A Method for Analyzing Cases or Problems

Prof. Andrew Van de Ven

Carlson School, Univ. of Minnesota

Claim: You can increase learning and

understanding of cases or managerial
problems by doing four things:
1. Ground the problem & question in reality (evidence).
2. Use a conceptual model or theory to address the question.
3. Evaluate how well the model applies to the case.
4. Implement a solution that solves the problem/question.
© Andrew H. Van de Ven, Carlson School, Univ. of Minnesota, 2006. Forthcoming in Engaged Scholarship

A Diamond Model for Case Analysis

Conceptual
Model
n
ti o

M
od
ua

el
al
Ev

Bu
i
el

ld
i
od

ng
M

Problem/
Solution
Question
n
io
Pr

at
ob

ul
rm
le
m

Fo
So

m
lv

le
in

ob
g

Pr

Case
Reality

1
A Diamond Model
for Examining Cases or Problems
Evaluate Model’s Application Answers & Arguments
-Does model apply to the case? -build strong arguments
Conceptual
-Revise model to fit the case -consider plausible alternatives
-Test model revisions, qualifications
Model -build crucial propositions
-evidence-based decisions -clarify context, assumptions
Criterion - Truth Criterion - Validity

M
n
tio

od
ua

e
lB
l
va

ui
E

ld
el

in
od

g
M
Solution Problem/

n
Question

io
Fit

at
Pr

ul
ob

rm
le

Fo
m
So

m
le
lv Ground the Problem/Case

ob
in
Application to Case/Problem g

Pr
- visit & study it
- knowledge for what? who? - map & diagnose it
- apply findings to problem Question/Problem
- develop implementation plan Reality - from who’s perspective?
- Local adaptation & reinvention - identify research users
Criterion - Impact Criterion - Relevance

A Good Solution is a Strong Argument

Background
– the problem, question, context of the claim

Reasons Evidence
Claim - Major premise - minor premise
-Proposition - Logic underlying claim - data backing reason
-Hypothesis
- Grounds - warrants

Qualifiers Reservations
- when claim holds Limitations - Grounds for Rebuttal
- assumptions - Logical refutations: validity
- boundary conditions - Empirical refutations: truth
- contingencies - Cogency of argument: persuasiveness
Stephen Toulmin, The Uses of Argument, Updated Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2003

2
 Components of an Argument

• Background -- problem, question, context of the claim

• Claim -- conclusion, answer, proposition or hypothesis
• Reasons --major premise, warrants, or logic underlying
the claim
• Evidence -- minor premise, grounds, or data backing the
reasons
• Qualifiers --boundary conditions and assumptions when
claim holds
• Reservations -- limitations or grounds for rebuttal of a
claim:

Toulmin Model of Argument

Toulmin’s courtroom model of argumentation assumes:

• all assertions and assumptions are contestable by “opposing
counsel,”
• all final “verdicts” about the persuasiveness of the opposing
arguments will be rendered by a neutral third party, a judge or
jury.
• the “opposing counsel” forces us to anticipate counter-
arguments and to question our assumptions.
• the judge and jury reminds us to answer opposing arguments
fully, without rancor, and to present positive reasons for
supporting our case as well as negative reasons for disbelieving
the opposing case.
Toulmin’s model reminds us not to construct an
argument that appeals only to those who already
agree with us. (Ramage and Bean, 1995: 102).

3
Exercise: Form Your Answer as an Argument

• Background

• Claim:

• Reasons:

• Evidence:

• Reservations:

• Qualifications:

Argument for Diamond Model

to Examine Cases or Problems
Reason (major premise) Claim
Decision quality and creativity Qualifiers Diamond model
increase by applying problem Most likely... promotes learning
formulation, model development & understanding
and testing, and problem solving of a case or problem.
steps in a consistent, balanced way.

Evidence (minor premise)

Low quality decisions are often
produced by jumping to solutions
without adequate problem formulation,
by selecting models that are invalid
or too general in addressing the
particulars of a case, or that do not
permit local adaptation or reinvention.
Reservation
Unless the problem, question, model, or
solution are pre-determined, one-sided or
closed-minded.
Unless time or talents prevent analyst
from covering all 4 bases of the model.

4
 Types of Arguments

1. What is this thing?

− categorical propositions
2. What are its causes or effects?
− causal propositions
3. Is it good or bad?
− Evaluations (ethical categorical propositions)
4. What should be done about it?
− Proposals (ethical categorical and causal propositions)
The audience determines the quality of answers and
the behavior or the speaker

Source: Jeanne Fahnestock, “Teaching Argument: A Theory of Types,”

College Composition and Communication. 34, 1 (1983): pp 20-30

Types of Arguments – Some Details

1. What is this thing? – categorical propositions
• A subject, linking verb, predicate
− E.g., Carlson MBA students are critical thinkers
• Define the predicate (critical thinkers know provable, probable & plausible truths)
• Convincing evidence that subject (MBA students) exhibit the predicate
2. What are its causes or effects? – causal propositions
• Agency – a belief in what can cause an effect
− E.g., Critical thinking can be taught
• Evidence: co-variation, temporal precedence, no spurious factors
3. Is it good or bad? - evaluations
• A value judgment applying ethical criteria
– E.g., Critical thinking is an essential skill of good managers
• Same in form as a categorical proposition: definition & evidence
• Find acceptable criteria appropriate to the subject
4. What should be done about it? - proposals
• A problem (negative evaluation) that needs solution (to avoid bad consequence)
– E.g., MBA students don’t think critically; hence won’t become good managers
• A solution that eradicates the cause, is ethically right, and is feasible
− E.g., Critical thinking can and should be taught to MBA students.
• Qualifications, reservations, and concerns of the audience

5
Steps for Improving Quality
& Motivation in Problem Solving
• Insist on data, adopt evidence-based decision making.
• Explore plausible alternative problems and solution models of
issue.
• Challenge and debate the assumptions and conclusions,
consider improbable or unpopular perspectives.
• Develop strong argument for proposed solution (claim, reasons,
evidence, assumptions and reservations).
• Generate solution quality and motivation by involving different
stakeholders in stages of planning or problem solving process.
Reservation
These steps do not insure success. However, they decrease decision traps and
biases that lead to faulty decisions and increase motivations of relevant stakeholders
who are critical for implementing the decision.

Decision Traps & Biases

Individual Decisions Group Decisions

• Anchoring • Group think
• Status-Quo • Risky shift
• Sunk Costs • Conformity
• Falling into a “rut”
• Confirmation bias
• Conflict avoidance
• Framing
• Estimating & Forecasting

Sources: Hammond, Keeney & Raiffa, The Hidden Traps in Decision Making.
Delbecq & Van de Ven A Group Process Model for Problem Identification and Program Planning.

6
Web Sites on Toulmin Method of
Argumentation

Bradley at the University of Maryland uses Toulmin's original terms:

http://bradley.bradley.edu/~ell/Toulmin.html

Other web sites that use language similar to mine provide good visual
examples for evaluating and writing arguments:

http://www.wam.umd.edu/~gaines/toulmin.html

http://www-as.phy.ohiou.edu/~rouzie/fall151/rhetoric.html#arg

http://writing.colostate.edu/references/reading/toulmin/index.cfm

MGMT 6050 Mid-Term Report Questions

Case comparison report questions
1. How is your case similar and different to Qnetics (TAP) and CIP in
terms of the common elements of the innovation journey, learning,
leadership, or external relationships?
(Suggestion: present answer in a table, and discuss the most
interesting comparisons in 2 pages or less.)

2. Diagnose a key problem or issue that was common to your three

cases.
(Make your diagnosis explicit by listing the data or symptoms, your
analysis, and your inference of the problem in 2 pages or less.)

3. Propose a recommendation for managing this problem.

(Support your recommendation with an argument by stating your
claim, reasons, evidence, reservations, and qualifiers in 2 pages or
less.)

Please attach this Midterm Report Evaluation Form as the cover page of
your report.

7
Argument

• Two or more propositions that lead to a conclusion that may be:

− Provably true with logical deductive reasoning on certain knowledge
− Probably true with inductive empirical reasoning
− Plausibly true with dialectical rhetorical reasoning that convinces an audience
• Aristotle’s formal analytic syllogism - two premises and a
conclusion that the premises logically imply
− major premise: All men are mortal
− minor premise: Socrates is a man
− conclusion: Therefore, Socrates is mortal
• Toulmin adaptation of formal logic with jurisprudence
− claim: conclusion, answer, or hypotheses
− reason: major premise, grounds or logic underlying the claim
− evidence: minor premise, warrants, or data backing the reason
− qualifier: conditions, assumptions, or limits when claim holds
− reservation: limits or grounds for rebutal of a claim

Logical Validity

• Formal logical validity depends solely on the relation between

premises and conclusion. Validity is independent of truth. Valid
syllogism consisting of false propositions
− invalid syllogism consisting of true propositions
• Validity is assessed by the form/structure of the argument
− affirming the antecedent: If p then q, p, therefore q
− denying the consequent: If p then q, Not q, therefore not p
− chain argument: If p then q, If q then r, If p then r

− Fallacy of affirming the consequent: If p then q, q, therefore p

− Fallacy of denying the antecedent: If p then q, Not p, therefore not q

8
 Empirical (Probable) Truth
Whereas logicians assess the validity of their arguments, scientists evaluate the logical
validity and empirical truth of their theories

• We use inductive conditional propositions to test hypothesis:

− all observed members of p are q. Therefore, all p are q.
− The greater the number & variety of p, the stronger the hypothesis.
• We reject hypothesis by denying the consequent
• If p then q If hypothesis is true, then the predicted fact is true
• Not q The predicted fact is not true.
• Therefore, no p Therefore, the hypothesis is false. -- Valid
• We cannot prove hypothesis; that would be the fallacy of affirming the
consequent
• If p then q If hypothesis is true, then the predicted fact is true.
• q The predicted fact is true
• Therefore, p Therefore the hypothesis is true. -- Not valid
− Existing facts may have more than one explanation.
− Search and rule out plausible alternative hypothesis.

The Rhetorical Triangle: Plausible Truth

‘Evidence’ is whatever convinces a reasonable audience

Logos
logical validity &
empirical truth
of the message

Pathos Ethos
persuasiveness: the speaker’s
stir emotions credibility,
beliefs, values legitimacy,
imagination of appearance
the audience & authority

Source: Chaim Perelman & L. Olbrechts-Tyteca, 1971. The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation,
Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame.