Problem Formulation in Planning and Design Author(s): Roger J. Volkema Reviewed work(s): Source: Management Science, Vol.

29, No. 6 (Jun., 1983), pp. 639-652 Published by: INFORMS Stable 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 forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

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

http://www.jstor.org

MANAGEMENT SCIENCE Vol. 29, No. 6, June 1983 Prinlted in U.S.A.

PROBLEM FORMULATION IN PLANNING AND 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-problem reduction and problem expansion. Because the latter type has received little empirical research, an initial study of a problem expansion heuristic (Problem-Purpose Expansion) was conducted. Experimentation showed that Problem-Purpose Expansion may have a positive effect on idea generation, particularly for individuals working on problems that fall outside their area of expertise. Exhorting the importance of problem formulation, a second treatment studied in these experiments, produced little measurable effect on idea generation. (PHILOSOPHY OF MODELING/PROBLEM FORMULATION)

1. Introduction In recent years, theorists and practitioners have proposed a wide variety of planning and design methods. Some of these proposals have been attempts to describe how people 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 and design 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 and Koenig [77], Nadler [54]). The difficulity in modelling the planning and design process, whether it be descriptively 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 suggesting a generalized ordering of phases. The planning process is characterized by feedback 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 problem undoubtedly have changed. Perhaps the only thing that can be said with certainty is that the process must begin with some sort of detection, discovery or sensation that a need or opportunity exists (see Figure 1.) In attempting to understand and improve planning and design methods, researchers generally have focused their attention on the exploration, selection, design, implementation and evaluation stages of the planning and design process (McGuire [40]). As a result, much less is known about how problems are found and formulated (Getzels [23], Mitroff and Kilmann [49]). The value of an appropriate or "quality" problem formulation, however, is well documented. It is supported by introspective, anecdotal and empirical evidence. The purpose of this paper is twofold: to examine the literature relevant to problem formulation (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 1 revision. tUniversity of Wisconsin-Eau Claire.

639 0025-1909/83/2906/0639$0 1.25

Copyright e 1983, The lnstitute of Management Sciences

640 Phases Sensation Formulation Exploration Selection Design Implementation Evaluation

FIGURE

ROGER J. VOLKEMA Time >

1. A Generic Model of Planning and Design.

factors that can affect the formulation process, and strategies for reducing complexity in problem diagnosis and formulation), and to report the results of an initial study on problem formulation exhortation and Problem-Purpose Expansion, a strategy for reformulating problems. 2. The Importanceof Problem Formulationto Planning and Design It is not difficult to make a cogent argument for more investigation into the problem formulation process. Because problem formulation often occurs in the early stages of planning and design, it has the potential for affecting the direction of all succeeding stages (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 ideas that the representation can produce (Duncker [16], Judson and Cofer [33], Maier and Burke [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]). As the process continues, however, assumptions and constraints are added in an effort to bring manageability and closure to the problem (Reitman [65], Taylor [73]). These limit the scope of the problem and the range of possible solutions. Because the amount of information needed to change a decision is much greater than the amount needed to make it initially (Pruitt [63], Gibson and Nicol [24]), reformulation of the problem becomes less likely once a particular formulation is selected and pursued. This places added pressure on decision makers to avoid premature closure and to select "optimal" problem statements. A problem that is defined with incorrect presumptions concerning needs and opportunities can result in significant monetary losses as well as problem solving ineffectiveness (Granger [25], Kahn [34], Nadler [52]). 3. Factors Affecting Problem Formulation

Unfortunately, it is difficult (if not impossible) to tell from the syntax and semantics of a problem statement whether or not the statement will lead to a good solution. And while some problem statements may not be rich in solutions or ideas, they may be invaluable because they lead to new problem perspectives. One recourse that a planner has is to devote more time and energy to the formulation process and to consider as many different perspectives on the problem as possible. 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 been more appropriate (Mitroff and Betz [47]). Several factors can affect the amount of time and effort a planner or designer will devote to formulating a problem. They include: (1) the complexities of the problem,

PROBLEM FORMULATION IN PLANNING AND DESIGN

641

(2) the capabilities and experiences of the planner or designer, (3) the environment in which the planning or design takes place, and (4) the formulation process used by the planner or designer (Lewin [37], Hinton [29]). (1) There have been many attempts to understand the first factor problem complexity through a classification of problem types (for example: Getzels [22], Fuller and Myers [19], Reitman [65], Cartwright [10], Greeno [26]). While each of these typologies has lent some clarity to the task of managing problem complexity, a universally 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 on what is and what is not a "problem." Many definitions exist. A problem has been defined alternatively as a conflict (Duncker [16]), an obstacle (Maier [42]), an accepted task that a person does not know how to carry out (Simon [70]), dissatisfaction with a purposeful state (Ackoff and Emery [3]), and the difference between what one has and what one wants (de Bono [13]), to name but a few. Second, the potential number of problematic situations that must be classified is enormous, perhaps infinite. As a result, it is difficult to say with confidence that a finite classification system circumscribes an indeterminate and growing list of situations. Third, while it would appear that some problems are more "ill-structured" than others, the boundary between such problems is imprecise.' Instead, a continuum exists from problems like cryptarithmetic puzzles to a problem like the task of designing a house (Simon [70]). Furthermore, few problems of any type remain fixed. Planning and design proceed in large part by replacing problems of one type with problems or subproblems of a different type. A problem can be ill-defined at some points, but relatively well-defined at others (Reitman [65]). This dynamic is one reason why the psychology literature on general problem solving and creative problem solving, which primarily focuses on well-defined problems, is relevant to the study of planning and design. Although science lacks at present a universally accepted scheme of classification, some dimensions of problem complexity are apparent. As the number of variables in a problem increases and the specificity and measurability of those variables is diminished, a problem becomes more complex and the limits on analysis and action are more constrained (Cartwright [10]). In terms of problem formulation, increased problem complexity means that a single, comprehensive problem statement will be more difficult to identify. If several parties are involved in the formulation process, there may 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, not necessarily the best statement for generating creative, effective solutions. (2) A second set of factors, the capabilities and experiences of the planner, also can affect how a problem is formulated and solved. The physiology of the human information processing system, for example, is a critical limiting factor in the formulation process. As reported by Simon [70] and Newell and Simon [56], human memory consists of a small but fast short-term memory, and an essentially infinite long-term memory with fast retrieval but slow storage times. In human memory, information is processed sequentially (Simon and Barenfeld [71]). These properties, which appear to be invariant over problem solver and task, impose strong limitations on the ways in which the human system can seek solutions to complex problems. Short-term memory is not large enough to hold all the facts and algorithms 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 terminal state, and transformations-are unfamiliar to the decision maker.

state,

642

ROGER J. VOLKEMA

used recently and frequently are likely to be available in long-term memory. As a result, familiar problems are likely to be defined in terms of obvious solutions, and the formulation process may never be fully activated. While this may be efficient in some cases, it may be ineffective (if you become fixated on an obvious solution that fails) or unopportunistic (if the problem that the solution addresses is embedded in a larger problem) in others (Hoffman et al. [30], Colgrove [11]). The human brain has another property that can affect the problem formulation process. Recent studies of the left and right hemispheres of the cerebrum suggest that each hemisphere serves a different function (Ornstein [58]). The left hemisphere seems to specialize in logical, analytical, rational processes, and is especially proficient in verbal comprehension. The right hemisphere appears to control intuitive, holistic, affective processes, and is superior in the comprehension of spatial relations and pictorial stimuli (Sackeim and Gur [67]). If an individual has a tendency to use one hemisphere more than the other, the formulation of certain types of problems may be easier or more difficult. In addition to these physiological limitations, the life experiences of an individual play a major role in determining how a problem is perceived and approached (Shull et al. [69]). An individual's past experiences determine what part of a task environment will 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 to employ 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 a problem is formulated is the extent to which a high quality solution is desired. In some situations a planner or designer may be willing to accept the first solution that satisfies the minimum requirements of the problem (i.e., "satisfices"). When this is the case, less time is likely to be spent solving (and formulating) the problem than if a high quality solution was critical (March and Simon [44], Maier [41]). (3) Many factors in the planner's environment can affect the problem formulation process. Time constraints, work load and support from colleagues are three examples. When environmental factors tax the physiological and psychological limitations of the planner or designer, stress is produced. Stress is a function of an individual's ability to cope with the complexities and uncertainties of his or her environment, and can affect how much time and energy are devoted to formulating a problem. For example, if a decision is needed quickly, the amount of time spent in formulating (and reformulating) the problem may be cut short (Maier [41], Wright [80]). Likewise, if the planner or designer is emotionally fatigued, the search for a satisfactory statement of the problem may be abbreviated (Holsti [31], Janis and Mann [32]). Sometimes problems are defined for us by someone else. If that person appears to have spent considerable time defining the problem, has high credibility due to past successes, education or social status, or is in a position of authority, the problem recipient is more likely to accept without question the definition of the problem that is given to him or her (Milgram [45], Janis and Mann [32], Lyles and Mitroff [38]). This is particularly true if the recipient has had little experience in challenging problem statements, independent of problem ownership (Gagne [20]). (4) These are some of the factors related to the problem, the planner, and the planning environment which mediate the problem formulation process. Most of the factors are difficult or impossible to control. They can affect not only how much time and attention are devoted to the formulation process, but also what strategies will be employed by the planner or designer. The causal relationship between these factors and a planner's choice of formulation strategies has not received much empirical study. A first step is to identify the domain

PROBLEM FORMULATION IN PLANNING AND DESIGN

643

of problem formulation strategies used by planners and designers. This is a difficult task since thinking and decision making are by nature covert processes. MacCrimmon and Taylor [39] give a review of some of the strategies for coping with the main types of decision environments-uncertain, conflictive and complex. They identify four decision strategies for reducing complexity in problem diagnosis and formulation: (a) determining the boundaries of a problem, (b) examining changes in the decision environment (or decision maker) which may have 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 to manage the problem by breaking it down to controllable components or subproblems. Means-Ends Analysis, for example, is a technique for reducing the gap between a known, desired end-state and an existing state. Likewise, each of the strategies listed under 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 the most rational and efficient approach for solving complex problems, problem reduction has a number of potential drawbacks, including focusing so quickly on solutions that the 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 are concerned with examining the assumptions or boundaries of a problem (i.e., the critical factors, organizational rules, physical laws, social norms, personal values, etc., that delimit the problem). Explicit Boundary Clarification and Assumptional Analysis are strategies for explicitly clarifying problem boundaries, while Function Expansion clarifies problem boundaries implicitly. All three strategies can be classified as problem expansion heuristics. As a method for implicitly clarifying the boundaries of a problem, Function Expansion has several advantages. Many times it is difficult or impossible to identify all of the relevant factors that circumscribe a problem. Breaking the problem down
TABLE I Decision Strategiesfor Reducing Complexityin Problem Diagnosis and Formulation (using categories suggested by MacCrimmonand Taylor [39]) a. DeterminingProblem Boundaries Explicit Boundary Clarification Function Expansion Assumptional Analysis Examining Changes Focusing on Changes FactoringInto Subproblems Means-Ends Analysis Morphological Analysis Attribute Listing Input-Output Analysis Focusing on the ControllableComponents Working Forward, Working Backward Planning Process Mixed Scanning Selective Focusing (Kepner and Tregoe [35]) (Nadler [51]) (Mitroff, Emshoff and Kilmann [48]) (Kepner and Tregoe [35]) (Newell, Shaw and Simon [55]) (Hall [27]) (Rickards [66]) (Hall [27]) (Feldman and Kanter [18], Polya [61]) (Bourne et al. [7]) (Etzioni [17]) (Shull et al. [69])

b. c.

d.

644

ROGER J. VOLKEMA

does not always help, since a system has characteristics that the mere sum of its parts cannot reproduce (Ackoff [2]). Through Function Expansion these characteristics and other factors are taken into consideration implicitly (since problem boundaries are usually embedded in the broader functions or purposes that a solution to the problem will serve). In addition, an ordering (hierarchy) of the major directions to seek in solving the problem is constructed. On an organizational level, efforts to explicitly define problem boundaries within the existing system can make people defensive and uncooperative. Debating organizational rules, social norms and personal values, as well as scrutinizing past human errors, can cause great consternation among people. By concentrating on the purposes (major directions) of the system being analyzed or designed, problem boundaries can be 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 problem formulation heuristics, in general) has gone largely untested. In one of the few studies of the formulation process that has been conducted in planning and design, Nutt [57] compared the relative effectiveness of two design methods in solving design problems for a health planning council. The two structured approaches-the Program Planning Method (Delbecq and Van de Ven [14]) and the IDEALS method (Nadler [52])-differ in terms of approach to problem formulation. The Program Planning Method attempts to 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 of purposes with the intention of selecting a particular purpose level from which to work. Nutt found that the former social-psychology-based design method generated more new information, while the latter systems-based design method generated superior results. However, since the two problem formulation philosophies were embedded in design approaches that differed in several other respects, it is difficult to say to what extent the findings can be attributed to differences in the formulation process. 4. 4.1. The Design An EmpiricalInvestigationof Problem Formulationand Problem-PurposeExpansion

To 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 for each problem was broken down into four 4-minute intervals. Two primary treatments were compared (see Figure 2). The first treatment was problem formulation exhortation. Without mentioning a specific problem formulation strategy, a group2 of participants was forewarned (and reminded at the beginning of the second, third and fourth intervals) of the importance of the formulation process. This was accomplished by citing the exhortations of a well-known scientist and through examples of problems that were cleverly solved through reformulation. The purpose of this treatment was to insure that participants were not simply forgetting to employ effective formulation strategies that they knew and had used in the past. The second treatment group was given a specific technique, called Problem-Purpose Expansion, for systematically expanding the scope of a problem to take advantage of broader purposes. This particular technique was chosen because it incorporates many of the attributes of problem expansion as extolled by Alinsky [4], Bateson [6]. and Argyris [5], and developed by Nadler [51] and Warfield [78]-theories which have not
2The term "group" is used here and elsewhere in this paper in the nominal sense. Participants worked individually on the experimental tasks.

PROBLEM FORMULATION IN PLANNING AND DESIGN Brainstorming With Problem-Purpose Expansion No Problem Problem Formulation Formulation Exhortation Exhortation 4 4

645

Brainstorming Only No Problem Problem Formulation Formulation Exhortation Exhortation u Y 4 4

t ;

e04

3~Y

FIGURE 2.

Factorial Design: Distribution of Participants.

been tested in a laboratory setting. By expanding or broadening the scope of a problem, the boundaries of the problem are relaxed and the corresponding solutionspace enlarged (Hall [27]). Theoretically, the number of solutions should increase as expansion (and idea generation) continue. The application of this treatment was similar to the application of problem formulation exhortation. The technique was explained in a handout given to participants at the beginning of the experiment. At the start of the second, third and fourth time intervals participants were asked to reformulate the problem using Problem-Purpose Expansion before they continued idea generation. The technique is explained in more detail in Appendix 1. In addition, all participants, including the control group, were given instructions in Brainstorming (Osborn [59]), and were reminded at 4-minute intervals of the rules of Brainstorming. The participants in these experiments were students of junior standing or higher at a Midwestern university. Each was paid $10 for attending two sessions totalling three hours. Of the 64 participants, half were enrolled in a technical curriculum (engineering); the other half were enrolled in a behavioral curriculum (counseling and guidance). Prior to experimentation, the Torrance Test of Verbal Creativity (Torrance [75]) was given to each participant to take into account creativity, a potentially intervening variable, when assigning participants to treatments. Participants were categorized as either high or low creatives, and assigned treatments using a randomized blocks design (Hays [28]).3 Environmental factors (physical and social) were held constant in these experiments.
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 selected because 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 have been tested extensively (Torrance [75]). A bipartite division (high and low creatives) was used for ease in generalizing. While it would be interesting to know that engineers who scored between 200 and 230 on the Torrance Test found a particular technique of problem formulation helpful, planners and designers seldom have 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.

646

ROGER J. VOLKEMA

Participants were asked to solve two problems that closely approximate real planning and design problems (as opposed to puzzles, which have only a single, welldefined solution or end-state). One was a problem that had been used for several years at a university School of Social Work ("The Staffing Problem"). The Staffing Problem involves a hospital ward where some patients are disturbing others apparently because they cannot find their rooms. The other, called "The Elevator Problem," was a variation of a problem suggested by Ackoff [1]. The Elevator Problem involves tenant complaints about the elevator service in a large office building. Each problem contained multiple problem levels, and participants were given an initial problem focus (see Appendix 2). The primary measures of effectiveness for the treatments were the following outcome 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 creativity. High creative participants outproduced low creative participants in terms of number of different solutions, number of different conceptualizations, and quality of solutions. In the analyses of variance these were significant at the 0.001 level or better in all three cases. The technique of Problem-Purpose Expansion had some limited or restricted benefits. In general, the technique was useful in increasing the number of different solutions produced. Overall, Problem-Purpose Expansion users produced 13% more solutions than nonusers. Because of the strong relationship that was found to exist between creativity and most of the outcome measures, an ad hoc analysis was conducted by creativity types. This showed that for high creatives the number of different solutions produced was 20% greater for participants using Problem-Purpose Expansion. In a t-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 Expansion, participant background and problem type was significant (0.012) for the number of solutions produced. Problem-Purpose Expansion appeared to be most useful for counseling and guidance people working on the Elevator Problem and engineering people working on the Staffing Problem (see Table 2). This seems logical, since the Elevator Problem apparently is a technical problem (initially suggesting the need for more, larger or faster means of transportation), which counseling and guidance people (behavior conceptualizers) might have trouble solving without Problem-Purpose Expansion. Likewise, the Staffing Problem apparently is a behavioral problem (initially suggesting behavioral changes on the part of staff or patients), which engineering people (technical conceptualizers) might find more difficult to solve without ProblemPurpose Expansion. The increase in number of solutions produced was 28% for counseling and guidance people and 20% for engineering people. Again, ad hoc analyses were conducted by creativity type and it was found that Problem-Purpose Expansion helped high creative counseling and guidance participants come up with 33% more solutions when working on the Elevator Problem. This was significant at the 0.051 level in a t-test. High creative engineering participants generated 37% more solutions when Problem-Purpose Expansion was used. This was significant at the 0.059 level.
4These results are based, in part, on analyses of variance that were run for each of the four outcome measures. Because of the 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 repeated measures design, the ANOVA tables are lengthy and are not reproduced here. They are available on request from the author.

PROBLEM FORMULATION IN PLANNING AND DESIGN TABLE 2 isoniof Problem-Purpose Expansion Users with Conitrol oupfor Select Participant Groups Compar Gr and Problems*

647

Engineering Participants Counseling Participants Working on the Staffing Problem Working on the Elevator Problem High High All Creatives Creatives All Number of Different Solutions Number of Different Conceptualizations Ability to Sustain Idea Generation
Quality of Solutions

+ 20% + 26% + 1.4%

+ 2.1%

+ 37% + 27% + 4.8%

- 5.3%

+ 28% + 18% - 0.4%

- 1.9%

+ 33% + 18% - 5.2%

- 1.3%

* Positive percentages indicate Problem-Purpose Expansion superiority over control group.

As Table 2 also indicates, the number of different conceptualizations increased for each of the select groups using Problem-Purpose Expansion. And, although ability to sustain idea generation decreased for high creative counseling and guidance participants working on the Elevator Problem, it increased for low creative counseling and guidance participants (not shown in Table 2). In a t-test this was significant at the 0.039 level. Problem-Purpose Expansion produced mixed results in terms of the quality of the solutions. The significance of this result is suspect because of the low inter-rater reliabilities among the three expert raters. For the three components of a quality solution-Technical Feasibility/Effectiveness, Likelihood of Acceptance, and Innovativeness-the highest inter-rater reliability was only 0.571 (for Likelihood of Acceptance on the Staffing Problem); for Innovativeness it was 0.174 and 0.142 (Staffing and Elevator Problems, respectively). The diverse backgrounds of the three expert raters (engineering, human relations, and financial planning) and minimal amount of training 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 Expansion was the most common response given to the first question asked: "What did you like about this problem solving experience?" Comments included: ProblemPurpose Expansion is fast, logical, developmental, fun and helps give a new perspective on the problem. The reformulation technique was familiar to some (mostly high creatives). 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 expanding the problem's scope using Problem-Purpose Expansion. Of the twelve cases of inconsistent problem expansion (i.e., the problem's scope was narrowed, remained unchanged, or the change in scope was uncertain during one or more of the three reformulations), low creatives accounted for ten (83%) of the inconsistences.5 In a x2 test this was significant at the 0.02 level. This suggests the possibility of unfamiliarity with Problem-Purpose Expansion among low creatives, and the need for additional training in how to use the technique. Problem formulation exhortation, at least as it was defined in these experiments, had no significant impact on the four outcome measures. This would suggest either that participants did not need to be reminded of the importance of reformulation (because they were already reformulating the problems as needed) or that this particular exhortation approach was ineffective in eliciting useful heuristics.
5Consistency in problem expansion was determined by a group of three experts who had familiarity with problem purposes and problem hierarchies.

648

ROGER J. VOLKEMA TABLE 3 Problem Solving Heuristics Reportedby Participants During Retrospection * Redefine/expand the problem * Break problem 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 the participants. By using a technique suggested by Gagne and Smith [21]-retrospection with forewarning-additional heuristics that participants said they had used while solving the two problems were elicited (see Table 3). Some of these heuristics were characteristic of only one group of participants. For example, only engineering participants suggested "ignoring or denying the problem" and "elaborating or improving on previous ideas" as heuristics they had used. Only counseling and guidance participants suggested "using available resources." The utility of these heuristics is unknown. 5. Summary and Conclusion

The purpose of this paper was twofold: to examine the literature relevant to problem formulation and to report the results of an initial study on problem formulation exhortation 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 a result, it has the potential to affect the direction of all succeeding stages. To some extent this is due to the strong relationship that exists between the way a problem is represented and the solutions or ideas the representation can produce. Often too little time and energy are devoted to the formulation process, which can result in solving the "wrong" problem or a suboptimal problem. Many factors can contribute to this breakdown, including problem complexity, the capabilities and experiences of the planner or designer, the planning environment, and the formulation process(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 been reported in the literature and much less attention has been given to evaluating problem expansion heuristics. To evaluate the potential of problem expansion heuristics in planning and design, different problem formulation approaches were compared in a laboratory study. Two treatments-problem formulation exhortation and Problem-Purpose Expansion-were compared. The results showed that problem formulation exhortation had no effect on outcome. Problem-Purpose Expansion had some effect on the number of different solutions that were produced, particularly when participants were working on a problem that fell outside their area of expertise.

PROBLEM FORMULATION IN PLANNING AND DESIGN

649

The results of the study were not overwhelming. The study did show, however, that problem formulation can be evaluated under laboratory conditions. Future efforts might seek to improve the design of these experiments by developing alternative methods of training in the use of problem formulation heuristics, by more closely simulating a true planning and design environment through factors of personal attachment to a particular problem perspective, stress and problem ownership, and by allowing for more flexible time intervals for idea generation and more variability in reformulating. Finally, retrospection with forewarning proved to be an effective way of eliciting planning and design strategies while problem formulation was the focus of the research. Additional research might seek to identify and evaluate other problem formulation heuristics. The order in which heuristics are applied and the frequency with which they are tried also could be studied. Appendix 1 The technique of Problem-Purpose Expansion has two parts. The first part is simply a format suggested by Warfield [78], [79] for stating a problem. The format is: an action verb + an object phrase + a qualifying phrase (optional). For example, if an office 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 phrase

Once a problem has been stated in this format it can become the focus of a brainstorm (rapid generation) of solutions and ideas.6 The second part of the technique is concerned with taking a problem that has been put in this format and reformulating it (i.e., expanding or broadening its scope). This is done 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 you want TO GET TWO NEW ELEVATORS INSTALLED WITHIN THREE MONTHS (Most Recent Problem Formulation) in order TO IMPROVE THE ELEVATOR SERVICE IN THE BUILDING (Reformulation). This latter statement is a broader interpretation of the problem which then could become the subject of a second brainstorm of solutions and ideas.7 The 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 design problems. These statements were provided at the beginning of the first four-minute interval and participants were asked to brainstorm solutions for each initial statement. The statement shown above (TO GET TWO NEW ELEVATORS INSTALLED WITHIN THREE MONTHS) was the initial problem statement provided for the Elevator Problem (see Appendix 2). 7As an illustration of why TO IMPROVE THE ELEVATOR SERVICE IN THE BUILDING is a broader interpretation (expansion) of the initial statement (TO GET TWO NEW ELEVATORS INSTALLED WITHIN THREE MONTHS), note that getting two new elevators is only one way of improving elevator service in the building. Elevator service might also be improved by renovating existing elevators or hiring an elevator attendant, which are examples of solutions that are not suggested by the initial problem statement.

650

ROGER J. VOLKEMA

as the referent. For example, before beginning a third brainstorm of solutions you would complete the following: What am I trying to accomplish? I want TO IMPROVE THE ELEVATOR SERVICE IN THE BUILDING in order TO (Reformulation) Thus, the scope of the problem continues to be expanded with each reformulation. Appendix 2 The Staffing Problem. In the geriatric (senior citizens') ward of a hospital, housing about 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 four patients who have difficulty finding their rooms. One of the hospital's administrators has suggested that the patients be escorted back to their rooms. However, this will require that some time be freed up from an already overworked staff. As an assistant to the administrator, you were asked to come up with a plan to free up staff time. You must present the plan at the next administrative meeting. The Elevator Problem. The manager of a large office building has been receiving an increasing number of complaints about the building's elevator service, particularly during rush hours. Several of the larger tenants in the building have threatened to move out unless the service is improved. In response, the manager recently inquired into the possibility of adding one or two elevators to the building. Although it would be 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 new elevators installed within three months. You must present the plan at the next staff meeting.8
8The author wishes to thank Gerald Nadler, Jerome Kaufman and Willy Cats-Baril for their careful reading of an earlier draft of this paper and helpful suggestions. This investigation was supported in part by a grant from the National Institutes of Health.

References
1. ACKOFF, L., The Art of Problem Solving, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1978. R. , "The Art and Science of Mess Management," Interfaces, Vol. 11, No. 1 (1981), pp. 20-26. 2. 3. ANDEMERY, On PurposefulSystems, Aldine-Atherton, Chicago, 1972. F., 4. ALINSKY, D., Rules for Radicals, Vintage Books, New York, 1971. S. 5. ARGYRIS, "Single-Loop and Double-Loop Models in Research on Decision Making," Admin. Sci. C., Quart., Vol. 21 (September 1976), pp. 363-375. 6. BATESON, Steps to an Ecology of Mind, Chandler Publishing Co., New York, 1972. G., R. 7. BOURNE, E., JR., EKSTRAND, B. R. AND DOMINOWSKI, L., The Psychology of Thinking, PrenticeL. 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 Design Problem 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 of Planning," 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.

PROBLEM FORMULATION IN PLANNING AND DESIGN

651

14. DELBECQ, L. AND VAN DE VEN, A. H., "A Group Process Model for Problem Identification and A. Program Planning," J. AppLBehavioral Sci., Vol. 7, No. 4 (1971), pp. 466-492. 15. DELP, P., THESEN, A., MOTIWALLA,J. AND SESHADRI,N., Systems Toolsfor 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. AND SMITH, E. C., JR., "A Study of the Effects of Verbalization on Problem Solving," J. 21. 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. , "Problem-Finding and the Inventiveness of Solutions," J. Creative Behavior, Vol. 9, No. 1 23. (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. C. 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 and J. Education: Issues in Teaching and Research, D. T. Tuma and F. Reif (Eds.), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey, 1980. 27. HALL,A. D., A Methodologyfor 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. B. 2 (1968), pp. 133-142. 30. HOFFMAN,L. R., BURKE, J. ANDMAIER, R. F., "Does Training with Differential Reinforcement R. N. on 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, and Commitment,The Free Press, New York, 1977. 33. JUDSON, I. ANDCOFER, N., "Reasoning as an Associative Process: I. 'Direction' in a Simple A. C. Verbal 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. C. B. 36. KOHLER, The Task of Gestalt Psychology, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1969. W., 37. LEWIN, Field Theoryand Social Science, Harper and Brothers, New York, 1951. K., 38. LYLES, A. ANDMITROFF, I., "Organizational Problem Formulation: An Empirical Study," Admin. M. I. Sci. Quart., Vol. 25 (1980), pp. 102-119. 39. MACCRIMMON, R. AND TAYLOR, R. N., "Decision Making and Problem Solving," in Handbook of K. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, M. D. Dunnette (ed.), Rand McNally College Publishing Co., Chicago, 1976. 40. McGUIRE, W. J., "The Yin and Yang of Progress in Social Psychology: Seven Koan," J. Personality and 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 Creativity in Individuals and Groups, Brooks/Cole Publishing Co., Belmont, California, 1970. 43. AND BURKE, R. J., "Response Availability as a Factor in the Problem-Solving Performance of Males and Females," J. Personality and 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. 47.
MINTZBERG,

H., RAISINGHANI,

D.

AND THEORET,

A., "The Structure

of 'Unstructured'

Decision Making,"

Processes," Admin. Sci. Quart., Vol 21 (1976), pp. 246-275. MITROFF, I. I. AND BETZ, F., "Dialectical Decision Theory: A Meta Theory Of Decision Management VOl. 19, No. 1 (1972), PP. 11-24. Sci.,

652 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55.

ROGER J. VOLKEMA R. , EMSHOFF, R. AND KILMANN, H., "Assumptional Analysis: A Methodology for Strategic J. Problem Solving," Management Sci., Vol. 25, No. 6 (1979), pp. 583-593. AND KILMANN, R. H., MethodologicalApproachesto Social Science, Josey-Bass, San Francisco, 1978. MYERS, I. B., Manual (1962): The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, Educational Testing Service, Princeton, New Jersey, 1962. NADLER, Work Systems Design: The IDEALS Concept,Richard D. Irwin, Inc., Homewood, Illinois, G., 1967. , Work Design: A Systems Concept, Richard D. Irwin, Inc., Homewood, Illinois, 1970. , "A Timeline Theory of Planning and Design," Design Stud., Vol. 1, No. 5 (1980), pp. 299-307. , The Planning and Design Approach,John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1981. NEWELL, A., SHAW, J. C. AND SIMON, H. A., "Report on a General Problem-Solving Program for a Computer," InformationProcessing: Proceedingsof the InternationalConferenceon InformationProcessing, 1960, pp. 256-264. AND SIMON, H. A., Human Problem Solving, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1972. NuTT, P. C., "An Experimental Comparison of the Effectiveness of Three Planning Methods," Management Sci., Vol. 23, No. 5 (1977), pp. 499-511. ORNSTEIN,R. E., The Psychology of Consciousness,W. H. Freeman & Co., San Francisco, 1972. A. OSBORN, F., Applied Imagination, Scribner's, New York, 1957. PAYNE, J. W., "Task Complexity and Contingent Processing in Decision Making: An Information Search and Protocol Analysis," OrganizationalBehavior and Human Performance,Vol. 16 (1976), pp. 366-387. POLYA, G., How to Solve It, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1973. POSNER, M. I., Cognition:An Introduction,Scott, Foresman & Co., Glenview, Illinois, 1973. PRUITT, D. G., "Informational Requirements in Making Decisions," Amer. J. Psych., Vol. 74 (1961), pp. 433-439. REED, S. K. AND ABRAMSON,A., "Effect of the Problem Space on Subgoal Facilitation," J. Educational Psych., Vol. 68, No. 2 (1976), 243-246. REITMAN,W. R., "Heuristic Decision Procedures, Open Constraints, and the Structure of Ill-Defined Problems," in Human Judgments and Optimality, M. Shelley and G. Bryan (Eds.), Wiley, New York, 1964. RICKARDS,T., Problem Solving ThroughCreativeAnalysis, Gower Press, Epping, Essex, 1975. H. SACKEIM, A. AND GUR, R. C., "Self-Deception, Self-Confrontation, Consciousness," in Consciousness and Self-Regulation:Advances in Research and Theory, Vol. 2, G. E. Schwartz and D. Shapiro (Eds.), John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, England, 1978. SCRIVEN, "Prescriptive and Descriptive Approaches to Problem Solving," in Problem Solving and M., Education: Issues in Teaching and Research, D. T. Tuma and F. Reif (Eds.), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey, 1980. SHULL, F. A., JR., DELBECQ,A. L. AND CUMMINGS,L. L., OrganizationalDesign Making, McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, 1970. SIMON, H. A., "Information Processing Theory of Human Problem Solving," CIP Working Paper No. 324, May 28, 1976. AND BARENFELD,M., "Information-Processing Analysis of Perceptual Processes in Problem Solving," Psych. Rev., Vol. 76 (1969), pp. 473-483. AND HAYES, J. R., "The Understanding Process: Problem Isomorphs," Cognitive Psych., Vol. 8 (1976), pp. 165-190. in TAYLOR, I. A., "A Retrospective View of Creativity Investigation," in Per-spectives Creativity, I. A. Taylor and J. W. Getzels (Eds.), Aldine Publishing Company, Chicago, 1975, pp. 1-36. TAYLOR, R. N., "Nature of Problem Ill-Structuredness: Implications for Problem Formulation and Solution," Decision Sci., Vol. 5, No. 4 (1974), pp. 632-643. TORRANCE, E. P., Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: Norms-Technical Manual, Personnel Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1966. TVERSKY,A. AND KAHNEMAN,D., "The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice," Science, Vol. 211 (1981), pp. 453-458. 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. WARFIELD,J. N., "Intent Structures," IEEE Trans. Systems Man Cybernet.,Vol. SMC-3, No. 2 (1973), pp.133-140. , Societal Systems: Planning, Policy and Complexity, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1976. 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.

56. 57. 58. 59. 60.

61. 62. 63. 64. 65.

66. 67.

68.

69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80.