Unit 0.

Introduction to
problem solving framework

Nguyen Manh Tuan

7/10/2020 nguyen manh tuan – internal use 1

AGENDA

Science
Inquiry/Research
Systems Thinking
Case Study Method for Learning

7/10/2020 nguyen manh tuan – internal use 2

Science
Science as a body of knowledge
Science as what scientists do
Science as a social institution

Sociology of
science

What/where
is it ? Logic of
Psychology
of science Adapted from Mitroff (1974) science

7/10/2020 nguyen manh tuan – internal use 3

Science

Categories of science:
 natural science vs. science of the artificial (Simon 1969);
 natural vs. design science (March & Smith 1995);
 behavioral vs. design science (Hevner et al 2004);
 scientific vs. engineering discipline (Long & Dowell
1989); or
 explanatory vs. design sciences (van Aken 2004)
(truth) - building and justification of theories of
description, explanation and prediction of real world
phenomena
(utility) - design and implementation of artifacts for
solving and improving real world problems

7/10/2020 nguyen manh tuan – internal use 4

Science

Categories of science:
 natural science vs. science of the artificial (Simon 1969);
 natural vs. design science (March & Smith 1995);
 behavioral vs. design science (Hevner et al 2004);
 scientific vs. engineering discipline (Long & Dowell
1989); or
 explanatory vs. design sciences (van Aken 2004)
(truth) - building and justification of theories of
description, explanation and prediction of real world
phenomena
(utility) - design and implementation of artifacts for
solving and improving real world problems

7/10/2020 nguyen manh tuan – internal use 5

Empiricism, Rationalism, Criticism (Singer 1959)
Science*
Churchman’s guarantors of truth

Singer: give all a voice

- interdisciplinary Locke: empirics

Leibnitz: logic
Kant: explanation
why - synthesis

Hegel: dialectical
alternative

Pragmatism
7/10/2020
(Perice, 1878) nmt 6
Inquiry/Research

Community
Any piece of inquiry (Checkland
& Holwell, 1998)

7/10/2020 nguyen manh tuan – internal use 7

Inquiry/Research

British (Lockean) empiricism – induction

French (Descartian) rationalism - deduction
American (Peircean) pragmatism – abduction

Logic of justification Logic of discovery

deduction induction abduction

given rule case rule

given case result/fact result/fact

conclusion
7/10/2020
result/fact rule
nmt
case 8
Inquiry/Research

 DEDUCTION
 Rule.– All the beans from this bag are white.
 Case.– These beans are from this bag.
 Result.– These beans are white.
 INDUCTION
 Case.– These beans are from this bag.
 Result.– These beans are white.
 Rule.– All the beans from this bag are white.
 HYPOTHESIS
 Rule.– All the beans from this bag are white.
 Result.– These beans are white.
 Case.– These beans are from this bag.

7/10/2020 nguyen manh tuan – internal use 9

SYSTEMS THINKING
Machine-age thinking Systems-age thinking
industrial revolution, post-industrial revolution,
analysis, synthesis, Butterfy Effect
reductionism, expansionism,
cause-effect relations, producer-product relations,
determinism free will and choice
value free value full Chaos Theory

 Reaction to failures of natural science to complex, real-

world problems of social sciences (Checkland 1981)

Systems thinking: “Synthesize, don’t analyse!

7/10/2020 Ethical (Churchman

nmt
1971) 10
SYSTEMS THINKING
Scientific Thinking: only 1 system – 1 universe, 1 truth (Metcalfe, 2006)
 Concept list: boundary, purpose, stakeholder,
process, contradictions, ….
 Systems thinking vs. science thinking: boundary (Ackoff,
2000)
 Unit of analysis, mentally imagined, interconnected,
bounded (Metcalfe, 2006)
 Multiple Perspective: To be ethical, argument should
give all stakeholders a voice and encourage innovative
rationally justified ways of seeing situations (Churchman,
Mason, Mitroff, Linstone)

Linstone (1984, 1993) TOP perspectives

7/10/2020
(technical, organizational,
nmt
personal) 11
SYSTEMS THINKING
 Analysis is a three-step thought process
First, it takes apart that which it seeks to
understand.
Then it attempts to explain the behavior of the
parts taken separately.
Finally, it tries to aggregate understanding of
the parts into an explanation of the whole.
 Systems thinking puts the system in the context
of the larger environment of which it is a part and
studies the role it plays in the larger whole
Gharajedaghi, 2011
7/10/2020 nguyen manh tuan – internal use 12
CASE STUDY METHOD FOR LEARNING
(Ellet 2007)
In the lecture method, learners receive
knowledge from an expert.
In the case method, learners make the
knowledge with the assistance of an
expert.
This fundamental shift causes many
new case method students to be
confused and uncertain about how they
should go about learning.
Persuasion through argument

7/10/2020 nguyen manh tuan – internal use 13

CASE STUDY METHOD FOR LEARNING
(Ellet 2007)

7/10/2020 nguyen manh tuan – internal use 14

CASE STUDY METHOD FOR LEARNING
(Ellet 2007)

Working on cases:
C1. Situation
C2. Questions
C3. Hypothesis
C4. Proof and action
C5. Alternatives

7/10/2020 nguyen manh tuan – internal use 15

CASE STUDY METHOD FOR LEARNING
(Ellet 2007)
C1. Situation (5 minutes)
 Understanding the big picture first and then
filling it in with details.
 Start by asking this question: What is the
situation?
 Usually reading the first and last sections of
the case is sufficient to identify the situation

7/10/2020 nguyen manh tuan – internal use 16

CASE STUDY METHOD FOR LEARNING
(Ellet 2007)
C2. Questions (15 minutes)
 The most important = What do I need to know about
the situation?
C21. [PROBLEM BASED QUESTIONS]
Who or what is the subject of the problem (e.g., a
manager, a company, a country)?
What is the problem? Am I trying to account for a
failure, a success, or something more ambiguous?
What’s the significance of the problem to the
subject?
Who is responsible for the problem (usually it is the
protagonist) and what might he need to know to do
something about it?

7/10/2020 nguyen manh tuan – internal use 17

CASE STUDY METHOD FOR LEARNING
(Ellet 2007)
C3. Hypothesis (45 minutes)
The most important phase of work on the
case
Through close study of high value sections
and exhibits, you narrow the possibilities to
the one that seems most plausible to you
My hypothesis is wrong?
A hypothesis isn’t wrong; a hypothesis fails
when you can’t make a credible argument for it
from case evidence

7/10/2020 nguyen manh tuan – internal use 18

CASE STUDY METHOD FOR LEARNING
(Ellet 2007)
C31. [PROBLEM BASED HYPOTHESES]
 Make sure you know the problem that needs to be diagnosed.
Consider whether the characteristics of the problem suggest
causes.
 Think about the frameworks that seem most appropriate to the
situation. Quickly review the specifics of the frameworks if you
aren’t sure of them.
 Pursue the diagnosis by looking at case information through the
lens of the cause you are most certain about.
 For each cause, make a separate pass through the case looking
for evidence of it.
 If the case has a lot of quantitative evidence, to what cause is it
most relevant? If you don’t have a cause relevant to the
quantitative evidence, formulate one. Work up as much relevant,
high-value quantitative evidence as you can.
 In a case with a protagonist, consider whether she is a potential
cause. If you think she is, work out how she contributes to the
problem.

7/10/2020 nguyen manh tuan – internal use 19

CASE STUDY METHOD FOR LEARNING
(Ellet 2007)

C4. Proof and Action (40 minutes)

 You want to prove something, not look for something to prove.
 Ask these questions:
What evidence do I have that supports the hypothesis?
What additional evidence do I need?
 Go back into the case, with the single purpose of bringing out
more evidence that aligns with your hypothesis.
 You don’t have to work from the first page to the last. You can go
directly to the sections and exhibits you think have what you need.
 Of course, you can work from beginning to end if that makes you
more comfortable. Just be sure to stay focused on what you’re
trying to prove

7/10/2020 nguyen manh tuan – internal use 20

CASE STUDY METHOD FOR LEARNING
(Ellet 2007)
C5. Alternatives (15 minutes)
 The last phase of analysis should be to question
your own hypothesis:
What is the greatest weakness of the hypothesis?
What is the strongest alternative to it?
C51. [PROBLEM BASED ALTERNATIVES]
Can the problem be defined differently? Would that
make a difference to the diagnosis?
Are there any holes in the diagnosis—could there
be causes missing?
What’s the weakest part of the diagnosis?
Could an entirely different diagnosis be made?
What would it look like?

7/10/2020 nguyen manh tuan – internal use 21

THE END

7/10/2020 nguyen manh tuan – internal use 22