The Nature of Hard and Soft Problems and Their Problem-Solving Perspectives

Journal of Systems Thinking in Practice

دوره 1، شماره 3، اسفند 2022، صفحه 22-48   

نوع مقاله: Research Article

شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22067/jstinp.2022.79419.1024

نویسندگان

Payam Hanafizadeh^{* 1}؛ Mohammad Mehrabioun²

¹Department of Industrial Management, Faculty of Management and Accounting, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran.

²Department of Operation Management and Information Technology, Faculty of Management, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran.

چکیده

Problem-solving requires adopting an appropriate approach that is influenced by understanding the nature of problems ranging from soft to hard. Research results indicate that there is still a lack of an accurate understanding of the nature of problems while researchers are engaged in adopting an approach to addressing the problems. Therefore, this research seeks to investigate the nature of hard and soft problems and the quality of their resulting solutions. This research endeavors to examine the nature of soft and hard problems. It is believed that identifying the attributes of different types of problems helps strike a balance between the nature of the problem, the problem-solving method, and the methodology used. Therefore, this research has addressed the nature of hard and soft problems and their perspectives on solving problems to fill gaps left in systems thinking studies. Also, current research helps researchers set a balance between attributes of the problem and ways of thinking about it, better identify the nature of the problem and better adapt the methodology to the problem. Based on the results of this research, soft problems are influenced by the context of the problem. In addition, in hard problems, the structure of the solution is determined by the problem structure. In contrast, in soft problems, the structure of the solution demands a proper understanding of the logical and cultural phenomena of the problem context. That is why the quality of the answer to hard problems is a normative, right, and definitive solution, while the answer to soft problems is a procedure composed of concepts and meanings. The findings of this study suggest that, like a soft problem, the solution to a soft problem is a social reality that all interested groups collectively enact. Consequently, the solution is a system of concepts that all the interested groups accept, and over its implementation, there is a shared understanding among all the interested groups.

کلیدواژه‌ها

Soft problems؛ Soft systems methodology؛ Phenomenology؛ Interpretivist approaches؛ Soft OR

مراجع

Ackoff, R. L. 1974. Redesigning the future. New York, 29. 

Brunsson, N. 1985. The irrational organization: Irrationality as a basis for organizational action and change. John Wiley and Sons. 

Champion, D., and Stowell, F. A. 2001. PEArL: a systems approach to demonstrating authenticity in information systems design. Journal of Information Technology, 16(1), pp.3-12. 

Checkland, P. 1994. Systems theory and management thinking. American Behavioral Scientist, 38(1), pp.75-91. 

Checkland, P. 1999. Systems thinking, systems practice: a 30 year retrospective: soft systems methodology. John Wiley and sons, Ltd. Chichester.

Checkland, P., 2000. New maps of knowledge some animadversions (friendly) on: science (reductionist), social science (hermeneutic), research (unmanageable) and universities (unmanaged). Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 17(S1 1), pp.S59-S75.

Checkland, P. 2005. Webs of significance: the work of Geoffrey Vickers. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 22(4), pp.285-290. 

Checkland, P., and Casar, A. 1986. Vickers’ concept of an appreciative system: a systemic account. Journal of Applied Systems Analysis, 13(3), pp.3-17. 

Checkland, P., and Holwell, S. 1998. Action research: its nature and validity. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 11(1), pp.9-21. 

Checkland, P., and Poulter, J. 2006. Learning for action: a short definitive account of soft systems methodology and its use for practitioner, teachers, and students  (Vol. 26). Wiley Chichester. 

Checkland, P. and Poulter, J., 2010. Systems Approaches Managing Change: A Practical Guide (M. Reynolds and S. Holwell.

Checkland, P. B. 1984. Systems thinking in management: the development of soft systems methodology and its implications for social science  (Self-Organization and Management of Social Systems (pp. 94-104). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. 

Chi, M. T., Glaser, R., and Farr, M. J. 2014. The nature of expertise. Psychology Press. 

Christis, J. 2005. Theory and practice of soft systems methodology: a performative contradiction? Systems research and behavioral science, 22(1), pp.11-26. 

Churchman, C. W. 1967. Guest editorial: Wicked problems. JSTOR.

Conklin, J. 2005. Dialogue Mapping: Building Shared Understanding of Wicked Problems. John Wiley andamp; Sons, Inc. 

Creswell, J. W., and Clark, V. L. P. 2007. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage publications.

D'Zurilla, T. J., and Nezu, A. M. 1999. Problem-solving therapy: A social competence approach to clinical intervention. Springer Publishing Company. 

Eastman, C. M. 1969. Cognitive processes and ill-defined problems: A case study from design. (Ed.),^(Eds.). Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence: IJCAI.

Edmonstone, J. 2014. On the nature of problems in action learning. Action Learning: research and practice, 11(1), pp. 25-41. 

Edmonstone, J. 2017. Action Learning in Health, Social and Community Care: Principles, Practices and Resources. CRC Press. 

Flood, R. L. 1989. Archaeology of (systems) inquiry. Systems Practice, 2(1), pp. 117-124. 

Flood, R. L. 1998. Action research and the management and systems sciences. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 11(1), pp. 79-101. 

Flood, R. L. 2010. The relationship of ‘systems thinking’to action research. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 23(4), pp. 269-284. 

Flood, R. L., and Romm, N. R. A. 2018. A systemic approach to processes of power in learning organizations: part I–literature, theory, and methodology of triple loop learning. The learning organization, 25(4) pp.260-272. 

Frensch, P. A., and Funke, J. 2014. Complex problem solving: The European perspective. Psychology Press. 

Habermas, J. 1970. Towards a theory of communicative competence. Inquiry, 13(1-4), pp. 360-375. 

Habermas, J., Habermas, J., and McCarthy, T. 1985. The theory of communicative action  (Vol. 2). Beacon press. 

Hanafizadeh, P., and Mehrabioun, M. 2017. Application of SSM in tackling problematical situations from academicians’ viewpoints. Syst Pract Action Res, pp.1-42. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-017-9422-y .

Hanafizadeh, P., and Mehrabioun, M. 2019. A Systemic Framework for Business Model Design and Development-Part B: Practical Perspective. Systemic Practice and Action Research, pp.1-36. 

Hanafizadeh, P., and Mehrabioun, M. 2020. A Systemic framework for business model design and development-Part B: Practical Perspective. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 33(6), pp.639-674. 

Hanafizadeh, P., Mehrabioun, M., Badie, K. and Soofi, J.B., 2018. A systemic framework for business model design and development-part a: theorizing perspective. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 31(4), pp.437-461. 

Hanafizadeh, P., Mehrabioun, M., and Mostasharirad, A. 2021. The Necessary and Sufficient Conditions for the Solution of Soft Systems Methodology. Philosophy of Management, 20(2), pp.135-166.

Hatch, M. J., and Cunliffe, A. L. 2013. Organization theory: modern, symbolic and postmodern perspectives. Oxford university press. 

Holwell, S. 2000. Soft systems methodology: other voices. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 13(6), pp.773-797. 

Huaxia, Z. 2010. Soft systems methodology and ‘soft’philosophy of science. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 27(2), pp.156-170. 

Jackson, M. C. 1990. Beyond a system of systems methodologies. Journal of the operational research society, 41(8), pp.657-668. 

Jonassen, D. H. 1997. Instructional design models for well-structured and III-structured problem-solving learning outcomes. Educational technology research and development, 45(1), pp.65-94. 

Jonassen, D. H. 2000. Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational technology research and development, 48(4), pp. 63-85. 

Kitchner, K. 1983. Cognition, metacognition, and epistemic cognition. Human development, 26(4), pp.222-232. 

Mayer, R. E. 1992. Thinking, problem solving, cognition. WH Freeman/Times Books/Henry Holt and Co. 

Mingers, J., and White, L. 2010. A review of the recent contribution of systems thinking to operational research and management science. European Journal of Operational Research, 207(3), pp.1147-1161. 

Newell, A. and Simon, H.A., 1972. Human problem solving (Vol. 104, No. 9). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-hall.

Novick, L. R., and Bassok, M. 2005. Problem solving.  Cambridge University Press.

Pidd, M., 1997. Tools for thinking—Modelling in management science. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 48(11), pp.1150-1150.

Reitman, W. R. 1964. Heuristic decision procedures, open constraints, and the structure of ill-defined problems. Human judgments and optimality, pp.282-315. 

Revans, R. 2011. ABC of action learning. Gower Publishing, Ltd. 

Revans, R., 2016. Action learning: Its origins and nature. In Action learning in practice (pp. 33-42). Routledge.

Rittel, H. W., and Webber, M. M. 1973. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy sciences, 4(2), pp.155-169. 

Segal, E. 2004. Incubation in insight problem solving. Creativity Research Journal, 16(1), pp.141-148. 

Simon, H. A. 1959. Theories of decision-making in economics and behavioral science. The American economic review, 49(3), pp.253-283. 

Simon, H. A. 1973. The structure of ill structured problems. Artificial intelligence, 4(3-4), pp.181-201. 

Simon, H. A. 1976. From substantive to procedural rationality. In 25 years of economic theory (pp.65-86). Springer, Boston, MA.

Stowell, F. 1989. Organisational power and the metaphor commodity  (Systems Prospects (pp. 147-153). Springer. 

Stowell, F., and Welch, C. 2012. The manager's guide to systems practice: making sense of complex problems. John Wiley and Sons. 

Tarter, C. J., and Hoy, W. K. 1998. Toward a contingency theory of decision making. Journal of educational administration, 36(3), pp.212-228. 

Vickers, G. 1965. The art of judgment: A study of policy making. Basic Books. 

Voss, J. F. 1988. Problem solving and reasoning in ill-structured domains. 

Voss, J. F. 2005. Toulmin’s model and the solving of ill-structured problems. Argumentation, 19(3), pp.321-329.  

Voss, J. F. 2014. On the Solving oi III-Structured Problems. The nature of expertise, 261. 

Voss, J. F., Greene, T. R., Post, T. A., and Penner, B. C. 1983. Problem-solving skill in the social sciences. Psychology of learning and motivation, 17, pp.165-213. 

Wilson, B. 2001. Soft systems methodology: Conceptual model building and its contribution. John Wiley & Sons, LT.

Yearworth, M., and Edwards, G. 2014. On the desirability of integrating research methods into overall systems approaches in the training of engineers: analysis using SSM. Systems research and behavioral science, 31(1), pp.47-66. 

Zexian, Y., and Xuhui, Y. 2010. A revolution in the field of systems thinking—a review of Checkland's system thinking. Systems research and behavioral science, 27(2), pp.140-155.