that problems that aren't defined at the outset can still be solved successfully, perhaps more successfully than would have been possible if the problem were limited by a definition.

The National Bureau of Standards has 50,000 pieces of capital equipment with an acquisition value of $50 million. Managing this major asset is a challenge, primarily because of the diversity of the equipment-more than 2,000 different categories of scientific equipment-and the way that equipment is used in research. Experimental work is not a continually repeated process as industrial production is, and there is no industrial-type output. Given these cir- cumstances, the problem is to determine how to get the best utilization possible from the equipment.

Definitions of the problem were offered. Industry-oriented auditors proposed measuring the percentage of utilization of equipment with time-lapse meters and disposing of equipment used less than a certain percentage of the time. Such a proposal might work in a shoe factory but I would hate to suggest that a scientist throw out his $25,000 mass spectrometer because he isn't using it in his current experiment.

The inappropriate definitions weren't hard to spot, but what was the appropriate definition of the problem? I put off answering that question and worked on getting more information about the general situation.

A committee working on the matter discussed ways to arrange to have scientists borrow equipment from each other-if a $25,000 mass spectrometer wasn't being used in the laboratory that had bought it, could it be made available to another laboratory where it was needed? This discussion brought out the fact that no catalog of

MAY/JUNE 1978

* The thesis is that management analysis of very complex problems may be facilitated if the effort to formulate a thor- oughgoing definition of the problem is delayed or even omitted from the analysis. Attempts to define a very complex and dynamic problem may result in an over-simplified or erro- neous definition which, in turn, leads to an irrelevant solution. It is proposed that, instead of being defined, complex problems should be treated as open-ended.

NBS equipment existed which could be used to locate equipment to borrow. A nomenclature was designed and I was into a year-long project to have the equipment identified by nomenclature and create a catalog. Later I worked on a brochure describing the major facilities at NBS and their applications. Now a plan for a central clearinghouse to facilitate borrowing between laboratories is being developed.

The problem still isn't defined in the conventional sense. We seem to be working on solving pieces of the problem and using proposed solutions to test the situation. It seems to work.

This experience made me wonder if I could generalize from it and find an approach other than problem definition that would work with other complex management problems.

... defining the problem before proceeding with its solution results in artificial boundaries to the problem which limit the range of acceptable solutions ...

I have come to the conclusion that defining the problem before proceeding with its solution results in artificial boundaries to the problem which limit the range of acceptable solutions, and further that pre-determined limitations (goals, and constraints) on the process of problem solving hamper problem solution rather than facilitate it. I believe that problems can be solved by working on them incre- mentally as open-ended problems and that, when the ambiguity of management problems is understood and the impermanence of solutions is tolerated, useable working

Iris Lloyd is a management analyst in the Management and Orga- nization Division of the National Bureau of Standards, Washing- ton, D.C. and a winner of the Department of Commerce Silver Medal Award for her original contributions to the field of management analysis. She graduated from Antioch College in 1943 with a major in political science and received her Master of Public Administration in 1948 from Wayne State University where she was a Voelker Scholar.



284 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW

solutions can be formulated. The solutions are not elegant and tidy, but they are realistic responses to real life situations and, as such, are useful and workable for managers.

To describe how I arrived at these conclusions theo- retically as well as practically, let me start with the traditional ways of defining problems and then go into the ways these definitions fail and why they fail.

Traditional Problem Definition

Traditionally, problem-solvers are urged to define the problem. "The first step toward solving a problem is defining exactly what the problem is," writes Thad Green. ' A scientist writes, "The idea that one needs define the problem properly before solution can be found is common to science and all problem solving. The difficult part of science is asking the correct question-thereafter the 'answer' comes easily."2 These statements emphasize problem definition as the very first step in problem solving.

When I started thinking about the issue-to define or not to define-I decided I needed to know more about what problem definition consists of. Usually it is assumed that everyone knows how to define a problem. However, I found two distinct procedures for doing so: 1) objective- oriented problem definition, and 2) scientific method.

Objective-Oriented Problem Definition In objective-oriented problems, the problem-solver is

concerned with the difference between the existing state of affairs and his desired state of affairs. For example, if my living expenses exceed my income, then I am concerned with making a transition from this state of affairs to a desired situation in which income is as much or more than living expenses. The characteristic of such a situation which makes it a problem is that I don't know at the outset how to achieve my objective.

Defining an objective-oriented problem consists of identifying the objective and the constraints on how the objective can be achieved. A statement of my problem about money might be: "My problem is to find a way to achieve the objective of having enough income to cover my living expenses, given the resources available to me to obtain money and the requirement that my living expenses will be no less than $xxxx."

Problem solving in this instance consists of identifying alternative courses of action to achieve the objective and choosing the best alternative among them.

Scientific Method

Typically the goal of research in science is not identified as a desired state of affairs which is already familiar to the researcher. The objective is new knowledge and understanding of the physical environment, but the researcher does not know in advance what that knowledge or understanding will be. In research and other applications of scientific method, the problem-solver defines the problem by asking the correct question.

The experimental approach to problem solving in science then proceeds with four processes: observation, hypothesis, experimentation, and inductive reasoning.

Traditional Problem Definition vs. the Requirements of Management Problem Solving

Management problems in today's world are character- ized by:

* many variables; * complexity of relationships among variables; * inability of the problem-solver to limit the number of

variables; * the impracticality of fragmenting the problem and

treating it as a series of smaller problems; * the dynamic nature of problems, constant change; * difficulty in establishing cause and effect relationships

because of the complexity of the relationships; and * the fact that past experience may not be applicable to

the present problem.

Traditional problem definition fails when applied to management problems in a number of important ways:

* symptoms are mistaken for problem causes; * boundaries are established before the problem is well

understood and sometimes are incorrectly set because they are decided upon for reasons not related to the character of the problem;

* by limiting one's self to the defined problem, the problem-solver fails to see the problem as part of the total situation and to consider the effects of the total situation on it; and

* the definition of a problem cannot allow for unanticipated changes which take place during the process of problem solving.

The following paragraphs discuss each of these issues.

Mistaking Symptoms for Problem Causes

Management problems tend to appear first as symptoms and these symptoms are often presented to the problem- solver with assumptions about the causes of the symptoms: "The work isn't getting out because morale is so low."

Quite often the assumption about the cause of a problem is further expanded to include a recommended solution: "We've got to make an organizational change there. The fellow who runs that outfit doesn't do a good job." "If we only had our own computer instead of sharing one, all our paperwork problems would be solved. "

"There is too much overtime because the work is not properly scheduled. "

"Get rid of that publication! There was very heavy criticism last month about one of the articles in it. "

Mistaking a symptom for a problem results in defining the wrong problem or defining a non-problem. Consider the incredible results when the assumption was made that

MAY/JUNE 1978



PUBLIC MANAGEMENT FORUM 285

motorists who break traffic laws are the cause of traffic jams. The following account of a solution to the problem of perennial traffic jams on the inadequate streets of the island city of Lagos, Nigeria, was reported in the New York Times. 3 "Since November the army has posted red-capped military officers at major intersections. Using three-foot-long braided horsewhips called kobokos, they beat drivers who stray from the law. It is not an uncommon sight while traffic is inching through the dusty, teeming streets to see a motorist yanked from his vehicle, his arm raised to fend off the flailing koboko. "The trouble is that the whipping has not improved matters, for the traffic is, logic aside, more impossible than ever."

The problem-solver has to get behind the stated problem to find out what is really wanted and what is really wrong before he can proceed toward a solution.

Setting Boundaries at the Wrong Time and for the Wrong Reasons

Problem definition focuses on establishing the boundaries of the problem. The problem-solver separates what he has decided to regard as the problem from the overall problem situation.

In their theory of bounded rationality, Hellriegel and Slocum conclude that the limitations of time and resources are such that the problem-solver never has all the information relevant to the problem and never explores the com- plete range of alternative solutions. The typical accommo- dation to this limitation of time and resources is for the problem-solver to limit his efforts at problem definition by accepting the first definition that seems adequate rather than exploring all phases of the problem. He thus estab- lishes a limited range of outcomes to his problem, settling for a satisfactory outcome rather than trying to arrive at a single optimum solution.4

As the theory of bounded rationality indicates, not all options on boundaries are open to the problem-solver. However, if he does not establish fixed boundaries initially, then the limitations of time and resources can be related to the problem content at a later date when this can be done more realistically than at the start. By not establishing fixed boundaries-by not defining the problem at the outset-the problem-solver is open to new information which helps him decide, at some point during the process of solution, where in the overall situation he wants to establish the boundaries.

Failing to See the Problems as Part of the Total Situation

In contrast to the scientific problem-solver who works to narrow the boundaries of the problem until he has defined a question which might be definitively answered, the management problem-solver must expand his horizons until he is dealing with a situation which encompasses the entire problem.

Mary Parker Follett speaks to the question as follows: "Studying the total situation means trying to see every fac- tor that influences the situation and the relations of these

MAY/JUNE 1 978

factors to one another. We never put parts together even when we think we do. We watch parts behaving together and the way they behave is the whole. "5

The Problem of Unanticipated Changes Management problems occur in situations which are in a

continuous state of change. Even the accepted rules and procedures are subject to change. Dr. Siu calls it a game of Chinese baseball. He writes: "Chinese baseball is played almost exactly like American baseball . . . There is one and only one difference: after the ball leaves the pitcher's hand and as long as the ball is in the air, anyone can move any of the bases anywhere. In other words, everything is continually changing-not only the events themselves, but the very rules governing the judgment of those events and the criteria of values as well . . . In the ball game of public administration, everything is flux and all systems are open. "6

Foreign policy problems offer examples of this phenom- enon. In Africa, the bases in the ball game have been constantly moved about in the last couple of years. Develop- ments in Angola, Rhodesia, Namibia, and most recently, Somalia and Ethiopia, have confronted U.S. policy makers with unprecedented problems. In this constantly changing situation, no firm definitions of these problems would have been valid for very long. Any problem boundaries decided upon initially would have had to be changed frequently. Firm definitions of the problems, if adhered to, would have dictated solutions, and the solutions would have been rendered inappropriate by the constantly changing events.

The Alternative to Defining the Problem

Defining the problem has been thought to be desirable because the alternative of not doing so seemed to mean that the problem-solver would be struggling hopelessly with an unmanageable mass of data, that he would waste his time on trivia or irrelevancies, and that he would select inappropriate solutions-all this because he had failed to structure his efforts via problem definition and had failed to think through his objectives. The application of scientific method to management problems was thought to offer the answer. But then, management problems used to be less complex and more static than they have become in recent years.

But not defining the problem doesn't have to mean floundering in chaos. It can mean treating the problem as open-ended. With an open-ended problem, the core of the problem has to be recognized, but its boundaries and limitations need not be determined and should not be. The per- ceived boundaries should be expected to change. The process of exploring the problem may affect the character of the problem. The passage of time will affect it and uncontrollable outside forces may reshape it. The solver of an open-ended problem keeps an open mind about where the boundaries of the problem are and devotes himself to understanding it. The solution deals with the problem as it



286 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW

unfolds, as its dimensions are revealed. The solution process tolerates ambiguity and impermanence.

Rickards defines open-ended problems as follows: "An open-ended solving situation exists if a problem has been recognized and the solver believes that he can usefully challenge one or more of its boundary conditions." He lists the following characteristics of closed and open problem situations:

Closed

Boundaries are fixed during problem solving

Process marked by predictability of final solution.

Process usually conscious, controllable and logically reconstructable.

Solutions often provable, logically correct.

Procedures are known which directly aid problem solving (algorithms or heuristics).

Open

Boundaries may change during problem solving.

Process of solving often involves production of novel and unexpected ideas.

Process may involve creative thinking of an uncontrollable kind.

Solutions often outside the bounds of logic-can neither be proved or disproved.

Direct (conscious) efforts at stimulation of creative process to solve problems is difficult.

The open-ended approach to problem solving is espe- cially compatible with creative solutions. Not that traditional approaches preclude creative solutions; simply that an attitude of openness to the environment surrounding the problem situation makes it easier to be receptive to solution ideas which might otherwise seem outside the problem boundaries. An example is a case study cited by Rickards about some people who tried the "excursion" technique on a problem. They began by focusing on the word "sample." Then they thought about samples in the world of astrophysics. In the course of an imaginary trip to the moon, they put various apparently unrelated ideas together. Eventually they found some combinations of ideas that were relevant to the problem. Their final idea came from thinking about a spider's web. The idea was to

move a strip of material through the fluid to collect a continuous record of grease concentration. This solution turned out to be workable and better than the possible solutions that had been developed through more conventional problem solving techniques.7

As the term open-ended suggests, the solutions to these problems are not permanent. The situation continues to change and the solution changes. The problem solver set- tles for the best course of action today-tomorrow we'll probably need a new course of action, a new solution. My money problem gets solved for this year, but not neces- sarily for next year; the U.S. foreign policy for Africa is set -for a few months; overtime is reduced for now. And so it goes.

Conclusion

This then is my analysis of why traditional problem solving hasn't worked for me and my proposed alternative to defining the problem. It is a way to proceed with solving a problem while still responding to changes in the environment and in the problem situation itself. I believe such an approach is essential if managers are to deal successfully with the complicated and ever-changing problems they encounter in management today.

Notes

1. Thad B. Green, "Problem Definition-Key to Effective Problem Solving," Management Adviser, November- December 1973.

2. Correspondence with the author. 3. "Motorist is Made the Whipping Boy for Lagos' Tangled

Traffic," New York Times, January 9, 1977. 4. Don Hellriegel and John W. Slocum, Jr., Management, A

Contingency Approach, (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1974.)

5. Mary Parker Follett, "The Psychology of Control," Dy- namic Administration, Elliot M. Fox, and L. Urwick, eds., (London: Pitman Publishing Co., 1973).

6. R. G. H. Siu, "Chinese Baseball and Public Administra- tion," Public Administration Review, November/December 1975.

7. Tudor Rickards, Problem-Solving through Creative Anal- ysis, (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1974).

MAY/JUNE 1978



don't define the problem

Documents