How problem-solving really works

Authors:
Satya S. Chakravorty;Douglas N. Hales;James I. Herbert
Affiliations:
Department of Management and Entrepreneurship, Michael J. Coles College of Business, Kennesaw State University, 1000 Chastain Rd., Kennesaw GA 30144 559, USA.;College of Business Administration, University of Rhode Island, Ballentine Hall, 7 Lippitt Road, Kingston, RI 02881 0802, USA.;Department of Management and Entrepreneurship, Michael J. Coles College of Business, Kennesaw State University, 1000 Chastain Rd., Kennesaw GA 30144 559, USA
Venue:
International Journal of Data Analysis Techniques and Strategies
Year:
2008

Citing 0
Cited 3

Regression analysis using the imprecise Bayesian normal model

International Journal of Data Analysis Techniques and Strategies
Generating Alternatives Using Simulation-Optimization Combined with Niching Operators to Address Unmodelled Objectives in a Waste Management Facility Expansion Planning Case

International Journal of Operations Research and Information Systems
Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Alternate Test Models for Impression Management in SMEs: A Gender Based Study

International Journal of Information Systems and Supply Chain Management

Quantified Score

Hi-index	0.00

Visualization

Abstract

Over the years, many researchers have proposed theoretical models of problem-solving. These models work a problem in a sequential and rational manner. Through our professional experience and an action research study, we discovered fundamental differences between what these models describe and what actually happens when problems are solved in a real-world setting. Assisting with a process improvement experience in a plastics company, we discovered that when a problem is properly identified, problem-solving generally follows the theoretical models. However, when a problem is difficult to identify, problem-solving proceeds in a cyclical and apparently irrational manner. Cyclical problem-solving increases the average time of problem-solving and production cost. The authors find that the relationships among the problem-solving steps are much more complex than implied in existing literature. Incorporating this new understanding into process improvement training reduced the variability of the problem-solving time from 44 to 21 min.