METHOD OF PROBLEM STRUCTURING

Problem structuring is a process or way generates and test alternative

conceptualization of a problem situation. Problem structuring involves four phases that
is problem sensing, problem search, problem definition and problem specification.
Boundary analysis, classification analysis, hierarchy analysis, synectics, brainstorming,
multiple perspective analysis, assumptional analysis and argumentation mapping is a
method of problem structuring.

Boundary analysis estimate whether metaproblem is relatively complete. For

example is problem of homesteader. This is similar to policy makers whether they
have taken into account all possible factors. There’s three step processes toward
completeness of problem formulation. First step is saturation sampling or snowball.
Start with the obvious candidates and then more referrals whether people agree or
disagree. Stakeholders in this initial set may be contacted, face-to-face, or by
telephone, and asked to name two addition stakeholder who agree or disagree. Second
step is elicitation problem representation. Look for alternative representation of a
problem, face-to-face interview and telephone conversation and documents request
from stakeholder. The third step is to estimate the boundaries of the metaproblem. The
estimation procedures describe satisfy requirements for sound inductive estimates is
general such as character, coordination, cost-effectiveness, and correctness in the limit.
Sources of knowledge in the boundary analysis are knowledge system.

Classificational analysis is a technique for define concepts used in defining and

classifying a problem situation. Involve two main procedures; logical division and logical
classification. Logical divisions select a class and breaking it down into component.
Logical classification grouping based situation, object or persons. The basis of any
classification depends on the analyst’s purpose, which in turn depends on substantive
knowledge about a problem situation. There are several rules that help ensure that a
classification system is both relevant to a problem situation and logically consistent such
as substantive relevance, exhaustiveness, disjointness, consistency, and hierarchical
distinctiveness. Substantive relevance should be developing according to the purpose
and nature of problem situation. It is also conform to the realities of the problem
situation. Poverty, for example, can be classified as a problem low income, culture
deprivation or motivation of psychology. Exhaustiveness means all subject or situation
must be used up. Disjointness means categories must be mutually exclusive. Each
subject or situation must be assigned to one and subcategory. Consistency means each
category based on a single classificational principle. A violation of consistency lead to
overlapping subclasses and is known as the fallacy of cross-division. Classification
analysis is a technique for improve the clarity of concepts and their relations.

1
 Hierarchy analysis is techniques identification of possible causes of a problem
situation. There are three kinds of causes such as possible causes, plausible causes,
and actionable causes. Possible causes are event or action that may contribute to the
occurrence of problem situation. For example is raising drugs addiction. Plausible
causes are believed to have an important bearing on a problem. For example, data on
recent cases and drug addiction. Actionable cause is one which is subject to be
controlled and manipulated by policy holder. For example, police to go hard on drug
addiction. The procedure that used in hierarchy analysis is the same with procedure in
classification analysis. This analysis used logical division and classification of causes. A
source of knowledge is individual analyst and used logical consistency as a
performance criterion.

Synectics is a method designed to promote the recognition of analogous

problems. Synectics help analyst use analogies in structuring policy problem. “People
fail to recognize that what appears to be a new problem is a really an old one in
disguise, or that old problem may contain potential solution”. Synectics can help analyst
increase the capacities of problem solving. Analyst produces four types of analogies in
structuring policy problems. First type of analogies is personal analogies. This types
putting yourself in somebody else’s shoe. It is important in uncovering political
dimensions of a problem situation, for “unless we are willing and able to think
‘politically’, we will not be able to enter the word of policy maker”. For example, public
can’t put themselves in policy maker. A second type is direct analogies. The analyst
search for similar relationship among two or more problems situation. For example drug
control and control of infectious diseases such as HIV. A symbolic analogy is a third
type of analogies. In this type analyst try to discover similar relationship between
problem situation and symbolic process. View as consequence of continuous feedback
from the environment in each case analogous process of adaption. The last type is
fantasy analogies. In this type analyst complete free to explore similar between problem
situation and imaginary state of affair. This type defense analyst for example used
fantasy analogies to structure a problem of defense against nuclear attack. A source of
knowledge in this method is individual analyst or group. The main criterion is plausibility
of comparison.

Brainstorming is generation of ideas, goals, and strategies that help identify and
conceptualize problem situation. Brainstorming can be used to generate more
suggestions about potential problem solving. These methods have a several simple
procedures. The first procedures are gathering of experts, area specialists and
stakeholder. Second, process of idea generating and idea evaluation kept apart is
contamination and premature debunking of ideas. Third, activities as permissive and
open an atmosphere as possible. Fourth, idea evaluating phase should begin only after
all idea generated have been exhausted. The last procedure is the group should
prioritizing ideas and incorporates them in a proposal. This method involves relatively
structured or unstructured activities, defense on analyst aims and the practical

2
constraint of the problem situation. Structure activities are various devices used to focus
group discussion. This device includes the establishment of continuous decision
seminar and constructing of scenario. Unstructured activities occur frequently in
government agencies, public and private “think tank”. In scenario planning the analyst
become the model breaker, the idealist, the questioner of assumption, and generator of
new ideas. Analyst also must be look at the current situation and paints the most
plausible situation given the present limitation. Brainstorming is focus on groups of
knowledgeables rather than individual expert. Brainstorming activities used consensus
among member of brainstorming groups. Consensus is a criterion of performance in
problem structuring. Brainstorming activities provides no explicit procedures to promote
the creative use of conflict in structuring policy problems.

Multiple perspective analysis is a method for obtaining greater insight into

problem and potential solution based on personal, organizational, and technical
perspectives to problem situation. This method is more scientific, rational technical
approaches in planning policy analysis and social impact assessment. Three
perspectives in this method as major major features. There are technical perspectives,
organizational perspective, and personal perspective. Technical perspective views
problem and solution based on probability theory, benefit-cost and decision analysis,
econometrics, and system analysis. This perspective based on scientific-technological
worldview, emphasizes causal thinking, objectives analysis, prediction, optimization,
and qualified uncertainty. Organizational perspectives view problems and solution as
part of an orderly progression from one organizational state to another. The major
characteristics of organizational perspectives are standard operating procedures, rules,
and institutional routine. These perspectives only minimally concerned with achieving
goals and improving performance. Personal perspectives view problems and solutions
based on individual perception, needs, and values. An emphasis on intuition, charisma,
leadership, and self-interest is a major characteristic of these perspectives. This
characteristic are factors governing policies and their impact. Multiple perspectives
analysis is relevant to any sociological problem found in areas of public policy making,
corporate strategic planning, regional development and other domains. Some of the
guidelines can used to employ multiple perspectives that developed by Linstone and
colleagues is interparadigmtic mix, balance among perspectives, uneven replicability,
appropriate communications, and deferred integration. Interparadigmatic mix maximizes
opportunities to find an appreciation for technical perspectives, organizational
perspectives and personal perspectives. Form teams on the basis of an
interparadigmatics rather than interdisciplimary mix. Balance among perspectives are
advance of planning and policy analysis activities it is not possible to decide emphasis
to place on technical perspectives, organizational perspectives and personal
perspectives. Technical perspectives are replicable rather than organizational
perspectives and personal perspectives. Appropriate communications are adapting the
medium of communication to the message. Organizational perspectives and personal
perspectives are appropriate communication with summaries, oral briefings, scenarios,
and vignettes. Models, data list of variables, and analytical routine are appropriate for
those with technical perspectives. Deferred integration are leave the integration of
3
perspectives to the policy maker, but out linkages among the three perspectives in
multiple perspectives analysis and the conclusions is differing. So this method
developed on the basis of earlier work in foreign policy and the design of the knowledge
system. The source of knowledge in this method is a group and the performance
criterion is improved insight.

Assumptional analysis is a method that aims at the creative synthesis of

conflicting assumptions about policy problem. It recognizes the constraints imposed on
present policy analysis. This method most comprehensive of all problems structuring
method includes procedures used in conjunction with other technique and focus on
group, individual or both. The most important characteristic in this method is explicitly
designed to treat ill-structured problems. The main criterion for assessing the adequacy
of a given formulation of problems is whether conflicting assumptions about a problem
situation have been surfaced, challenged, and creatively synthesized. Four major
limitations of policy analysis in assumptional analysis. There are policy analysis is often
based on the assumption of a single decision maker with clearly ordered values that
realized at single point in time, typically fails to consider in a systematic and explicit
process strongly differing views about the nature of problem and problem solving,
carried out in organizations whose “self-sealing” features makes it difficult to challenge
prevailing formulations of problem, and criterion used to assess the adequacy of
problem and their solution often deal with surface characteristics, rather than with basic
assumption underlying the conceptualization of problem. This method recognizes the
importance of positive and negative features of conflict and commitment. Needed to
challenge assumptions of policy made is a conflict. Commitment used for proponents to
make strongest possible case. Assumptional analysis involves the use of five processes
used in successive phases. The first phase is stakeholder identification. In this phase
policy stakeholders are identified, ranked, and prioritized based on an assessment of
the degree to which they influence and are influenced by the policy process. Second
phase is assumption surfacing. Analyst work backward from a recommended solution
for a problem to the selective set of data that support the recommendation and the
underlying assumption that, when coupled with the data, allow one to deduce the
recommendation as a consequence of the data. This phase look at recommendation
and the underlying assumption, implicitly and explicitly. The third phase is assumption
challenging. In this phase analyst compare and evaluate sets of recommendations and
their underlying assumptions by systematically comparing assumptions and counter
assumptions which differ maximally from their counterparts. It is eliminated from further
consideration if a counter assumption is implausible. It is examined to determine if a
counter assumption is plausible. The fourth phase is assumption pooling. In this phase
diverse propositions are pooled and assumption prioritized based on importance and
certainty. To create an acceptable list of assumption on which as many stakeholders as
possible agree is the ultimate aims. The final phase is assumption synthesis. This
phase finding a composite solution and could a basis of a new conceptualization of a
problem. The aims and procedures of assumptional analysis are intimately related to
the mode of policy argument. The sources of knowledge in this method are on group
and the performance criterion is conflict. This method can help reduce type III errors.
4
 Argumentation mapping is the last method of problem structuring. This method
aims is assumption assessment. Method of policy argument is closely related to the
method of assumptional analysis. Each mode of policy argument is based on distinctly
different assumption. The mode of policy argument is authoritative, statistical,
classificational, analycentric, causal, intuitive, pragmatic, and value critical. When
combined with the same policy-relevant information these assumption yield conflicting
knowledge claims. Use of graphic displays to map the plausibility and importance of
elements of policy arguments. The first step in this process is to rate these element that
is warrants, backings, and rebuttals on two ordinal scales. The procedures that used in
this method are plausibility and importance rating and graphing. On the basis of
reasoned arguments and evidence provided by assumptions of stakeholders and
available statistic on accident and fatality rates by age group. The performance criterion
in argumentation analysis is optimal plausibility and importance.

The conclusion is there are eight method of problem structuring such as

boundary analysis, classification analysis, hierarchy analysis, synectics, brainstorming,
multiple perspective analysis, assumptional analysis and argumentation mapping. The
aim of the method is estimation of metaproblem boundaries, clarification of concepts,
identification of possible, plausible, and actionable causes, recognition of similarities
among problems, generate of ideas, goals, and strategies, generate of insight, creative
synthesis of conflict assumptions and assumption assessment. The source of
knowledge that involve in the method is knowledge system, individual analyst, and
group analyst. The performance criterion involved in method of problem structuring is
whether correctness-in-limit, logical consistency, plausibility of comparisons, consensus,
improved insight, conflict or optimal plausibility and importance.