Introduction

One of the operational goals of production processes is to meet the quality criteria for the goods produced. These criteria concern, for example, a product's reliability, functionality or resistance to wear. If a product does not meet its quality criteria, it loses much of its value. The same holds for field problemsolving (FPS) projects. Executing a problem-solving project can also be interpreted as a production process. The deliverables of this production process are defined in the assignment (see Chapter 4). This chapter discusses the researchoriented quality criteria for the products of a problem-solving project.

Problem-solving projects can be evaluated on several criteria. We make a distinction between research-oriented criteria and change-oriented criteria. Research-oriented criteria concern the research aspects of problem-solving projects. They concern the quality of the conclusions you draw based on your research on the business system to be improved and its context. These criteria are relevant for description, diagnosis and evaluation. Research-oriented criteria are less important during problem definition, redesign and implementation. Change-oriented criteria, including relevance and the creation of support, are more germane to those latter activities. Change-oriented criteria are discussed in Section 3.9. The present chapter deals only with research-oriented criteria.

Many people say that the ultimate aim of research is to yield true conclusions (Goldman, 1999). Others doubt whether truth is a useful concept, or disagree about the meaning of truth (Lawson and Appignanesi, 1989). In any event, given the fallibility of our knowledge, we can never be sure whether a conclusion is true or not. Therefore, many authors acknowledge that the central aim of research is to strive for inter-subjective agreement (Habermas, 1981; Swanborn, 1996). Inter-subjective agreement refers to consensus between the actors who deal with a research problem. In problem-solving projects, intersubjective agreement is important. For example, inter-subjective agreement on a diagnosis is important in order to secure support for a solution.

Themost important research-oriented quality criteria are controllability, reliability and validity (Swanborn, 1996; Yin, 2003; Gibbert et al., 2008; for an alternative perspective see Guba and Lincoln, 1989). They are important because they provide the basis for inter-subjective agreement on research results. Controllability, reliability and validity pertain to research outcomes – that is, the claims about reality that are based on research. They apply tomeasurements, explanations, conclusions, interpretations, causal models and so on.

Introduction

In Chapter 2 we saw that student field projects in business and management can be based either on the empirical cycle, aimed at developing descriptive or explanatory knowledge, or on the problem-solving cycle, aimed at developing solutions for field problems. For the remainder of this handbook we discuss the methodology for the second type of project: the problem-solving project. It is a design-oriented and theory-informed methodology. There are, of course, other problem-solving strategies, and our methodology is not necessarily the best one for each and every business or organizational problem; it has a delineated application domain (see Section 3.5).

In this chapter we discuss first the foundations of this methodology and the types of field problems for which this methodology is appropriate. Then we discuss the nature of the problem-solving project, its basic set-up and the various modes in which student projects can be executed. We conclude by presenting the characteristics of professionally executed field problem-solving (FPS) projects, which are quite different from projects that aim to produce descriptive and explanatory knowledge.

Rational Problem Solving

This design-oriented and theory-informed methodology for business and organizational problem solving builds on the traditions of rational problem solving (Visscher and Visscher-Voerman, 2010). Systematic enquiry into problem solving, aimed at uncovering general principles, started with the work of Herbert Simon, Allen Newell and colleagues in the 1950s (see, for example, Newell and Simon, 1972). Their work strongly influenced research in cognitive science, artificial intelligence, management science and economics. A related stream of research developed on organizational decision-making, which had, in its formative years of the 1960s and 1970s, a predominantly rational orientation (see, for example, Simon, 1960). An especially representative example of this approach is the book by Kepner and Tregoe (1981). However, our design-oriented methodology differs from this rational problem-solving or decision-making approach in two significant aspects.

First, we see business problem solving not as a purely technical-economic activity. The issue is not to design a smart solution, but to realize performance improvement for a certain business system. This always involves organizational change, a change in organizational roles and routines, often with accompanying changes in perceptions and attitudes. With regard to organizational change, we follow Tichy (1983), who maintains that significant (in his words ‘strategic’) planned organizational change has to be managed simultaneously in the technical, political and cultural subsystems, using, respectively, technical, political and cultural interventions.

Qualitative Versus Quantitative

The literature on methodology distinguishes between qualitative and quantitative research methods. The term ‘qualitative’ does not refer to the quality of methods. Qualitative methods are those that are oriented towards the discovery of qualities of things – that is, the properties of objects, phenomena, situations, people, meanings and events. In contrast, quantitative methods are oriented towards the number or amount of these qualities. This chapter discusses a number of qualitative research methods that can be used in FPS projects. For quantitative research methods, we refer the reader to textbooks on social science methodology, such as those by Cooper and Schindler (2014) and Hair et al. (2005).

Imagine marketing managers who would like to know the opinions of potential customers about a television commercial. They could ask some respondents to talk freely about their feelings with regard to the commercial, their associations, what they like about it and what they do not, and so on. Such a study would be qualitative in nature, since it aims to uncover the characteristics of people, in this case their attitude towards the commercial. The same marketing manager could also use a standardized questionnaire and ask respondents to express the degree to which they understand and like the commercial on a fivepoint scale. Such a study would be quantitative in nature, since it measures the value of a particular property in numbers.

Qualitative research methods are particularly appropriate for studying people, groups, organizations and societies – for example, if you want to learn how people interpret their own situation, what their goals in life and work are and what strategies they employ to reach those goals. Such understanding is needed in most business problem-solving projects. Because there can be large and multifaceted differences between people and situations, it is often not effective to employ (only) a standardized measuring instrument.

Qualitative research methods are relevant within more fields than just the social sciences. The natural and technical sciences use qualitative methods as well. Hendrik Casimir, a respected physicist and long-time director of Philips Laboratories, has stated:

Introduction

This handbook deals with fieldwork by business and management students. Such fieldwork can be carried out in the context of a specific course, but can also be done as a graduation project at the end of a course programme to further develop the student's competences and to produce a ‘masterpiece’ – that is, a project report that proves that the student did indeed master the desired competences.

The approach chosen for a graduation project depends on the research paradigm of the school, the supervisor's preferences for student fieldwork and the student's own preferences. As is discussed in more detail in Chapter 13, there are two main research paradigms to be used in student fieldwork in business or management, namely the explanatory research paradigm and the design science research paradigm (or problem-solving approach). The explanatory research paradigm is the research paradigm of mainstream research in most social sciences; the design science research paradigm is the research paradigm of professional schools, such as medical schools, engineering schools and, increasingly, business schools.

A student project according to the explanatory paradigm aims to produce descriptive and explanatory knowledge. Such a project will follow the empirical cycle. A student project according to the design science paradigm aims to produce solutions to field problems, and will follow the problem-solving cycle.

The objective of bachelor-level projects typically is to produce specific, context-specific knowledge. If the empirical cycle is used, this may, for instance, be knowledge about the market potential or the cost structure of a given product. If the problem-solving cycle is used, the knowledge produced can be a solution (plus its implementation plan) for a given field problem, such as a programme to reduce the selling costs of a given company, or a design for electronic patient files for a general hospital.

The objectives for master graduation projects may include somewhat more ambitious elements. The ambition may not only be to develop context-specific knowledge for a given organization, but also some improvement of or addition to generic theory. If the empirical cycle is used, this could entail descriptive or explanatory theory; if the problem-solving cycle is used, this could involve either additions to explanatory theory or additions to generic design knowledge, to be used to design solutions to field problems.

Introduction

The final step of the problem-solving cycle is evaluation and learning. Evaluation refers to the careful observation and assessment of the process and the effects of an FPS project. An evaluation should tell you whether a project is successfully completed, whether further improvements need to be implemented and what can be learned for the future. Because assignments of student projects may end before outcomes can be realized, such a final evaluation may have to be done by the organization itself. Yet, even when your assignment is terminated before the completion of the overall project, you need to learn as a professional. Moreover, evaluation may contribute to the development of generic management knowledge. It also important to end projects carefully, to ensure that their outcomes will be sustained.

Unfortunately, many projects are terminated without an evaluation. For example, von Zedtwitz (2002) finds that 80 per cent of research and development projects are not evaluated. When a project is reaching finalization, other projects loom ahead, which require attention from the current project members. For the project members it may be more interesting to dive into a new project than to take a step back and contemplate the current one. However, that is a pity, because evaluation and learning are highly valuable. The evaluation of student projects has an additional limitation in that these projects are often finished before implementation due to their limited timeframe. If they do implement a solution design, there is little time left for the effects to be realized and measured. Nevertheless, evaluation and learning are also valuable when implementation effects cannot yet be measured.

Evaluations can be performed with four objectives in mind. First, evaluations serve the current problem-solving project by determining the results achieved and the improvements to be made. This is evaluation in a strict sense. In a broader sense, for which we use the term ‘learning’, evaluation serves three further objectives. As a second objective, evaluation may also be oriented towards learning for future problems in the same context. This use of evaluation and learning is particularly stressed in the literature on organizational learning and knowledge management (see, for example, Busby, 1999; and von Zedtwitz, 2002). Third, evaluation and learning can be oriented towards advancing generic scientific knowledge about this type of business process. Finally, evaluation and learning are necessary for personal and professional learning and development.

Introduction

Sets of comparable field problem-solving (FPS) projects can provide a solid basis for developing generic solutions for types of field problems. A generic solution can be an intervention, process or system to be used to deal with a given type of field problem (or opportunity). As will be discussed, the development of generic solutions can be called design science research.

Using problem-solving projects for the development of generic solutions is not yet widespread in mainstream business and management research, in part because scholars may feel that developing solutions falls outside the scope of academic research. In this introduction we explain why this type of research is important for the discipline of business and management. In the rest of this chapter we will show how to derive in a rigorous way generic solutions from sets of comparable FPS projects.

If a business school regards itself as a professional school, its mission is to educate professionals, not researchers. The mission of researchers is to investigate ‘that which is’ in order to increase understanding. The mission of professionals is to use understanding of that which is to realize what can or should be. Their core process is knowledge-intensive FPS (the addition ‘knowledgeintensive’ distinguishes the professional from the artisan). As will be discussed in Section 13.5, another term for knowledge-intensive problem solving is evidence-based practice.

An academic business school also has a research mission. If it regards itself as a professional school, its primary research mission is to add to the body of knowledge of its profession. This body of knowledge is to be used in FPS.

It comprises generic descriptive and explanatory knowledge, enabling professionals to understand the types of problems their clients face and their causes. But its core component is solution-oriented knowledge, offering types of interventions professionals can take to effectively address field problems. The body of knowledge of medicine, for instance, comprises knowledge on types of medical dysfunctions and on their symptoms, supporting doctors in their diagnoses. But the core component of this body of knowledge consists of alternative types of medication and therapies doctors can use in treating their patients, together with their indications and contraindications and when and how to apply them.

Introduction

This chapter concerns the second step of the problem-solving cycle: analysis and diagnosis. Our starting point in this chapter is that the first step, problem definition, has been completed. Thus, in one way or another, a problem has been defined, some of its potential causes and consequences identified and the assignment and the problem-solving approach determined. The next step is developing a diagnosis: an explanation of a business problem.

The objectives of the diagnosis are: (1) to validate the business problem; (2) to explore and validate the causes and consequences of the problem; and (3) to develop preliminary ideas about alternative directions to solve the problem. The initial cause-and-effect diagram that was developed for problem definition can be taken as a starting point, but needs to be explored in more depth and validated by systematic research. At the end of the diagnosis, you must be convinced and able to convince others (the clients as well as your academic supervisor) of the validity of the problem, its causes and its consequences.

You need systematic research to develop a valid diagnosis. Yet, this research has some specific characteristics that set it apart from other forms of research, in particular from theory-developing and theory-testing research. This means that many research methods discussed in textbooks can be applied in this phase, but that you have to tailor them to the particular characteristics of diagnostic research.

A first characteristic of diagnostic research is that it focuses on a unique case and is not aimed at generating generic insight (although generalizable insight might be a by-product). The result of the diagnostic step is a problem-oriented theory about the key phenomenon. That is, you develop a theory that describes and explains a specific problem in one case. Thus, we refer to it as an ‘N=1 theory’. As an explanatory theory, it should meet the validity and reliability standards mentioned in Chapter 11.

Second, diagnostic research embraces an integral perspective, which contrasts with theoretical problems that tend to become more specialized (Carlile et al., 2016: 55). To explain a business problem, you need to invoke all relevant causes that might contribute to that problem. The diagnosis needs to be complete and integrated. Often, it appears that multiple types of causes, relating to different disciplinary domains, are interrelated. This makes it difficult, and often unproductive, to stay within disciplinary boundaries.

Introduction

In the problem-solving cycle, the ‘analysis and diagnosis’ step is followed by the ‘plan of action’ step. This step involves solution design, the subject of this chapter. Solution design can be a challenging part of the problem cycle, even if problem statement and diagnosis provide a firm starting point for it. Analysis and diagnosis largely follow deductive and inductive logic, for which there are systematic approaches available in the literature. As will be discussed in Section 12.4, making a design ultimately involves a ‘creative leap’, for which there are far fewer systematic approaches available. Nevertheless, the present chapter gives some ideas for solution design, and the next one provides some ideas for the design of the change process, to be used for the realization of the solution. Chapter 12 gives some generic theory on designs and design processes, which may help you in structuring your own design processes.

To some, the term ‘design’ and ‘designing’ evoke images of creatives designing chairs, tables and other physical products. Yet, design is much broader than that. ‘Everyone designs who devises courses of action aimed at changing existing situations into preferred ones’ (Simon, 1996: 129). In this way, design is a key activity for business problem solving. Some have gone so far as to state that designing is the key managerial activity (Boland and Collopy, 2004), although it has not always received the same attention as analysis and decision-making. The importance of design is now increasingly recognized in the field of management, which is now embracing ‘design thinking’ to address complex problems (Dunne and Martin, 2006; Glen et al., 2014; Kolko, 2015).

When you move from analysis to solution design, you need a shift in your attitude and way of working. You can no longer take the ‘passive’ perspective of an observer, but need to take an active role in the creation of a solution. Like a diagnosis, the design of a solution has to be holistic and integrated. The analysis and diagnosis has enabled you to become immersed in the situation, and this will help you to address the problem integrally, taking contextual details into account. Yet, it is difficult to get a design right the first time, so you also need to embrace an iterative and interactive process (see Sections 3.2 and 12.3).

This handbook gives a methodology for problem solving in organizations. Its primary target audience consists of undergraduate and graduate students in business and management. However, the problem-solving methodology given in this handbook can also be used by other people working in an organizational context, like (junior) management consultants, engineers and professionals in hospitals or government agencies, as well as students in other disciplines than business and management but who expect to work in an organizational context.

This third edition is a major revision of the 2012 edition, as well as being much more student-friendly. It is written for you, the business and management student. We owe many thanks for the contributions to the first and second edition of this book by our former co-writer, Dr Hans van der Bij.

The core idea in writing this textbook is that business and management course programmes are to educate professionals, not researchers. The key competence of any professional, like a medical doctor, engineer or lawyer, is knowledgeintensive field problem solving. This also applies to graduates of business schools, by most considered as professional schools. A powerful way for students to develop this key competence is to engage in problem solving in real organizational settings under academic supervision. By solving ‘paper cases’ you can develop a number of cognitive competences, but certainly not all the competences that are needed to be successful in the fuzzy, ambiguous and politically charged real-life organizational context. This handbook aims to provide you with a strong methodological basis for problem solving in organizations.

The theory given here can best be mastered through a – possibly brief – classroom course in which the contents of this handbook are discussed and in which, on the basis of some (paper) cases, training is given on issues such as problem definition, developing a project proposal, problem analysis and solution design. However, a much richer learning experience can be realized if such classroom training is followed by the further development of problem-solving competences through actual problem solving in the field, individually or in a (small) group. In this way the student can develop real ‘clinical experience’.

The scientification of the field of business and management has enabled it to develop into a respectable social science.