International Encyclopedia of Systems and Cybernetics

"An activity aimed at closing the cognitive gap en route to a goal by employing acts of processes neither immediately nor obviously suitable towards this end" (K. KRIPPENDORFF, 1986, p.61).

Problem solving has been discussed by H. SIMON, in relation to specific tasks as for example "discovering the proof of a difficult theorem". He states: "The process can be – and often has been – described as a search through a maze. Starting with the axioms and previously proved theorems, various transformations allowed by the rules of the mathematical systems are attempted, to obtain new expressions. These are modified in turn until, with persistence and good fortune, a sequence or path of transformations is discovered that leads to the goal" (1965, p.67). He adds: "The process usually involves a great deal of trial and error", which is not completely random and blind". (We are up to a point, guided by the rules). As a result, trial and error search is "selective" (Ibid).

Problem solving is however generally referring to very much more difficult issues.

This seductive – but sometimes deceptive – concept effectively conceals quite different situations. The resolution by computer of a mathematical problem or geometric theorem; the inquiry about some specialized problem by an expert system; or the difficult process of decision- making by a businessman or a statesman are widely different matters.

The first type corresponds to a very simple sequence from the abstract model to the solution, still in the abstract world of the model.

Once we deal with a concrete system, three other – and quite critical – steps must be taken. The first is the construction of the model, in which the percepts, concepts and intentions of the model builder(s) are heavily conditioning factors. The second one is the interpretation of the abstract solution obtained from the model (through some supposedly correct methodology) in relation to the concrete system's nature and conditions (which supposedly kindly remained invariant in the mean time), and the third one is the implementation of the solution in the concrete system (which implies many human and practical resources and means, hopefully at disposal).

It is thus not surprising that about real world situations B. BANATHY says: "You cannot really solve a problem, you can only manage it". In the same vein, as stated by P.M. ALLEN; "Clearly, what constitutes a "problem" and what is considered a "solution" depend on the particular views of the moment, and any action taken with the intention of providing a solution to a problem will in fact push the system along one evolutionary path rather than another. Since such decisions are usually taken without any real knowledge of what the system would have done anyway, and what new problems lie along its changed path, then it is not surprising that the general feeling as to the overall effect of such interventions is somewhat less than euphoric" (1982, p.60), No wonder G. VICKERS spoke of "the poverty of problem solving"

→ (Planning (Anticipatory) and Planning (Interactive)

To these reflextions, D. Mc NEIL adds the following: The "Problem-solving paradigm" "pretends to objectivity and the particular rationality of a linear world which is reducible to "things out there", It presumes that a technological arsenal of "problem-solving tools" could mechanize and eventually offer mastery of prediction and control. Ultimately, the "problem-solving" paradigm provides at best only a patchwork of partial, local and temporary "solutions" to "problems" which are themselves the results of "solutions to problems" ad infinitum" (1993a, p.3).

Problem-solving also presents a significant cybernetic angle, as stated by P.S. HENSHAW: "Knowledge of the outcome of the last previous act is a key to problem-solving, decision-making and behavior" (1975, p.23).

It is even more complex than this, because the situation may very well have changed due to new and yet unregistered environmental factors which may render our solution – now out of step – inoperant or even downright harmful.

G.S. SAMARAS indicted (in 1974, but it is still true nowadays): "… the prevalence of erroneous problem-solving – the 'cybernetic sacrilege' of viewing complex systems with superficial oversimplification. A fundamental element of any problem-solving, decision-making process is determining whether the observed phenomenon is an "isolated" state of superficial cause or a manifestation of some subtle, underlying source. Many current decisions treat our complex problems as states instead of symptoms. The implementation of these ineffective solutions is abetted by the lack of involvement of the scientific community and the ignorance of the general public" (1974, p.1).

KRIPPENDORFF emits a more or less similar caveat: "The contemporary emphasis on finding technological solutions to human problems is the principal motor for the growth of technology, but also the principal source of ecological disequilibria and of many human problems and social instabilities" (p.86).

This "problem with problem solving", particularly in human systems, is now more clearly perceived and various new systemic concepts and methodologies have emerged during the last twenty years:

- St. BEER Viable System Model

- R.L. FLOOD and M.C. JACKSON's Total Systems Intervention

- The FUSCHL Group's Design Conversations.

- J.A. JOHANNESSEN and A. HAUAN's holographic and heterarchical model of the organization

- I.I. MITROFF and H.A. LINSTONE's Unbounded Systems Thinking

- J WARFIELD's Generic Design and associated methodologies

P. CHECKLAND's "Soft Systems methodology" and C.W. CHURCHMAN's views about the Design of Inquiring Systems" have inspired most of these developments.