FORMULATION OF PROBLEMS AND

DECISION MAKING
Asked what he would do if he only had an hour left to
save the world,
Albert Einstein replied:
“I would spend 55 minutes defining the problem and
then only 5 minutes solving it. "
(Basadur et al., 1994)
The quality of a solution is judged a posteriori,
she is good because she walked and not she
walked because she was good!
(Amblard et al., 2005)
MANAGE, THIS IS DECIDE, writes the famous Herbert Simon
(1992). No wonder we find that making decisions is the most
important job of any manager. It's part of his routine everydays
and it is not near switch.

Because he emerges that the workers of tomorrow, those of

Generation Y, born between 1977 and 1990, attach little
importance to the hierarchy, in the sense that if they consider that
their boss is not capable of making decisions, they will without
hesitation go directly higher.
Deciding is both a difficult and very risky activity, because a bad
decision can cause damage, often irreparable, not only to the
organization, but also to the career. It is therefore not surprising
that it is a source of great concern and anxiety, but also of great
potential satisfaction for the manager.

It is not for nothing that more and more investment is being made
to hire consultants in all areas of decision-making (Hammond et
al., 1998; Landry, 1988; Robitaille, 1992).
Therefore, much research has been devoted to
understanding the decision-making process (Preston,
1991). The results are expressed according to different
models of which the majority, if not all, are based on logic.

Usually, there is a series of steps that we could essentially

synthesize as follows (Bazerman, 1994; Landry, 1988;Korte,
2003):
1. Define the problem.

2. Determine the criteria or objectives of the decision.

3. Weight or prioritize these criteria or objectives.
4. Develop possible solutions to the problem.
5. Evaluate each solution in relation to each of the criteria
or objectives.
6. Select the optimal decision.
Unfortunately, field checks show that there is
little adhesion to these decision-making models
(Korte, 2003; Wagner, 1991).
Simon (1992) explains this by the limited
rationality of the manager, who cannot have all
the knowledge of the elements of a situation,
nor that of all the consequences of his actions.
He cannot conceive and even less measure all
the possibilities of solutions to a problem.
According to Simon (1992), the first step in the
decision-making activity is the least well understood,
namely, when a problem is observed, how to
represent it in an adequate way to arrive at a solution.
The same goes for consultancy assignments where
the challenge is to find the "real" problem to be solved
(Basaduret al., 1994; Landry and Banville, 2002).
However, the active engagement of stakeholders in favor of the
chosen solution relies essentially on a definition of the problem
motivating their participation (Finn, 1996).

the objective of the present course is to offer to listeners,

supporting elements and a creative process to formulate
organizational problems. The pragmatic dimension will be at
center of concerns.
 MODULE 1:
THE CONCEPT OF PROBLEM
THE NOTION OF PROBLEMdeserves our attention,
first to define it precisely. This leads to the question of
how do we actually find out about a problem?

He It is therefore necessary to realize that it is a social

construction and that it has decisive consequences
when we want to resolve it.
1.1. WHAT IS A PROBLEM
The Current dictionary of education(Legendre, 2005: 1078)
gives the following definition of the term problem: “A worrying
situation with which an individual or a group is confronted, and
the modification of which presents a certain level of difficulty. "
In this sense, a problematic situation must be seen as the
beginning, the trigger of a process of research and
questioning.
It is undoubtedly such a perspective that leads the
authors Landry and Banville (2002) to establish four
conditions for there to be a problem. :

1. Presence of a situation worrying;

2. Power of intervention on this situation;
3. Will to intervene and devote resources;
4. Necessity a reflection before being able to take
action.
The first condition is obvious. One must observe a situation
that they consider to be abnormal and worrying according to
various criteria specific to them.

The second condition makes it clear that, even if a situation is

worrying, it is not automatically a problem. To do this, there
must be the power to intervene. Otherwise, this situation must
be considered a "state of nature", according to statistical
decision theory.
It should be taken into account as a constraint to action, while avoiding
investing in a formulation / resolution process which would be
ineffective on its face.

So, a global economic crisis can be a very worrying situation but,

clearly, one individual does not have the power to intervene to correct
this situation.

On the one hand, this is a constraint that it must absolutely take into
account. On the other hand, the way to adapt to it or even to take
advantage of it constitutes an equally worrying situation over which
there is a power to intervene.
If there is a desire to exercise this power of intervention, then
the third condition is met to recognize that there is a problem.
As for the fourth condition, it stipulates the need for reflection
before being able to take action.
This one can be of two kinds and thus opens an important
distinction to be made between structured problems and those
which are not.
In Indeed, it is possible that it concerns only and simply how to
concretize and operationalize a solution already known.
These are then so-called structured problems, that is to say
those for which there is, in a given community, a consensus on
how to formulate and solve them.

This consensus can be reached because these problematic

situations are recurrent.

The Managers normally pursue similar projects in their

resolution and the pragmatic success of the solution found has
been validated (Landry, 1988).
The latter is not necessarily optimal, but simply that
which, in the general opinion, is the most satisfactory
in the sense that it gives the best results, taking into
account the knowledge available in the community at
the time.

Therefore, we can speak of a structured problem

when all the elements necessary for its formulation
and its resolution are known and accessible (Basadur
et al., 1994; Rittel and Webber, 1973).
In a sense, we can therefore go so far as to say that structured
problems are no longer a real problem, at least for those who have the
expertise. More precisely, the formulation phase is automatic and thus
became invisible (Landry and Banville, 2002).

Moreover, there is a second order of problems where reflection is

necessary following an uncertainty not only as to the direction to be
given to action in order to solve them, but even on the way to pose
them.

These are the unstructured problems for which, of course, there is no

recognized formulation or solution.
These are problematic situations that cannot be described with
a high degree of exhaustiveness as a whole. It is always
possible to think of them as a symptom of another problem..

For example, the problem of street crimes can be seen as a

symptom of a general decadence of moral sense,
permissiveness, poverty, etc. The context plays a decisive role
both in defining them and in determining possible solutions.
There is not a clear and precise goal to achieve in their resolution from the
outset, often called the desired state..

One of the goals of reflection can precisely be to identify this objective and
to circumscribe this desired state (Basaduret al., 1994; Landry and
Banville, 2002;Rittel and Webber, 1973).

As to the best solution to bring to these unstructured problems, the experts

do not agree and neither more, on the assumptions or the theories which
should guide its research.
There is therefore not an enumerable series of potential solutions, nor a
set of permitted operations, or acquired definitions.

There are no more criteria that can prove that all the solutions have been
determined and considered.

In Consequently, the results of applying either solution are highly

uncertain.

In Indeed, all the consequences of actions taken on these issues cannot

be fully assessed until the waves of repercussions are completely over.
to deal with unstructured problems, the reasoning mode cannot
be based on scientific discourse, but rather on the argument
who is much richer. Indeed, given the fact that they are unique
and, so to speak, there is no possibility of experimentation, no
hypothesis testing is feasible..

Moreover, the choice of explanations for these problems are

arbitrary in a logical sense (Rittel and Webber, 1973).
That being said, from the presentation of the very different characteristics of
these two orders of problems, it is easy to understand that, on the one hand,
the approach presented here is intended for specifically, not to say only, to
unstructured problems.

Indeed, the added value of using it for those who are structured would be
quite slim and would have no commonality with the investment in time and
effort that it requires. On the other hand, the dream for any decision-maker is
to only have to solve structured problems.
It is then sufficient to collect the factual data on the
problematic situation, to enter them into a few formulas
or established rules and the solution not only emerges
clearly, but is easily explained and justifiable.
The people will rally to it very easily. Even if a manager
does not have all the necessary expertise to do this, it
is easy for him to resort to a specialist consultant
whose intervention in the organization will be easily
controllable.
This is probably what explains why managers often tend to
treat all problematic situations as structured problems, which
can only lead to failures and even disasters if, in fact, they do
not. 'are not (Landry and Banville, 2002).

Finally, a comparative examination of the four conditions for

the existence of a problem shows that each one involves a
judgment made by someone..

In Indeed, a situation is worrying only insofar as someone

recognizes it as such.
Likewise, the existence of the capacity and of a willingness to
intervene are directly linked to a person's appreciation of it. As
for thinking, it must undoubtedly be done by a human being.

All The problem therefore has two fundamental components: an

object, namely the problematic situation; and a subject, the
person, who analyzes, evaluates and takes a position relative
to the four conditions to make it or not a problem.
Knowledge of the subject therefore provides one of the keys to
understanding why the object, the worrying situation, appears
problematic (Landry, 1995).

If ordinary people were asked to examine under a microscope

two samples of human tissue taken from the same organ of
two different people, it would be impossible for them to see the
differences between the two and, even if they could, it would
be impossible for them to see the differences between them.
could not interpret these differences as presenting a problem.
However, a biologist would not only easily recognize the
differences, but would conclude that one of the samples
came from an organ with a tumor, hence the presence
of a health problem..

So there is a close connection between knowledge and

problem. Therefore, it is important to understand how
this connection operates in order to arrive at a
representation of a problematic situation.
1.2. HOW IS THE KNOWLEDGE OF A PROBLEM DONE?
 Graph 1: How is knowledge of a problem made?

DECISIO
OBJECT
N-
PROBLE
MAKING
M
SUBJECT

MANAGER REALITY

1er part of the answer: where is the

knowledge?
2nd answer: the process
Graph 1 illustrates the components of the knowledge of a
problem object (reality) by a decision-maker subject
(manager). We see that the first element of answer to our
question is to know where this knowledge is actually located.
The second is in the process by which this awareness takes
place.
As for the site of knowledge, there are three epistemological
currents in this regard. The first, called objective, places it
only in the object.

The second, subjective, situated completely in the subject.

The third, constructivist, locates it in the relationship that is

established between the object and the subject who
becomes aware of it.
When we observe and analyze how most managers approach
organizational problems and seek solutions to them, more often than not
it is in a vacuum. When we listen to them talk about it, they describe them
to their constituents as if it were indisputable evidence.

It is clear that they assume that knowledge of a problem lies primarily in

the object, that is, the problematic situation. The problem is then a reality
which is external and independent of them or of any other person who
examines it, hence objective knowledge.
Such behavior is not very surprising, it is even quite normal since
this objectivist perspective is dominant in the literature on decision-
making and operations research., strongly influenced by
mathematics, economics, cybernetics and science in general
(Preston, 1991).
Moreover, one of the ideals of science isdoes he have not always
come to know reality as it is, objectively (Landry, 1983)?
This current of thought was therefore the basis of the lessons
received and the professional training of the vast majority, if not
all of the managers..

Fundamental consequences flow from this, such as believing

that completely objective knowledge of a problem can be
achieved by an external examination of the problematic reality;
that the problems have an autonomous existence which does
not depend on any knowing subject.
The latter is not then part in the problematic situation, but simply
plays a passive role in its process of description, limiting itself to
recording and coding the information on this one.

From where it appears that this description can be considered

as a mirror copy of reality. Therefore, it becomes reasonable to
talk about the good problem and the objective is essentially to
distinguish it from the bad one..
It is also possible and desirable to speak of standards,
normality and desired state. Solving a problem comes down to
finding the appropriate means to move from an unsatisfactory
reality to the desired one (Landry, 1995).

As the problem itself is available for investigation, formulating it

then simply consists of analyzing reality.
Only factual data matters and you just need to make it talk.
The important is to seek and apply a rigorous investigative
strategy, such as operations research, which will be based on
critical observation, precise description, analysis and
classification of facts and data about the problem.
Also, these facts are the key to allow the manager to legitimize
the results of his formulation / resolution activity.
The collective problem, that is, one in which several subjects
are involved, is not fundamentally different and as easy to
formulate and solve as the individual problem.

He This is only a problematic situation, again autonomous,

that we can analyze and deal with from what is real, without
having to take into account the subjects and their respective
knowledge (Eden et al. Sims, 1979).
This rational normative current has led to the development of
causalist popular decision-making techniques such as Kepner
and Tregoe (1975).

For these authors, a problem is reduced to an objective

unsatisfactory state that requires action to correct the situation.

Their strategy of action suggests to managers systematic

empirical means to discover and describe the problematic
reality and gradually identify the causes and simply act to make
them disappear.
This obviously assumes that the manager always has very
great control over the situation, since he can restore the
previous state (Landry, 1983; 1995).

For the consultant, seeing the problem as an autonomous

concrete reality is a dream. All he has to do is rely on the facts
and the expertise he has, without really having to take into
account the perceptions of the various organizational
stakeholders.
He is the expert equipped with the necessary tools to discover this data
related to the problematic reality and apply a recognized technique to
correct this situation (Eden and Sims, 1979).

Even if this perspective may, to a certain extent, hold up with regard to

structured problems, it is quite obvious that the complete objectivity that it
claims is a myth in the sense that it conveys, in its definition. even, the
idea that it is possible to know the real as it is without any interference
from the observer
As already underlined above, this implies considering the problems as
concrete and autonomous objects whose natural boundaries can be
discovered by any good manager, in a status of complete independence,
from an appropriate strategy of observation (Landry, 1983).

When one is willing to decide, it is of course important to have information

as reliable as possible, but it is perhaps even more important to be aware of
the limits of one's own objectivity, more broadly of the limits of human
rationality (Brabandere and Mikolajczak, 2009).
Let us now examine another avenue, constructivist, promoted
by Piaget (1967; 1970) who is undoubtedly the scientist who
has contributed the most to clarifying the way in which
knowledge of an object is fundamentally acquired.

His work in genetic psychology and epistemology have made it

possible to demonstrate that knowledge essentially and
necessarily results from an active interaction between this
object and a subject who wants to learn about it.
In doing so, he was directly in line with the German philosopher
Immanuel Kant who was the first to argue that the subject
constructs the way he sees the objects around him
(Brabandere and Mikolajczak, 2009).

Peirce (1878) was going to even further in affirming: " … The

machinery of the mind can only transform knowledge, but never
originate it, unless it be fed with facts of observation. "
First important corollary: "We only know an object by acting on it and
transforming it" (Piaget, 1970: 85). Second corollary, different subjects can
consider the same object differently.

This In doing so, the latter is never completely seized by an awareness-raising

activity. This knowledge cannot be a mirror copy of the object, but rather the
latter reflected in a certain way by a said subject.

AT the extreme, there are as many ways of seeing the object as there are
subjects who take cognizance of it.
Each person who gives his opinion on the problem of his service
has an entirely different vision of it and even often, in certain
aspects, contradictory with that of the others.

So, some see quality controls as one of the causes, while the
person responsible for them sees them as a solution.
According to this perspective which situates knowledge in the
relation which is established between the object and the
subject, the problem is absolutely not self-evident, that is, it
does not need any explanation or argument.

He It should no longer be seen as an objective reality, but rather

as a representation that a certain person has of this reality.

So much the facts related to the problematic situation that the

person examining them actively participate in its design.
So, starting from the same problematic situation, each person sees
a reality that is unique to him or her. It becomes impossible to talk
meaningfully about a problem without talking about its owner (s).

In Consequently, for the consultant, the process of defining the

problem cannot be perceived as being based essentially on the
description of an objective reality.

He depends as much on his own reality as on those of the

organizational stakeholders he chooses to listen to (Eden and
Sims, 1979).
Obviously, this has major consequences when we want to solve a
problem. It becomes necessary to ask how reality can be best
represented to elicit the necessary buy-in from stakeholders for a
successful resolution intervention..

Indeed, even if all the representations of different people are

legitimate, since they are somewhere rooted in reality, they can
be fundamentally different in terms of possible solutions.
We cannot therefore place all the stakeholders in a problem in the same
category, a mistake often made by consultants.

This In doing so, it becomes essential to engage in the negotiation of a

schematization, as consensual as possible, of the problem before determining
the concomitant solution which will be legitimate in the eyes of the greatest
number of interested parties (Landry, 1983; 1995). ).

This is indeed this is the central objective of the problem formulation process.
Moreover, as we have already seen above, this active interaction
between a person and the problematic situation takes shape in
the judgments made to meet the four conditions for the existence
of a problem.

At initially, these judgments are the result of more or less

articulated knowledge, a mixture of concrete observations, past
experiences and probably also intuition.

This knowledge is used to concretize a certain representation of

the problematic situation, which is often called a model when it is
systematized.
We often talk about modeling a problematic situation (Landry and
Banville, 2002).

Each person therefore defines a problem according to their world,

their experiences and what matters to them. It can even include
personal factors that are not usually considered acceptable in the
organization.
For example, with regard to the issue of declining productivity, it
may well be that what counts for one or the other professional is
to work as little as possible.

Through therefore, each unstructured problem is essentially

unique (Rittel and Webber, 1973).

But, can we go so far as to say that this problem is a social

construction and, if so, what are the consequences does he
have on its resolution?
1.3. PROBLEM AS A SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION:
CONSEQUENCE ON ITS RESOLUTION
Returning to graph 1, since it is now fairly clear that knowledge is
situated in the relationship established between the object and a
knowing subject, we must then stop at the process, the second
element of the response to the question of knowing how to
become aware of a problem.

This is by examining it that one becomes aware of the social

construction of the problem.
Still according to Piaget (1967; 1970), it is from his cognitive
structures that a subject will interact and get to know the world
around him. The process by which this is done involves two
different complementary activities, assimilation and
accommodation.

So, when an object, the problematic situation for what interests

us, presents itself to it, the person will first try to recognize it, to
identify it, from its existing cognitive structures, it is the activity
assimilation.
If she cannot achieve this, she will initiate a second activity,
accommodation, which consists in modifying her cognitive
structures to integrate the novelty of this object.

The The first tends to confirm what has been learned, while the
second poses a challenge to the subject by forcing him to
modify and enrich his cognitive structures.
The example of human tissues given above is an excellent
demonstration of this (Flavell, 1963; Landry, 1995). For the
biochemist, it is simply an activity of assimilating the knowledge
he already possesses about healthy cells and those which are
not.

So that for the others, an activity of accommodation of their

cognitive structure will be necessary not only to acquire them,
but to integrate these new elements into their knowledge.
The cognitive characteristics of the subject are therefore actively
solicited in the knowledge of a problem.

These are built under the influence of a multitude of factors such

as the physical and community environment, intellectual
aptitudes, education received, needs, desires, goals, values ​and
finally past experiences (Krech et al., 1962).

Indirectly, these factors therefore have the consequence of

orienting, selecting and even sometimes altering the way in which
a subject perceives objects.
This amounts to saying that we can no longer think of a
problem as synonymous with reality, but as the result of a
reality perceived, interpreted, modeled, then deemed
unsatisfactory by a person.

Appears there is already a social consonance in this

awareness of the problem object (Landry, 1988; 1995).
Moreover, this cognitive explanation of the construction
of the problem remains incomplete as long as the
affective and social dimensions are not added.

For the first, as we have seen above, the very

definition of the problem implies that a judgment is
made. Of course, this one is based on the facts, but
just as much on the values ​of the subject.
As a result, the definition of a problem becomes
something highly personalized, constantly involving the
cognitive and affective universe of a subject (Landry,
1995).

For what is the social dimension, mainly for the object of

interest, the organizational problem, the subject who
takes cognizance of it plays a role, performs tasks and
has a certain position in the organization.
It goes without saying that this affects how he constructs the
problem. We will come back to this in much more detail in the
next chapter which deals with the concept of the strategic actor..

In summary, there are two types of reality in knowing a problem.

There is the purely physical one, linked to a correct sensory
perception in common sense or an objective verification..

The second, concerns the attribution of meaning and value to

these elements of the first reality.
This calls into question the cognitive characteristics of the
subject, as well as his affective and social dimension.

So, instead of basing his opinion on the reconstitution of the

reality of the facts using logical or probabilistic laws, the human
being interprets it by relying on his beliefs, his personal history,
his partial knowledge (Brabandere and Mikolajczak, 2009).

In this meaning, " A person who arbitrarily chooses the

propositions which he will adopt can use the word truth only to
emphasize the expression of his determination to hold on to his
choice ”(Peirce, 1878: 16).
think of the problem as a social construction, which has major and decisive
consequences on the formulation / resolution process.

First, we see it again, objectivity is a myth in the sense that the reality of the
problematic situation is accessible only through the intermediary of the affective
and social cognitive structures of a subject.

same common sense is not exempt froma priori. It is not possible to think without
a point of view, and we all have our cognitive comfort zones that color our choices
(Brabandere and Mikolajczak, 2009).
This amounts to saying that no knowledge can escape a
certain subjectivity which affects the way in which
problems are understood and defined..

This In doing so, their construction is not neutral since it

incorporates the characteristics and objectives pursued by
the person making it.

Strength is to recognize that most theories in decision-

making which take for granted this objectivity and an
independent status of the problem cannot be applied
(Landry, 1995).
They presuppose that decisions are rational (logical) when they
are not (Brabandere and Mikolajczak, 2009).

Second, a subject's construction of a problematic situation is

undoubtedly one-sided and partial.

Partial, because it privileges one perspective at the expense of

others, and partial, in the sense that this perspective inevitably
leads to emphasizing certain elements of the problematic situation
and to obscuring others.
More importantly, once completed, this construction empowers
the subject to intervene, but at the same time constrains him that
this action suffers from the strengths and weaknesses of his
problem construction and allows only a limited number of
projects to resolution (Landry, 1988; Landry and Banville, 2002;
Landry, Banville and Oral, 1996).
Still in relation to the situation of declining productivity of
professionals, the position of the director of information systems
is very revealing.

For it is simply and solely a case management problem. One

can certainly think that she makes such a construction because
by posing the problem in these terms, she already has the
solution, a computer software package for the management of
the files.

Also, this way of seeing the situation fits directly into its mandate
to ensure the technological development of the organization.
Even more, it allows it to achieve one of the objectives that it
has been pursuing for some time, namely that the professional
services department places the order for it to implement this
software and, of course, bears the costs!

We can see here an excellent application of the aphorism

attributed to Maslow: "If the only tool you have is a hammer, you
will see any problem as a nail" (quoted in Brabandere and
Mikolajczak, 2009: 24).
Already, these two consequences mean that the complexity is
installed in the taking of knowledge.

He This leads to complex problems which are a special category

of unstructured problems which we have previously clearly
defined.

Complexes in the sense that one cannot formulate them and,

even less, solve them without taking into account the different
construction which is made of them by each of the interested
subjects.
So, in order to understand these different constructions, not to say
these different problems and to be able to use them to work, it is
necessary to define, if only roughly, the cognitive, affective and
social structures of each of the stakeholders. .

First, it is about facing the task of taking into account a large

number of elements and relationships to arrive at a representation
of the problematic situation that is sufficiently precise and
operational to successfully resolve it.
Then, we must take up the challenge of the complexity linked to
the very choice of representation, in the sense that we never
know whether it will sufficiently integrate the different points of
view to become consensual and, at the same time, whether it
will open up a avenue to solve the problem.

This complexity therefore comes as much from the many

perspectives of examining the problematic situation as from the
large number of stakeholders who each make it a social
construct (Forgues, 1991).
This book is directly interested in this type of problem because it
cannot escape a process centered on its formulation.

This finding was made by none other than Albert Einstein (cited in
Buyukdamgac, 2003: 327): “The formulation of a problem is often
more crucial than its solution, which may simply be a question of
mathematical or experimental skill. "

Rittel and Webber go in the same direction, writing: "The process

of formulating the problem and that of finding its solution are
identical, since each specification of the problem is a specification
of the direction of its resolution" (cited in Buyukdamgac, 2003: 327).
Almost everything is played out in this phase of formulation where
perceptions turn out to be the seat of a construction which
determines the degree of success of the resolution (Brabandere
and Mikolajczak, 2009).

It is therefore clear that in the process of formulating / solving

complex problems, central attention must be given to the subjects
involved.

No only the cognitive and affective structure of each person must

be taken into account, but also their social position.
One of the best ways to do this, in the case of organizational
problems, is to use the theory of the strategic actor..

The presentation of the latter is the subject of the next

chapter, the content of which is based on the various
observations made here and which can be summarized as in
the following box.
 Crucial to hold back
1. The awareness of a problem is made by a subject from
his cognitive, affective and social structures, which makes it
a social construction which is therefore partial and partial.

2. Organizational problems should not be seen as

synonymous with reality, but as the result of a reality
perceived, interpreted and modeled.
3. We must avoid thinking that, because at least two people face the
same reality and recognize that there is a problem, this implies that they
have the same representation..

4. To effectively solve a complex organizational problem, the respective

point of view of the different stakeholders must be taken into account, in
particular by establishing a consensus, as broad as possible, on its
representation.
MODULE 2: AT THE HEART OF THE FORMULATION

OF PROBLEMS, THE STRATEGIC ACTOR

IN THIS WHO CONCERNED THE TAKEN OF KNOWLEDGE complex
organizational problems, the subject cannot refer to an isolated person who
would have the leisure to regulate his behavior in isolation.
AT Within the structured network that is the organization, the person works
in interdependence with others, occupying other positions and having
distinct interests.

This implies a plurality of points of view, always difficult to reconcile, not

only with regard to the definition of the problematic situation, but also to the
finality to be pursued in the necessary intervention.
This is why it becomes essential to take an interest in the notion
of strategic actor, first, to define its characteristics, then, to
delve into the power relations at the heart of the relationships
that are established between the actors in the world. within the
organization.
The regulation necessary for any collective action is also
examined.
Then, the concrete action system will be approached as a tool
to explain and understand the cohesion and structuring on
which the interdependence between the actors is based..
Finally, the effects on the awareness of a problem and its
resolution which tends towards satisfaction rather than
optimization are treated (Landry and Banville, 2002).
2.1. THE STRATEGIC ACTOR
General dictionaries define an actor as a person who plays a
role, who takes an important part in an action, which fits well with
organizational reality.

In Indeed, there are places or particular positions for which there

are more or less explicit models of behavior which govern typical
and expected behaviors. The common action to be carried out
implies that these positions are in relation to each other.
More importantly, this notion of actor presupposes a
certain freedom of conduct alongside and beyond their
role. Undoubtedly, anyone who works in an organization,
whatever it is, never accepts to be treated as a mere
means of production in the service of the objectives of
the direction.

It has personal goals, thinks differently, and is never

completely apathetic to decisions made.
Although relative, it has an autonomy and a possibility
of its own action that it can use as it pleases
(Amblardet al., 2005; Crozier andFriedberg, 1992).
Indeed, even the accounts of witnesses from
concentration camps have shown that extreme terror
did not completely prevent the establishment of
autonomous human relationships (Goffman, 1959).
In situations of dependence and constraint, such as those
created by the organizational environment, humans do not
adapt passively.
He is able to play on them and even use them to his
advantage. Of course, the organization imposes a certain
framework on it and assigns it a given role, but its way of
responding to it, its behaviors, are never
completelypredetermined.

Through Therefore, human conduct can in no way be

assimilated to the mechanical product of obedience or
structural pressure.
It is always the expression and the implementation of a certain freedom,
however minimal (Crozier et al. Friedberg, 1992).

This margin of freedom for any actor is crucial and must always be at the heart
of the decision-maker's reflections. However, it is not really taken into account
by the Taylorist school of thought which considers the organizational actor as a
"hand" (Taylor, 1972), nor by that of human relations which considers it as a
"hand" (Taylor, 1972). hand and a heart ”(Mayo, 1992). In fact, the
organizational actor is of course both, but there is more, he is also a “head”.
This means that he is able to calculate and able to adapt to the
circumstances and decisions of his partners (Crozier, 1971). Of
course, the actors are never completely free and, in a way, they
are taken over by the official system. But this is only on condition
of recognizing that in return the latter is constructed by the
pressures and manipulations of the actors (Crozier et
al.Friedberg, 1992).
Moreover, the actor is also strategic, in the sense that in a given
situation, especially if it is problematic, he seeks to increase his
achievements or, at the very least, to safeguard them, according to
the stakes involved. perceives for itself.

The official rules never fully determine his conduct. He clearly has
interests that do not necessarily coincide with those of the
organization and is always ready to defend them by mobilizing the
resources at his disposal (Thunderbolt, 2007).
This does not mean that there cannot be shared goals, but never completely. This
explains why this actor, individually or collectively, acts according to his own reasons
(Crozier et al.Friedberg, 1992).

The actor is also strategic in the sense that he is constantly recomposing himself
through alliances and changes of position which may or may not be linked to his
role.

We We can therefore say that it is gradually built up in interaction while contributing,

quite involuntarily, to the structuring of the organization (Simmel, 1908). In relation to
a specific action, he has stakes which are what he feels he has to lose or gain and
the importance he attributes to this loss or gain (Amblard et al., 2005).
This is why the functioning of the organization remains uncertain and
uncertain. Numerous gray areas exist, offering playing opportunities
which allow the players to leave room for maneuver in relation to
each other.

On the other hand, this strategic aspect of the actor must, as for the
decision-maker, be examined from the angle of his limited rationality.
First, we say that he has strategic behaviors, but these depend less
on specific and conscious objectives that he sets for himself than on
the assets that are at his disposal and the relationships that he
maintains..

He It follows that it is wrong to consider his behavior as always

measured. It is a logic that we identify after the fact.
His plans are rarely clear and coherent, but his behavior is never
absurd (Amblardet al., 2005; Crozier andFriedberg, 1992).

He adjusts them according to his perception of the situation, which is

based on his motivations and the behaviors displayed by the other
actors (Crozier et al. Friedberg, 1992; Giddens, 1984).

We can infer, by analysis a posteriori, that any behavior that may

appear erratic takes on its meaning through a strategy.
Another factor that contributes to limiting the actor's rationality is his
membership in a social structure, such as that of an organization, a
professional order, a union, etc. Indeed, by injecting values, being a
member of a community affects its criteria of satisfaction. Also, the
specific position he occupies there directly influences the information
he receives and the meaning he gives to it (Paradeise, 1994).
This limited rationality of the organizational actor is not without consequences.
First, always keep in mind that he is unable to optimize his decisions.

He decides sequentially and chooses the first solution that corresponds to his
minimum level of satisfaction (Crozier et al. Friedberg, 1992; March and Simon,
1958). His choice process is made of intuition, conviction, estimated risk, game
and passion (Brabandere and Mikolajczak, 2009).

This doing so, he never chooses the most logical solution, but the one which is
the least unsatisfactory for him (Amblard et al., 2005; Friedberg, 1994).
In addition, more generally, the fact of thus considering the
members of the organization as actors, who are defined specifically
by their interests and their limited rationality, leads to the obligation
to consider the achievement of organizational objectives as n 'being
more subordinate to the strictness of management's choices.

He There is no longer a single path to achieve them, nor any

virtuous law which spontaneously converges individual objectives in
this direction (Paradeise, 1994).
Decision-makers must therefore, very humbly, admit and
always take into account that they have only very
imperfect control over the scope of their decisions..

They are apparent decision-makers, behind whom are

hidden the invisible decision-makers, that is to say all
the actors.
In doing so, there is no recipe for decision, which becomes first and
foremost an art, based on bets. It can take advantage (without ever being
able to be reduced to it) from certain scientific knowledge and procedures
useful in describing the range of known, possible and probable solutions,
taking into account the state of the situation, the games and the stakes
(Crozier et al.Friedberg, 1992).

In the same sense, the effects of the decisions taken are never entirely
predictable, because they are not determined, but, on the contrary,
always contingent (Paradeise, 1994).
POWER AT THE CENTER OF ORGANIZATIONAL
STAKEHOLDER STRATEGIES
The actor and his strategy discussed in the previous section point
to what everyone has already observed: organization is the realm
of relationships, influence, calculation, in fact power (Crozier et al.
Friedberg, 1992).

He It therefore becomes essential to clarify this last concept which

is central in strategic analysis (Amblard et al., 2005), to define it,
grasp its characteristics and determine its sources.
Power is the ability to guide and influence others (Amblardet al.,
2005). It is getting a person to do something that they would not have
done otherwise.

He mediates human relationships on the basis of an unequal

exchange (Friedberg, 1994). The ability to deal with power, both that
which is exercised and that which one is subjected to, is therefore
one of the essential aspects of an individual's interpersonal skills..

Indeed, establishing a relationship with someone is more or less

explicitly to implement a relationship of power.
Therefore, we understand that power and organization are inseparable,
in the sense that they are essential for the actors to achieve their
strategy, but, at the same time, the latter can only acquire them by
agreeing to collaborate on the collective objective. , thus having to give
it to others.

This is a give-and-take relationship, an actor being able to influence the

behavior of others for his benefit only by letting himself, in return, be
influenced by them (Crozier et al. Friedberg, 1992).

Two additional factors also directly influence the power held. The first is
the position occupied, mainly if it confers a capacity to influence the
rules of the game or even gives the right to sanction and reward others.
For analyze and understand the dynamics of power relations in an
organization two questions must be asked: first, what are the sources
that each actor has ?

Secondly, for each one, what is its relevance and to what extent can it
be mobilized?

In Actors will only agree to commit to and face the risks inherent in
any power relationship on the condition that they perceive issues that
are sufficiently important and relevant to their personal objectives
(Crozier et al. Friedberg, 1992).
As far as problem solving is concerned, we see that, in the organization,
power is distributed among all the individual or collective actors, even if
it is very unequally.

He It is therefore utopian to think that we can eliminate it in decision-

making. It is therefore clear, once again, that decision-makers never
have complete control over their decisions.

This In doing so, any manager who wants to be recognized for solving
organizational problems must essentially focus his analysis of
problematic situations on the interdependence and power relations
between the actors and be interested, at all costs, in atypical minority
behaviors (Amblard et al., 2005).
ABANDONING THE ILLUSTRATION IN
SEARCH OF AN OPTIMAL SOLUTION
It is now clear that neither the problems, nor the solutions, nor the
constraints, nor the opportunities exist in themselves, apart from
the perception and the capacities of the actors who alone can
actualize them by their behavior (Landry, 1983). However, we
should not look for the explanations of the phenomena observed
only in individuals, but in the context, that is to say in the
relationships they maintain, making rational the behaviors at the
origin of these phenomena (Friedberg, 1994).
In doing so, there is no one solution to solving a problem. It always
emerges from the context and the dynamic between the actors
involved.

We can no longer talk about a solution a priori, good or bad, neither

objective and definitive (Paradeise, 1994). The goal is no longer the
search for the truth, nor for an optimal solution.

This last qualifier automatically referring to the best solution, which

can only be established in relation to a certain dimension or precise
perspective (Rittel and Webber, 1973).
All players know full well that they will not be able to achieve personal
optimization.

Good Of course, as we have already said, they calculate, but while

remaining well aware that it is within the framework of their limited
rationality, in particular by the information at their disposal, and of their
simplified and approximate representation of the problematic situation .

They are looking for a satisfactory solution, that is to say one that will
not offend their deep values ​(Amblardet al., 2005; Simon 1992) and
who will improve the conditions in which they live the problematic
situation (Ritttel and Webber, 1973).
 Crucial to hold back

1. Each member of an organization, alone or in a group, is a strategic

actor, with his interests and his limited rationality, who tries to increase
his gains and reduce his losses.
2. A decision-maker never has complete control over his decisions and
must, consequently, center his analysis of all problematic situations on
the interdependence and power relations between the actors.
3. The solution to the same complex problem is far from being
similar, from one period to another or from one site to another.
4. In solving complex organizational problems, one must seek
a satisfactory solution rather than optimal.
5. The value of a solution is judged, a posteriori, that she
walked.
MODULE 3: A THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK TO
SUPPORT THE FORMULATION OF PROBLEMS
HE IS NOW ACQUIREDthat the problem is fundamentally a social
construction and that the human being who creates it is above all a
strategic actor. This has a decisive influence on the way of formulating the
problem and, by extension, on the appreciation of the solution which will
be considered as satisfactory (Metcalfe, 2007).

For to succeed in determining these different social constructions and,

above all, to take them into account in the formulation of the problem, the
few theories and concepts presented very briefly below are very useful.
On the one hand, the combination of the methodology of flexible
systems and the sociology of translation is fertile in framing the
process aimed at discovering the different social constructions of
the problem made by the stakeholders.

On the other hand, Alexander's synthesis is a concept that can

guide the treatment of the different ideas that emerge from these
multiple constructions of the problem.
Articulation between these theories is represented in Figure 3. The
objective of using this rich and diverse theoretical framework is to
arrive at a creative problem formulation, which surprises, confronts,
but, above all, rallies the stakeholders (Metcalfe, 2007).
Theoretical framework to guide problem formulation
FLEXIBLE SYSTEMS METHODOLOGY
To fart Checkland (1980; 1981; 1986) is considered the father of the flexible systems
methodology, which has its roots in the systems approach.

This the latter was created to overcome the difficulties of the scientific process in
describing and understanding human systems and above all the complexity of the
interactions that they always involve.

In In this sense, the main contribution of this new approach is undoubtedly to offer a
holistic process of examination of these systems to replace the reductionism inherent
in the natural sciences.
The world is then perceived as a whole, made up of entities which
have properties which, on the one hand, only have meaning in relation
to their belonging to this whole and, on the other hand, lose their
meaning if they are looked at as separate parts.

Born then the concept of emergence, that is to say that the whole is
more than the sum of the parts which compose it. At the same time,
each of these parts, considered in isolation, is less than if it is
considered in the whole (Amblardet al. 2005).
It is therefore these systems of human activity that the flexible
systems methodology is interested. In an organization, these
are humans involved in a set of activitiesinterrelated to carry
out a specific action.

Good of course, these systems do not really exist as such, it is

a perception of the mind which, therefore, differs according to
the observer (Checkland, 1986).
The methodology of flexible systems offers a way of examining
the complexity of the interactions found in these human
systems, of describing them and thus of coming to an
understanding of them.

He It then becomes possible to determine the changes to be

made, which are both systemically desirable and culturally
feasible, in the sense that stakeholders will be ready to commit
to them.
But beware, there will never be such a representation of these
systems that would be valid in the sense of scientifically testable.
Moreover, systems can never be described once and for all.

He They are always perceptions that are valid at a given time

and in a specific context, according to a certain way of seeing the
world.
Unstructured problems, described at Module 1 constitute such human
systems. Those that cannot be transposed or reproduced in the
laboratory; which are impossible to pin down by the scientific approach
which emphasizes their structure and its decomposition to reveal how
things work (Checkland, 1986; Johan et al., 2009).

The flexible systems methodology aims to promote a holistic

knowledge of the problematic situation, shared by a group of
stakeholders.
She is especially not interested in providing a solution to a problem
predefined. Itis based on the following three assumptions:
1. The problems do not exist independently of human beings. They are built by
interested minds, who define them according to their individual view of the
world.
2. The worldview is the interpretation that each individual makes of the universe
around them. Although different, it is just as valid as that of the others.
3. Improvement of a problematic situation mainly involves the sharing of
perceptions, persuasion and debate. In this sense, the one who is piloting
this project should be an interactionist and a therapist rather than an expert.
So the ultimate goal of the flexible systems methodology is to make
improvements to the perceived problematic situation.
It does not seek to solve the problem, but rather to facilitate the learning
process that will allow stakeholders to gradually develop a better
knowledge and understanding of the situation.
In proceeding in this way, the stakeholders are likely to come to
compromises, agreements on corrective measures with which they are
able to live.
As we can see straight away, the notion of compromise is very different
from that of consensus, which implies that each of the stakeholders is
fully and fundamentally in harmony with the changes envisaged.
This methodology proposes several stages, of which the first two, which aim to
establish the richest possible picture of the situation, are particularly relevant for the
formulation of problems.

The first step is that of identifying the problematic situation, which consists in
bringing out a brief description. It is therefore a matter of determining and working
with the people it involves or affects. This step should lead to a first general
agreement on the circumscription of the situation which requires intervention.

He It is necessary to be careful that the latter is not structuring, and takes for
example the form of a problem to be solved. This would risk confining,
subsequently, to too narrow a reflection which would make the target miss.
The second stage of the methodology consists in analyzing this
situation in order to arrive at producing an abundant interpretative
representation. The aim here is to develop a deep knowledge of
the situation which will favor the point of view of the stakeholders.

He It will thus be possible to construct a representation that will

integrate both information and the various perspectives that come
from the widest possible range of sources.
According to Checkland(1980; 1981), the main thing in this step is to describe the
problem, to establish why it is a problem, to determine who owns it and the
importance of solving it. To do this, he suggests a triple generic questioning: the
“who”, the “what” and the “why”.".

To know the "who", it is a question of determining the strategic actors involved in the
situation and of knowing what is their vision of the world and their perspective. The
"what" will indicate what is transformed by this human system and what the power
relations are there.

The Finally, “why” represents the environment, especially cultural, namely the roles,
norms and values ​that can help to understand the situation (Johan et al., 2009).
Already, it is easy to conclude that the use of the flexible
systems method to obtain a systemic picture of the
problematic situation is fruitful.

And this image can be further enriched, if we combine its use

with that of the sociology of translation presented below.
SOCIOLOGY OF A TRANSLATION

As brings out its English name better, Actor Network Theory, the
sociology of translation is based on the concept of network.
In interested in the conditions of production of science, the main
instigators of this theory, Michel Callon and Bruno Tower, discovered
that the concept of network played a decisive role (Callon, 1986;
Callon and Tower, nineteen eighty one ; 1991;Tower, 1984).
So, according to them, the world should no longer be thought of in
terms of social groups, but as a network.
The social dimension comes from association, from the formation of
collectives, from all the relationships and mediations that cement
these collectives.

who said network speaks of interweaving, entanglement, trellis. It is

defined as a system of actions, ametaorganization, which brings
together humans and non-humans acting as intermediaries towards
each other.

We Talk about metaorganization, because this concept transcends

the sphere of activity, the institution or the organization.
An originality of this network is the importance given to non-humans who form part of it
in their own right. As regards the production of science, the object of study ofCallon
and Tower, it will be in particular: instruments, scientific articles, laboratory materials,
grants, etc.

This is by virtue of a principle of symmetry that objects thus become as important as

subjects. Human actors invest them with a function, a role, which makes them
essential animated figures with a soul.

This is which means that, while remaining inscribed in the general reflection on the
strategic actor, the authors of this theory propose instead to speak of actors to
designate both actors and objects and assign them the same importance.
As it links statements and issues a prioriirreconcilable, the network
is built by negotiation. It is therefore a process of co-production
where the context and the content, the actors and the objects are
defined in relation to each other.

At At the heart of this negotiation is translation, which over time

becomes a chain of translations. This leads to multiple
arrangements, combinations and compromises which alone allow
objects and humans to hold together (Amblard et al., 2005).
Translation always involves a transformation which leads to
establishing a link between heterogeneous activities. In doing so,
the network becomes intelligible, that is to say, it takes on meaning
and stabilizes.

The Translation takes place when certain actors, individual or

collective, pose as spokespersons and recompose the will of the
collectives, a message, a fact, a piece of information, while at the
same time attempting to enlist other actors.
Thus, knowledge circulates by successive translations and the
possible questioning of it by controversies ensures that the
network adapts progressively, without discontinuity.

The social dimension is established by the successive

interactions of heterogeneous actors. Any action of an actor
leads to the modification of the network and vice versa, hence
the notion of network actor.
As did Callon and Tower to clear inductively the conditions of
production of science, if we want to understand a situation, it is
essential to reconstitute the network which is organized between the
actants.
For To do this, it is first of all essential to avoid dividing the situation,
but rather to bring together all the entities that participate in it. This
necessarily involves the analysis of controversies, which shows how
the actors translate their positions while revealing the debates that
construct the facts..
Indeed, it is in the progress of the facts that we can identify what
they are carrying.
If there is stabilization, it is not an effect of time or of nature, but
because of the agreement of the actors on the facts. You should
not think that once the machine works, all people will be
convinced, but rather that when people are convinced, the
machine will work.

"The good project is not one that receives support on the basis of
the qualities that we recognize in it, on the contrary, it is because
the project collects support that we recognize its qualities.
"(Amblard et al., 2005: 145)
In this sense, we can say that the sociology of translation is that of
controversies, which should not be studied on the basis of the
good or bad registers on which they develop.

They become a capital instrument of understanding which leaves

judgments and preemptions to others (Amblard et al., 2005).
Consequently, the analysis of a situation supposes that one follows the actors,
that one hears them and that one respects them. To succeed,Callon and
Tower provide a method for decoding a network and possibly attempting to
modify it.

It consists of several steps, the first two of which are particularly and
specifically relevant for the formulation of problems. It is first of all the analysis
of the context, which aims to determine the actors and to identify their interests
as well as their challenges.

We speaks of actants in order to emphasize the fact that this analysis must in
no way neglect non-humans.
The second step is problematization. It consists in bringing out what
unites and separates in the situation. It is a crucial operation before
considering any change action.
It must lead to moving each actant from a singular position to the
acceptance of cooperation.
The statement problematization, which is presented in the form of a
question or an interrogation, is the result of collective work
undertaken by a translator, consultant or actor, who has the
necessary legitimacy.
This work must aim to create convergence between the actors, to
bring them to accept to make a detour in their trajectory (diversion),
which however does not imply in any way the abandonment by
each of its stakes.
26Moreover, the quality of this statement does not lie so much in its
content as in the process which led to its production.

The the content (the facts) and the container (the network) support
each other; one does not exist without the other.
This implies that the statement translates the position, the stakes and
the specificity of each actant in terms of points of convergence in
relation to the situation.

However, it is essential to always keep in mind that these points of

convergence absolutely do not eliminate the specific challenges of
each individual.

The statement of the problematization will therefore always be fairly

general in relation to the singular positions of the actants.
This gives a good idea of ​the avenues to favor in order to collect
the different social constructions constructed by the
stakeholders.

Will emerge then several main ideas which must absolutely be

taken into account in the formulation of the problem. This is
where Alexander's synthesis comes in handy.
THE SYNTHESIS OF ALEXANDER
Christopher Alexander is an architect who, as he had been taught, designed the
projects commissioned from him based on Cartesian rationalism.

With analytical thinking, he would look at them from the inside, part them in part to
simplify the design problems to be solved, and then put the whole thing back together
by bringing all those parts together.

But, very quickly, Alexander realized that what he was designing only partially met the
needs of the environment, because he had not taken into account important variables
and interrelationships.
He therefore radically changed his way of doing things to approach
projects in a holistic way. He then added recourse to synthetic
thinking to look at them from the outside, by analogy, as a
subproblem of a larger problem.

He thus emphasized the interaction between people and the

architecture he had to design. This is how Alexander's synthesis was
born, which offers a creative back-and-forth process between
analysis and synthesis (Alexander, 1964; 1966; 1977; 1979; Johan
et al., 2009;Jutla; 1993;Metcalfe, 2007).
Just as the language model makes it possible for the same words to be arranged
in all kinds of ways to form quite different sentences, the architectural model can
generate an infinite number of solutions to a design problem.

The architect is not required to use the same solution more than once. In doing
so, each project is unique and it is crucial to analyze it in its specific context, to
understand the function and the goals of architecture depending on whether it will
be a residence or an industrial building, know the number of people who are going
to use it, know the form and the context of construction.
Alexander developed this methodology when asked to design the
urbanization plan for a new village for people in a developing country
who were to be relocated.

This is so that he was able to realize that the different ideas

expressed by the stakeholders were all interesting and relevant, but
without apparent connection and often even contradictory to each
other.

However, he succeeded in showing that we could establish a network

between these different ideas.
It is a methodology that is both simple and powerful. First, by resorting to analytical
thinking, it is necessary to collect ideas about the project, the sources of which must
be multiple.

The important is to have a range that is as complete as possible to arrive at a

methodical questioning. To do this, we must first give each of the stakeholders the
opportunity to describe what they understand about the situation and their concerns in
relation to it.

We can even go so far as to subdivide them into contrasting groups. These differences
can then be used to change the reasoning of each.
Ideas can also emerge from a meeting report, a group meeting, the
memory of comments made during a conversation, a statement in a
document, facts, claimed knowledge, recommendations, etc. syntheses
or research results, etc.

All what is considered important or interesting can be retained. All of

these ideas can be seen as the stakeholder worldview, that is, their
way of conceptualizing and seeing organizations and people.
The second phase of the methodology is based on synthetic thinking
in order to bring out links between these many ideas expressed.

Each can be seen as a point which will take the form of a knot that
can be connected to other ideas by lines. Only the strongest links
will be drawn in this way.

Then a tree will appear which is, according to Alexander, the

simplest vehicle for processing complex thoughts (Alexander, 1966).
In this tree, we can then see the emergence of clusters of ideas that
are of the same order. These become crucial elements in
conceptualizing the problem and determining the variables to be taken
into account in the design of an architectural project..

For the urbanization plan for the new village, here is a very small
example of some of the ideas that emerged. First, as the livestock is at
the heart of the survival of the village, it is the first ideas that emerge.
Thus, “We absolutely need our livestock to be well protected” is
represented by the node “livestock” in graph 4 of the network of
ideas.

This node can be connected, hence the drawn line, to another

idea: "We need quality water", denoted by the node "water". It is
also linked to “Our health and that of our livestock are linked to
each other”, shown under the “health” node.
Graphic of network of ideas
The same goes for: "Cows must be fenced oxen", identified by the
node "fences".

This one which in turn can be linked, albeit in a more tenuous way,
hence the dotted line, to: “We need quality community spaces”,
which is in the “community goods” node.
We thus sees the emergence of a social network which shows how
ideas, however very different, can be linked to each other.
It is thus possible to carry out a meta-analysis to bring out a global
network used as a basis for the design of the village urbanization plan.

Of course, deciding which ideas are related or defining clusters is a very

subjective process. Moreover, when the number of ideas becomes high,
it is almost impossible to do the operation manually.

However, software exists to take over.

With this contribution from Alexander's synthesis, several crucial

elements, presented below, emerge from this theoretical framework.
Crucial to hold back

1. The aim should not be to find the solution to a problem, but rather to
facilitate the learning process that will allow stakeholders to gradually
develop a better knowledge and understanding of it..

2. Each stakeholder should have the opportunity to express what they

understand about the problematic situation and why they are
concerned..

3. It is essential to reconstitute the network which is organized between

the actors around the problem. Hence the importance of avoiding
dividing the situation and the need to focus on controversies, to
highlight what unites and separates.
13. The resolution of a problem requires the sharing of
perceptions, the debate and the negotiation, commanding the
intervention of a translator who is more interactionist and therapist
than expert..

14. The formulation of a problem must be creative, surprise,

confront, but above all, rally the stakeholders. Hence the capital
importance of resorting to synthetic thinking.
MODULE 4: DECISION MAKING
The life of organization is marked by many decisions. They are taken
every day, from creation until death. They are not all of the same
nature or of the same importance.

The decisions made by the leaders of the organization must serve the
goals and strategies that they themselves have defined.

Each decision is made taking into account several factors

(characteristics of the organization, technology used, market evolution,
legal constraints, dynamics of social relations, etc.).

It is possible to classify the multiple decisions by studying their time

horizon (short term, medium term and long term), their repetitive
nature or not, the hierarchical level of the decision maker, etc.
Igor Ansoff (1918 - 2002), born in Russia, he emigrated to the
United States where he carried out consulting activities for large
companies while pursuing an academic career. He proposed a
classification of decisions according to their object.

1. THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF DECISIONS

the strategic decisions concern the company's relations with its

environment (ex. : decision to produce a new type of car for emerging
countries, etc.);
tactical decisions (or administrative) relate to the
management of resources (eg: decision to acquire a
patent, to organize training for employees, etc.);

operational decisions relate to the day-to-day operation

of the business (eg: establishment of schedules, decision
to replenish spare parts, etc.).
By taking into account the deadline of the decision (its
impact over time) and the scope it covers (number of people
or departments concerned by the decision), it is also
possible to distinguish:
- the planning decisions (eg: location of premises, merger,
etc.);
- the steering decisions (eg: launch of a promotional
campaign, etc.);
- the regulatory decisions (eg: renewal of stocks, etc.).
Certain repetitive decisions can be processed by standard,
almost automatic processes (eg: triggering of an order); but
the most important decisions are subject to many
parameters and are mainly based on the intuition or
experience of the decision-makers (e.g .:decision
internationalization of a organization).
 2. Decision models

- The decision-maker behavior models isolated;

- Les models of decision-making behavior the organization.

 2.1. Theisolated decision-maker behavior models

• Classic model (e.g .: model of Harvard), Taylor, Ford.

– the decision-maker rationally evaluates all the
alternatives before making his choice.
– This choice is free of constraints and corresponds to a
strict logic of profit maximization.
• Model human relations
Herbert Simon

– the rationality decision maker is necessarily limited because the

decision fits into a complex environment which restricts the
perception of choices and imposes many constraints on the
decision maker.

– The consistency of decisions is also limited by other factors such as

the emotionality of the decision-maker (Janis), the very personality
of the decision-maker, his psychological profile, etc.
 2. 2. The organizational decision-making behavior
models

• Often decisions are not made by one person. It is therefore

interesting to study the decision-making mechanisms within
the organization, which often turn out to be complex
andrational.
• Three models of organizational decision-making behavior:
Decision model
The multiplicity of objectives
(Cyert and March)
Reducing uncertainty
(Behavioral theory of the firm)
The trash can theory
(March, Cohen and Olson)
Analysis
Each decision-maker, each service has interests and
goals different from those of the organization of which it
is however a part. The organization must therefore
implement techniques for resolving conflicting
objectives.
Every organization seeks as a priority to avoid
uncertainty and risk, and therefore does not always
seize the opportunities that are offered to it. In this
diagram, it is the managerial logic that prevails over the
entrepreneurial logic.
In general when faced with a problem, decision-makers
work out a solution, but according to MCO the decision-
making process does not work out that way. It is a
question of aligning pre-existing solutions with problems.
Policymakers would dig into a vast trash can for
solutions in search of problems
 3. The stages of the decision-making process

According to the school of decision-making, one distinguishes the perfect

rationality, made up of the classic model (diagnostic: problem identification and
formulation;research: list of possible actions; Evaluation: comparison of solutions; choice:
choose the optimal solution) and harvard model better known as SWOT (Strengths,
Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats), bounded rationality and procedural rationality
(programmed decisions and unscheduled decisions).

For Herbert Simon, any decision follows a more or less complex process,
the main stages of which are the perception of the need for a decision, the
inventory and analysis of the possible choices, the selection then the
implementation and the evaluation. one of the options selected.
 Three examples of Simon's IMC decision-making process
Herbert Simon (1916-2001)
Herbert Simon (Nobel Prize economist in 1978) is the author of the
model IMC (Intelligence, Modeling, Choice).
This model shows us the complexity of the decision process H. Simon
distinguishes 3 stages:
- step 1: Intelligence:
It is a question here of understanding by gathering all the possible
information on the company and its environment
- step 2: Modeling:
Here, the information gathered will be processed - decision-makers will then
look for possible solutions.
- step 3: Choosing the best solution given the constraints.
A 4th step is generally added for the control of the
implementation of the decision and the possible exercise of
corrective actions (feedback).

NB: Globally, the most common decision-making process

revolves around different subsequent phases:
- definition of the problem;
- elaboration of possible solution options;
- choice of the best option;
- implementation of the chosen solution.
 The realization of a new The strategic alliance with a Opening of a new store for
building in a public company competitor in a large private a luxury chocolate maker.
subject to the tendering company.
procedure.
Intelligence Perception of the need to Identification of the material, Wish to expand the
construct a new building. technical, immaterial or human catchment area and increase
needs of the organization. sales volume.
Modelization Clarification of the needs and Study of the different Search for different
characteristics of the new opportunities to acquire the opportunities to achieve the
swimming pool, launch of a call desired resources (purchase of desired objective (eg
for tenders, comparison of the patents, recruitment, alliances, possibility of marketing
projects of the different bidders. etc.). products to luxury
caterers ...).
Choice Selection of the best project Realization of a partnership with Decision to create a new
during a a competing company having store in an upscale district of
Board of Directors. the required resources. the capital.
 STAKEHOLDERS AND COUNTERPOWERS
(Taking into account the Stakeholders)

• Different stakeholders can influence the business of several manners.

Their objective is to limit the power of the leaders and to defend their interests

A stakeholder influence
Qu is what a stakeholder?
It was Edward Freeman who first proposed in 1963 a definition /
“A stakeholder is an individual or group who can affect or be affected by the
production organizational objectives ”
We distinguish :
objective is to limit the power of the leaders and to defend their interests
• Stakeholders of 1st rank or interns:
contractual and formal relationship with the
company

• Second ranks or outsiders: pressure groups,

governments, competitors
Graphic Problem formulation process
CONCLUSION

Formulation and problem solving is the challenge of organizational

performance. To meet this challenge, they sorely need managers who
always keep in mind that humans, in the decisions they make, are
incapable of following a model of absolute rationality as proposed by
classical theory.

Of a on the one hand, he cannot comprehend all the possible choices

and, on the other hand, he reasons sequentially and not in a synoptic
manner.
The only way to deal with this limited rationality, and even to benefit from
it, is through problem formulation. To do this, these managers must have
talent rather than scientific knowledge..

The ability to recognize that they cannot effectively solve complex

organizational problems on their own and to take advantage of the
knowledge that stakeholders have of them.

They must also have the creativity to bring out a representation and
negotiate acceptance by the parties.

In addition, they must recognize that each problem is unique and

requires the same attention on their part to formulate it properly.