PROBLEM SET
| Collection | International Encyclopedia of Systems and Cybernetics |
|---|---|
| Year | 2004 |
| Vol. (num.) | 2(2) |
| ID | ◀ 2636 ▶ |
| Object type | Human sciences, Epistemology, ontology or semantics, Methodology or model |
The word “problem”, after being used and abused widely all along time, has finally lost any clear meaning for most people. J. WARFIELD writes: “Extensive empirical evidence in working with complexity has made clear that the statement ”let's begin by defining the problem“ is the opening scene of an evolving linguistic nightmare”. Whenever complexity is involved nearly allstakeholders in some situation of issue have different views about what the “problem” is. This is the recipe for confuse, or even incoherent debate, for muddled thinking and inefficient meandering managemen t through \term“{underconceptualization}” as defined by J. WARFIELD.
In effect, the apparently clear concept of “the problem” totally obscures the fact that most problematic situations have multiple concurrent (and even synergetic) causes.
It tends to lead astray the would be “problem solvers” making them believe that, “finding ”the“ cause of the problem”, it will be easy to “solve”.
Warfield proposes to consider what he calls a “problem set”, which would include as many as possible of the converging causes of different kinds, at different levels .
He also observes that any problem definition is a human construct, and as such, of course, depending on probably different and even divergent views of the stakeholders .
Unless a wide-open conversation is instaured with an appropriate technique, the so-called “problem” would probably be misunderstood and conflicting unresolved views would lead to underconceptualization , leading in turn to costly mistaken decisions .
See also
Clanthink, Design (Generic), Group technique (Nominal), Groupthink, Solution