[from Measuring the knower: Towards a theory of knowledge equity
Rashi Glazer , 04/01/98 California Management Review, Page 175--Walter
Derzko]
"Framing/Problem Representation"
"An important and frequently encountered type of context that knowers
rely on is the way a
particular situation is framed or a problem represented. As is true with
context in general,
framing considerations operate at the basic sensory or perceptual levels,
but the more
interesting cases involve higher-order cognitive activities. Staying
within the realm of
preference judgments, for example, it has been shown that the negative
properties of stimuli
tend to be weighted more heavily than the positive ones. Consequently,
whether a problem is
framed in terms of gains or losses often has a dramatic effect on the
interpretation or meaning
given."
Walter Derzko
Director Brain Space
(formerly the Idea Lab at
the Design Exchange)
Toronto
(416) 588-1122
wderzko@pathcom.com
----------
From: Emil Zahner <
canmor@COMPUSERVE.COM>
To:
MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
Subject: Systematic problem definition and solving
Date: Saturday, July 25, 1998 10:49 AM
Subject: Systematic problem definition and solving:
3 questions
1. Attraction: Why are business people (management)
reluctant to (or hardly attracted to) systematic
approaches to problem definition and solving.
2. Why would management educators and innovators not
react to a challenge to check out a detailed description
of systematic problem solving (as opposed to "fuzzy /
creative" problem solving.
3. If there is a better way to make the mentioned people
react, what would this be?
Please respond to the list, not to the author.
General comment:
The past president of Ford Canada mentioned in public
statement (sense, not words):
"We get graduates from universities, we have to
teach them how to approach a problem cluster methodically,
and we have to teach them how to think to get results."
I have been reading this list for quite while and noticed
now and then discussions about the difficulty of persuading
managers (or students) to use systematic approaches to
problem definition and solving - independent of the field.
Luck and quantity dependent solution generators tend to
be favored (well known example: Orborn's Brain Storming).
While such methods do provide answers, they might often
storm past the high quality solution. High quality don't
necessarily come up in a flash of insight.
Sorting large quantities of idea flashes along some
criteria is time consuming. They still need to be
structured, combined, evaluated.
A systematic approach starts basically anywhere, then
generalizes the problem field, then researches for more
fundamental solutions, and their interrelations.
Results tend to be more integral, with less overlooked
problems (late surprises) at their interfaces.
Innovation - be this a product or a business structure -
depends heavily on recognizing trends, future
(so far unknown) needs, generating fail safe solutions
which will interface easily with current and anticipated
systems.
From the above it could be assumed that information about
know-how in reaching such objectives would generate a
strong desire to learn evaluate it. As stated at the
beginning, it appears that business people are not very
much attracted by such treasures. The question is why?
(Question 1)
There is an additional question: On
July xx (or there about)
an invitation to look at an example of a systematic approach
to problem solving was posted here. (MINT+MG-DV-XX).
The two lists have together more than 1000 subscribers.
So far there have been 2 responses (one of them was very
useful). This in itself is fascinating, because one list
is concerned with management education, the other list
is read by "innovative people".
It is fascinating why these two list did not generate more
responses. (QUESTION 2)
One reason could be the request of responding to the poster,
not to the list. The idea was to keep the list short,
involving only those who are interested. A digested version
was to be generated from the responses, to be made available,
or posted to the List. List cluttering should be avoided.
In this case the information can not be put into email.
Access to the information requires an internet browser.
Producing a digest instead of the multiple postings by
automatic responders seemed natural.
In your opinion, should the responses be made to the list
rather than to the poster?. (QUESTION 3)
Please respond to the 3 questions. Thank you.
Emil Zahner
Morphological Institute Canada
Website:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/canmor/
Evaluation
example:http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/canmor/pros01.htm